Well I am a republican

[MaggieMae]

Complete bullshit. "Attacks" typically come when someone opens with spam bullshit that's been around for months, pretending it's actually their own original thoughts. Such as what you see here. MOST of the time, Noobs are greeted warmly in their intro threads.

You should change your custom user title, because you're doing anything BUT "trying to keep it honest" you're trying to keep it DISHONEST.

Indeed "noobs" are usually welcomed--until one starts dis'ing the "new" conservative wing of HIS Grand Old Party. I'm keeping it honest so the new guys can see that at least somebody is. They can then draw their own conclusions the more they read.

Laugh away. He hasn't been back, has he? Thanks to whom? Me? Nah, it's that warm welcome by the rabid righties.

 

[Terry]

Indeed "noobs" are usually welcomed--until one starts dis'ing the "new" conservative wing of HIS Grand Old Party. I'm keeping it honest so the new guys can see that at least somebody is. They can then draw their own conclusions the more they read.

Laugh away. He hasn't been back, has he? Thanks to whom? Me? Nah, it's that warm welcome by the rabid righties.

I think it was more of he got caught with his fake "I use to be a republican" scam.

 

[MaggieMae]

Laugh away. He hasn't been back, has he? Thanks to whom? Me? Nah, it's that warm welcome by the rabid righties.

I think it was more of he got caught with his fake "I use to be a republican" scam.

Why is it so difficult for you folks to understand that some people have just gotten totally disgruntled with the Republican party?

 

[del]

Laugh away. He hasn't been back, has he? Thanks to whom? Me? Nah, it's that warm welcome by the rabid righties.

I think it was more of he got caught with his fake "I use to be a republican" scam.

Why is it so difficult for you folks to understand that some people have just gotten totally disgruntled with the Republican party?

it's not.
why is it so difficult for you to understand that some people are full of shit?

i mean, besides me?

 

[Xenophon]

who feels he no longer has a party. I voted for Ford, Ray-Gun twice, Old Man Bush twice and Dole but then a boy king wanted to rule and I felt it ridiculous so I vote for Gore, then Kerry. Finally free of the boy king I though I would go back to "my party" when low and behold Sarah Palin appears. The very idea that McCain would place the country in such possible peril with the inclusion of the village idiot as a running mate pushed me into the Obama camp.

Will the republicans get rid of the circus acts and become a viable party again? I don't know but until they do I will not vote for them.

That's me, politically speaking.

So basically you're a leftist poser...

Anyone who would knowingly pull the lever for Algore, sKerry, and Barry Zero is certainly not a conservative leaning individual, so that plants you firmly on the left...

Fortunately, the country is finding that this experiment in Marxism and One-Party-Rule without checks and balances is not working and we'll be correcting it soon...

I believe we have a winna...

Even using an old email, i have never see a GoPer call Reagan 'Ronny raygun' or favor Al Gore over the then unknown George w Bush.

You should just be honest and be yourself, because so far as the Dr says, you sound like a phoney.

 

[MaggieMae]

who feels he no longer has a party. I voted for Ford, Ray-Gun twice, Old Man Bush twice and Dole but then a boy king wanted to rule and I felt it ridiculous so I vote for Gore, then Kerry. Finally free of the boy king I though I would go back to "my party" when low and behold Sarah Palin appears. The very idea that McCain would place the country in such possible peril with the inclusion of the village idiot as a running mate pushed me into the Obama camp.

Will the republicans get rid of the circus acts and become a viable party again? I don't know but until they do I will not vote for them.

That's me, politically speaking.

So basically you're a leftist poser...

Anyone who would knowingly pull the lever for Algore, sKerry, and Barry Zero is certainly not a conservative leaning individual, so that plants you firmly on the left...

Fortunately, the country is finding that this experiment in Marxism and One-Party-Rule without checks and balances is not working and we'll be correcting it soon...

I believe we have a winna...

Even using an old email, i have never see a GoPer call Reagan 'Ronny raygun' or favor Al Gore over the then unknown George w Bush.

You should just be honest and be yourself, because so far as the Dr says, you sound like a phoney.

I didn't see Dr. House's original comment, so I'll respond here. I think it's rather fascinating that 8 years of majority rule by the Republicans (with a non-binding congressional majority by the Democrats for only 2 of those) is something you guys apparently missed. Or could it be that one-party rule is okay, as long as it's Republican rule...

 

[Midnight Marauder]

8 years of majority rule by the Republicans (with a non-binding congressional majority by the Democrats for only 2 of those)

That's far from accurate, as I'm sure you know. The "majority" the GOP had was extremely weak, so much so that they could have passed NOTHING without a bunch of Dem votes. And they didn't.

Today, the Dems need NO GOP votes or support, to pass anything they want. THAT is a majority with real teeth. All they need do is make whatever they are trying to pass, palatable to all members of their OWN party.

But, you knew that too.

 

[MaggieMae]

8 years of majority rule by the Republicans (with a non-binding congressional majority by the Democrats for only 2 of those)

That's far from accurate, as I'm sure you know. The "majority" the GOP had was extremely weak, so much so that they could have passed NOTHING without a bunch of Dem votes. And they didn't.

Today, the Dems need NO GOP votes or support, to pass anything they want. THAT is a majority with real teeth. All they need do is make whatever they are trying to pass, palatable to all members of their OWN party.

But, you knew that too.

Oh please...any time the dems didn't want something passed or introduced something the pubs didn't like, they were stymied by Bush's veto power. The operated in lock-step.

 

[Dr.House]

So basically you're a leftist poser...

Anyone who would knowingly pull the lever for Algore, sKerry, and Barry Zero is certainly not a conservative leaning individual, so that plants you firmly on the left...

Fortunately, the country is finding that this experiment in Marxism and One-Party-Rule without checks and balances is not working and we'll be correcting it soon...

I believe we have a winna...

Even using an old email, i have never see a GoPer call Reagan 'Ronny raygun' or favor Al Gore over the then unknown George w Bush.

You should just be honest and be yourself, because so far as the Dr says, you sound like a phoney.

I didn't see Dr. House's original comment, so I'll respond here. I think it's rather fascinating that 8 years of majority rule by the Republicans (with a non-binding congressional majority by the Democrats for only 2 of those) is something you guys apparently missed. Or could it be that one-party rule is okay, as long as it's Republican rule...

Do you seriously believe that Republicans actually "controlled" congress during those years?

Really?

Nothing got done without the approval of the "Gang Of 14"...

Do you really count those RINOs in Maine, for example, part of the "Republican Rule"??

 

[Dr.House]

8 years of majority rule by the Republicans (with a non-binding congressional majority by the Democrats for only 2 of those)

That's far from accurate, as I'm sure you know. The "majority" the GOP had was extremely weak, so much so that they could have passed NOTHING without a bunch of Dem votes. And they didn't.

Today, the Dems need NO GOP votes or support, to pass anything they want. THAT is a majority with real teeth. All they need do is make whatever they are trying to pass, palatable to all members of their OWN party.

But, you knew that too.

Oh please...any time the dems didn't want something passed or introduced something the pubs didn't like, they were stymied by Bush's veto power. The operated in lock-step.

Holy shit...

How often did Dubbya whip out the veto pen?


Jeezus....

 

[BolshevikHunter]

8 years of majority rule by the Republicans (with a non-binding congressional majority by the Democrats for only 2 of those)

That's far from accurate, as I'm sure you know. The "majority" the GOP had was extremely weak, so much so that they could have passed NOTHING without a bunch of Dem votes. And they didn't.

Today, the Dems need NO GOP votes or support, to pass anything they want. THAT is a majority with real teeth. All they need do is make whatever they are trying to pass, palatable to all members of their OWN party.

But, you knew that too.

Oh please...any time the dems didn't want something passed or introduced something the pubs didn't like, they were stymied by Bush's veto power. The operated in lock-step.

~BH

 

[Midnight Marauder]

8 years of majority rule by the Republicans (with a non-binding congressional majority by the Democrats for only 2 of those)

That's far from accurate, as I'm sure you know. The "majority" the GOP had was extremely weak, so much so that they could have passed NOTHING without a bunch of Dem votes. And they didn't.

Today, the Dems need NO GOP votes or support, to pass anything they want. THAT is a majority with real teeth. All they need do is make whatever they are trying to pass, palatable to all members of their OWN party.

But, you knew that too.

Oh please...any time the dems didn't want something passed or introduced something the pubs didn't like, they were stymied by Bush's veto power. The operated in lock-step.

Is that the latest excuse? It's NO better than all of the other ones!

I'm gonna NEED medical attention for the stitches you apologist robots keep putting in my sides!

 

[rdean]

The "white" wing wackos go over the top when someone says they "used" to be Republican. They are very predicable.
Anti women
Anti gay
Anti science
Anti education
Pro religion
Pro war
Pro torture
Hey, did I just describe the GOP or the government of Iran?

 

[BolshevikHunter]

The "white" wing wackos go over the top when someone says they "used" to be Republican. They are very predicable.
Anti women
Anti gay
Anti science
Anti education
Pro religion
Pro war
Pro torture
Hey, did I just describe the GOP or the government of Iran?

What a load of leftist garbage. Obviously you bumped your head, or you're on dope bro. You're probably one of the Madman Obama's windy city gangsters sent out to enforce your Marxist regimes policy of silencing Americans. Let's take a look at your list, shall we you puke?

Anti-White Male
Anti-Constitution
Anti- Law Enforcement
Anti-Individual responsibility
Pro- criminal
Pro- Baby Killer
Pro- Dope legalization

Hey, Did I just describe the degenerate Democrat Party, or a bunch of mentally ill nutcases? What a track record. Take a walk clown. ~BH

 

[MaggieMae]

That's far from accurate, as I'm sure you know. The "majority" the GOP had was extremely weak, so much so that they could have passed NOTHING without a bunch of Dem votes. And they didn't.

Today, the Dems need NO GOP votes or support, to pass anything they want. THAT is a majority with real teeth. All they need do is make whatever they are trying to pass, palatable to all members of their OWN party.

But, you knew that too.

Oh please...any time the dems didn't want something passed or introduced something the pubs didn't like, they were stymied by Bush's veto power. The operated in lock-step.

Is that the latest excuse? It's NO better than all of the other ones!

I'm gonna NEED medical attention for the stitches you apologist robots keep putting in my sides!

Do you even know what you're laughing about? The buck stops in the Oval Office, stupid. The Democrats won a scant majority in the House where TWO-THIRDS is needed for passage, idiot. They barely squeaked by in the Senate when Lieberman became an Independent, which made it even. Hello? Knock knock...Anything in there except banjo music?

 

[MaggieMae]

The "white" wing wackos go over the top when someone says they "used" to be Republican. They are very predicable.
Anti women
Anti gay
Anti science
Anti education
Pro religion
Pro war
Pro torture
Hey, did I just describe the GOP or the government of Iran?

What a load of leftist garbage. Obviously you bumped your head, or you're on dope bro. You're probably one of the Madman Obama's windy city gangsters sent out to enforce your Marxist regimes policy of silencing Americans. Let's take a look at your list, shall we you puke?

Anti-White Male
Anti-Constitution
Anti- Law Enforcement
Anti-Individual responsibility
Pro- criminal
Pro- Baby Killer
Pro- Dope legalization

Hey, Did I just describe the degenerate Democrat Party, or a bunch of mentally ill nutcases? What a track record. Take a walk clown. ~BH

You're a real Christian Crusader, I can tell. The real deal. NEWSFLASH--they were (and are) just as barbaric as today's militant Islamic fundamentalists.

 

[Annie]

8 years of majority rule by the Republicans (with a non-binding congressional majority by the Democrats for only 2 of those)

That's far from accurate, as I'm sure you know. The "majority" the GOP had was extremely weak, so much so that they could have passed NOTHING without a bunch of Dem votes. And they didn't.

Today, the Dems need NO GOP votes or support, to pass anything they want. THAT is a majority with real teeth. All they need do is make whatever they are trying to pass, palatable to all members of their OWN party.

But, you knew that too.

Oh please...any time the dems didn't want something passed or introduced something the pubs didn't like, they were stymied by Bush's veto power. The operated in lock-step.

Ok.

Presidential Vetos - Bills Vetoed by President George W. Bush (2001-2008)

As of December 2008, President George W. Bush had vetoed only 12 bills since taking office in January 2001. Only one Presidential veto occurred before Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. This is the fewest Presidential vetoes of any modern President; in March 2006 Bush set a 200-year veto record. Source: US Senate.

1. Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005
H.R. 810.
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.

Veto Date: 19 July 2006

This was President Bush's first veto since taking office in January 2001. Presidential Message - pdf

The House sustained the veto on Jul 19 by vote No. 388 (235-193).


2. US Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
HR 1591
Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Veto Date: 1 May 2007
President Bush vetoed the bill primarily because of the provisions on Iraq. Presidential Message

The House sustained the veto on May 2 by vote No. 276 (222-203).

From About: Why Bush Should Veto the Iraq War Budget
3. Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007
S 5


Veto Date: 20 June 2007 - Unchallenged by Congress
President Bush vetoed a second stem cell research bill. Presidential Message

From About: Bush Vetos Stem Cell Bill. Again.
4. Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007
HR 976
Would have extended and expanded SCHIP.

Veto Date: 3 October 2007
Presidential Message

The House sustained the veto on Oct 18 on vote No. 982 (273-156).

From About: Does This Truly Represent the State of Politics in America? and Battle Over Insuring Children. See who voted against HR 976.
5. Water Resources Development Act of 2007
HR 1495
To provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

Veto Date: 2 November 2007; Veto Over-Ridden
The House voted to override the veto on 6 November on vote 1040 (361-54).
The Senate voted to override the veto on 8 November on vote No. 406 (79-14).

Presidential Message.

From About: Congress Poised For First Veto Override
6. Appropriations: Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, 2008
HR 3043
Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Veto date: 13 November 2007
Presidential Message (PDF)

The House sustained the veto on Nov 15 on vote No. 1122 (277-141).
7. Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007
HR 3963
To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

Veto date: 12 December 2007
Presidential Message (PDF)

The House sustained the veto on Jan 23, 2008 by vote No. 22 (260-152).
8. National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008
HR 1585
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Veto Date: 28 December 2007
Jan 15, 2008 — Referred to House Armed Services Committee
Memorandum (PDF)
9. Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
HR 2082
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

Veto Date: 8 March 2008
Presidential Message (pdf)

The House sustained the veto on 11 March 2008 by vote No. 117 (225-188).
10. Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
HR 2419
To provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

Veto Date: 21 May 2008; Veto Over-Ridden
Presidential Message

The House over-rode the veto on 12 May on vote No. 346 (316-108). The Senate over-rode the veto on 22 May on vote No. 140 (82-13).
11. Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
HR 6124
To provide for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

Veto Date: 18 June 2008; Veto Over-Ridden
Presidential Message (pdf)

The House over-rode the veto on 18 June on vote No. 417 (317-109). The Senate over-rode the veto on 18 June on vote No. 151 (80-14)..
12. Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008
HR 6331
To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the Medicare Program, to improve beneficiary access to preventive and mental health services, to enhance low-income benefit programs, and to maintain access to care in rural areas, including pharmacy access, and for other purposes.

Veto Date: 15 July 2008; Veto Over-Ridden
Presidential Message

The House over-rode the veto on 15 July on vote No. 491 (383-41). The Senate over-rode the veto on 15 July on vote No. 177 (70-26).

 

[BolshevikHunter]

The "white" wing wackos go over the top when someone says they "used" to be Republican. They are very predicable.
Anti women
Anti gay
Anti science
Anti education
Pro religion
Pro war
Pro torture
Hey, did I just describe the GOP or the government of Iran?

What a load of leftist garbage. Obviously you bumped your head, or you're on dope bro. You're probably one of the Madman Obama's windy city gangsters sent out to enforce your Marxist regimes policy of silencing Americans. Let's take a look at your list, shall we you puke?

Anti-White Male
Anti-Constitution
Anti- Law Enforcement
Anti-Individual responsibility
Pro- criminal
Pro- Baby Killer
Pro- Dope legalization

Hey, Did I just describe the degenerate Democrat Party, or a bunch of mentally ill nutcases? What a track record. Take a walk clown. ~BH

You're a real Christian Crusader, I can tell. The real deal. NEWSFLASH--they were (and are) just as barbaric as today's militant Islamic fundamentalists.

Yeah, And you're a true red diaper doper baby. They were (and are) just as disgusting and smelly as in the degenerate 1960's.

~BH

 

[xsited1]

Well I am a republican

And also a flaming homosexual.

 

[Bfgrn]

who feels he no longer has a party. I voted for Ford, Ray-Gun twice, Old Man Bush twice and Dole but then a boy king wanted to rule and I felt it ridiculous so I vote for Gore, then Kerry. Finally free of the boy king I though I would go back to "my party" when low and behold Sarah Palin appears. The very idea that McCain would place the country in such possible peril with the inclusion of the village idiot as a running mate pushed me into the Obama camp.

Will the republicans get rid of the circus acts and become a viable party again? I don't know but until they do I will not vote for them.

That's me, politically speaking.

So you're saying you erased your mind beginning in 1999? That's the only conclusion I can come to based on your posts. The REALLY sad thing is, and speaking of "boy kings", the Obama lama makes John Kerry appear almost normal. Almost.

But gun boy is not a "partisan"....................................................... or honest