I guess Boehner didn't lead the House to vote to repeal Obamacare enough, 30-40-50 times, that's a mushy moderate clearly. They should have voted to repeal it 100 times.
I guess Boehner didn't lead the House to vote to repeal Obamacare enough, 30-40-50 times, that's a mushy moderate clearly. They should have voted to repeal it 100 times.
Polster wrote:
agip wrote:false - the majority are pro choice. Only 19% think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.
to be fair, it does depend how you form the question.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspxBeing that you're an immoral person who's immortal soul will be damned to hell for all eternity, your desperate tactics are not unexpected. The fact is the majority of Americans classify themselves as being pro-life. And anyone who says otherwise is deceiving you...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspxhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mercedes-schlapp/2014/01/24/41-years-after-roe-v-wade-americans-are-waking-up-to-the-tragedy-of-abortionhttp://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/04/polling-data-consistently-shows-women-are-pro-life-on-abortion/http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspxEtc. Deal with it. The days of selling dead babies is coming to an end.
Nope, the bull market in dead babies is just getting started!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspxRichard Cheese wrote:
Polster wrote:Being that you're an immoral person who's immortal soul will be damned to hell for all eternity, your desperate tactics are not unexpected. The fact is the majority of Americans classify themselves as being pro-life. And anyone who says otherwise is deceiving you...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspxhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mercedes-schlapp/2014/01/24/41-years-after-roe-v-wade-americans-are-waking-up-to-the-tragedy-of-abortionhttp://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/04/polling-data-consistently-shows-women-are-pro-life-on-abortion/http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspxEtc. Deal with it. The days of selling medical waste is coming to an end.
Nope, the bull market in medical waste is just getting started!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx
BOOM!
Agip wrote:
come on - get serious.
I'm dead serious.
Agip wrote:
An inappropriate opinion is calling Hillary Clinton 'pure unadulterated evil'
You're so good with google, google yourself a list of 'folks' like me.
Everyone is pro life until they or a family member is suffering from a disease that requires fetal tissue for tease arch of a cure. Conservatives act like the fetal tissues are used for something illegitimate?
Was just skimming the thread and don't know if anybody else has corrected this. Not that it matters, but it's irritating to see people correct others and speak with seeming expertise about things they clearly know nothing about. Sigh.Yes, it's German. Yes, o-umlaut is spelled as "oe" in English (and sometimes in German too). But it's not pronounced "ay" as in way, day or stay. Not even close. It's pronounced something like "err" (though not with a strong "r" sound). The closest word I can think of in English for the proper German pronunciation of the name of this idiot (the speaker, that is) is "burner". Definitely not "bone-er" and definitely not "bay-ner".
Precious Roy wrote:
It's German. The "oe" is an English adaptation of an "o" with an umlaut, which is pronounced as "ay" as in way, day, and stay.
"Burner," you wind bag wrote:
Yes, it's German. Yes, o-umlaut is spelled as "oe" in English (and sometimes in German too). But it's not pronounced "ay" as in way, day or stay. Not even close. It's pronounced something like "err" (though not with a strong "r" sound). The closest word I can think of in English for the proper German pronunciation of the name of this idiot (the speaker, that is) is "burner". Definitely not "bone-er" and definitely not "bay-ner".
As most 'folks' know, there are exceptions to every rule. Most certainly, in this case, it is Bone-er. Trust me on this one, I know a BØNER when I see one.
Whyamihere wrote:
How utterly disingenuous to imply that it's only those on the right who insult and name-call and call others evil.
Disingenuous, maybe in general, but correct in America, because there are only right wing/capitalistic/nationalistic parties.
I always laugh when someone calls H. Clinton left-wing, let alone socialistic. She is further to the right than for example Merkel is or Reagan was.
DiscoGary wrote:
braskey wrote:Guy thinks it's cute to rant like an a-hole half the time, pull partisanship into running threads, etc. then play coy when called on it. Deflects with evasive questions then eventually chimes in with a bunch of garbage like the above, often in direct contradiction to many of his previous statements. Not certain what motivates this type of person but it can't be all that healthy.
Again, you got nothing. How am I extreme or crazy? What am I doing to destroy the country? How am I undermining democracy? Which of the policies I support is doing damage?
None of you can answer those questions because you don't think for yourselves. You buy into the sound-bite demonization of conservatives and then you go attack anyone who fits the description of your political enemies.
The mindless hate on the left has gotten so bad that someone can stand up and say "Old white men are a dying, and it won't be soon enough!"... and no one on the left has the intelligence, compassion, or common sense to say "Hey. Wait a minute. That's genocidal. Wishing for old white men to die is genocidal levels of hatred.".
That didn't happen. Yo guys can't see that you have been turned into rabid attack dogs. That's how misled your side is.
Yes, it's disgusting. Disgust IS the emotion that describes it perfectly. The more I understand, the less I hate, but the more disgusted I get with the Liberal mindlessness.
You are saying all of this surrounded by other conservative posters calling all "libtards" (this term has become ubiquitous on these boards and in the real world. You don't think this suggests a certain amount of meanness and mindlessness?) evil for their political opinions. You yourself have come extremely close to saying that liberals and the politicians they support genuinely want to destroy America. I could tweak everything you just wrote and apply it to a large number of conservatives. The integrity of your arguments would be enormously improved if you could at least acknowledge that this "sound-bite demonization" works both ways. You come off as completely oblivious otherwise.
The rats are leaving the sinking ship.
Asked whether he was referring to Cruz specifically as a "false prophet," Boehner pointed to a report suggesting he referred to the senator as a "jackass" at a private fundraiser.
"You can pick a lot of names out. I'll let you choose them," he said.
the draft dodging coward John Boehner
A couple of things:
1. The Congress should use the power of the purse as leverage against the executive if it does not like what's happening and that's the only option. The Constitution was set up the way it was for a reason. Read the Federalist Papers sometime; the separation of powers is in the Constitution because factions can not practically be eliminated -- so they are given tools to prevent abuse by other factions. I seriously doubt the founders would think that the president is not powerful enough.
2. Those who cry about the government shutting down and blame it on the Congress can spin things that way, but I never understood why the Republicans didn't point out that Obama would actually be the one shutting down the government by refusing their budget. It's old news that there's a liberal media bias, but at least try to control the narrative. Instead we get ...
3. The Congress surrenders before they put the screws to anyone to try to get what they want. I don't know how many times the Republicans have announced in advance that they aren't going to fight because they can't win. I think this is a big part of the frustration that voters have. If I went in to buy a car and my negotiating tactic was to start off by telling the salesman that I felt I wouldn't be able to pay less than sticker price I wouldn't be able to get a very good deal.
4. If they aren't getting a good deal, put the president's feet to the fire. Ask why he refuses to fund the government so that taxpayer money doesn't go to an organization that rips apart the east among us for profit. Publicize the fact that this "non-profit" somehow not only gets our tax money, but is a huge donor to the Democrats. Why the heck would anyone want to give $500 million per year to any organization that gives money to a political party.
But, the Republicans never bring this up and can't bring themselves to play hardball. I'm convinced that they are largely run by out-of-touch consultants who are just professional consultants who get paid no matter what. It's a game for them, and the voters are just a means to an end. Why listen to the annoying/embarrassing rubes who think that ripping apart 50 million babies per year is a winning political issue? After all, most Americans have football to watch, facebook to post, porn and fast food to indulge in -- all in air conditioned comfort, so why should they care about something that might affect their ability to bone who they want, when they want, how they want with no perceived consequences.
Also, for the guy who claims the Republicans are drifting right, give me a break. I dare you to find a Republican 5 years ago who would consider it hateful to believe that a she-male has some kind of mental issue. Politics isn't going to save this country. Politics are just a symptom of the culture. Until America finds its Christian soul again it is in trouble. In other words, conversion is in order.
Right now I can tell that someone is all maddie-kins because I mentioned the Christian roots of our country. Guess what? Western civilization didn't just happen. It didn't even just spring from Enlightenment philosophy. It grew out of a Christian foundation that put the rights of man at the forefront. You have the luxury of pretending that this isn't so (ironically) because you live in a society which protects the freedoms which were first recognized as rights in Christendom. God help us all; we've certainly had a lot of warning about the evil, self destructive folly in which we've engaged. End of screed I guess.
The congress should indeed use the power of the purse.
The problem here is that there is a small minority of members - not a majority- who will shut down the government if they lose a vote.
Do you see the difference? The tea party doesn't have the votes so it resorts to a scorched earth policy. They aren't playing the game.
If the congress had enough votes, it could shut down obamacare. That would be fair and fine. But It didnt have enough votes. So the tea party - a few dozen members - decided to shut down the government. Do you see the difference? When you lose. A vote you shouldn't shut down the government.
Re: #2...Obama does not 'refuse' a budget. It's Congress that establishes the budget for him to use. The shut downs are caused by Congress failing to pass a timely budget.
Hello, McFly! wrote:
Re: #2...Obama does not 'refuse' a budget. It's Congress that establishes the budget for him to use. The shut downs are caused by Congress failing to pass a timely budget.
It's a long used Game of Political Chicken. Nothing more than huffing, puffing, and pandering for votes. All politicians are guilty of playing the Game.
Pssst. Hey I just told everyone today what the Benghazi hearings are all about.
Nothing that congress should be interested in, but working to get Hillary's pole numbers down.
Her "pole" numbers?
Sorry, I'm conservative. All that sexual tension. "POLL" numbers. But I do like the Hillary mom thing. Just don't tell anyone.
Dora the Agoraphobiac wrote:
You are saying all of this surrounded by other conservative posters calling all "libtards" (this term has become ubiquitous on these boards and in the real world. You don't think this suggests a certain amount of meanness and mindlessness?) evil for their political opinions. You yourself have come extremely close to saying that liberals and the politicians they support genuinely want to destroy America. I could tweak everything you just wrote and apply it to a large number of conservatives. The integrity of your arguments would be enormously improved if you could at least acknowledge that this "sound-bite demonization" works both ways. You come off as completely oblivious otherwise.
Any time someone wants to talk issues and ideas I can do it, and so can many people on my side. I do it right here every day. There are many on my side who are not civil but almost no one on the left can discuss issues and ideas in a civil manner. Most their arguments go something like this:
"You're an extreme right-wing racist. You old white men are ruining the country, and when you die off, THEN everything will be perfect. SO DIE!!!"
That's pretty much as deep as the left goes, and that's no exaggeration either.
I can't be ruining anything because none of my ideas are being implemented. Again, all I do is disagree with the disasters occurring in government. I understand that those who disagree with me want me silenced, but how am I destroying the country? No one can answer that question because I'm not.
If anyone would bother to ask me how liberals are destroying the country, I would have no trouble answering... with policies and examples of what's going wrong, where, and why.
You got nothing.