RE: The ignorance of liberals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Hillwilliam -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/13/2014 1:54:59 PM)

I've hunted the Appalachians and Ozarks both. 100+ yard shots are going to be damn rare. <50 yards is typical.
That's one reason bow hunting has become so popular.




DomKen -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/13/2014 1:56:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've hunted Eastern whitetail for 30 odd years


Of course you have, do ya use a shotgun ? You're an expert on that and everything else on these forums. Joe Biden must be proud.



No, in my younger years .30-06 and more recently .30-30. You know actually calibers you use for deer hunting. Although if CWD doesn't stop spreading I won't be doing much more hunting since it is getting hard to find a place near me that isn't infected.

That's funny before I left Mo Ill had limited deer hunting to shot guns.
Poor sir Robin

Did I say I hunted in Illinois? I'm not a big fan of hunting deer with slugs so I'd have to do it with a bow here and that simply isn't my thing. My cousin is really into bow hunting and sometimes I'll go down to southern Ill. when he comes up from Al to do some but that is mostly just to hang out with him for a weekend.

I hunt deer with a rifle in northern Wisconsin.

Are you done poking you nose into my business?




subrosaDom -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/13/2014 2:06:59 PM)

Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
I'd like Obama impeached, although that's impossible today given the composition of the Senate. So we'll have to settle for Lois Lerner's being put into jail and ratting on The Great One. Then even Dems would have to vote for impeachment (well, enough of them: 33 needn't turn at all).
Biden is maybe an idiot or perhaps it's a vaudeville act, but I don't think he hates the US and he lacks the support Obama has. You can't oppose Joe Biden and be called a racist. The country would benefit from a Biden presidency (as compared to an Obama one). Also Biden has some political chops. He'd actually talk to the Republicans. Not sure if that's good or bad for us, but I do believe he'd talk.


The Senate has nothing to do with the President being impeached or not. That is completely under the authority of the House of Representatives. The Senate tries the President after he is impeached. It could be the Senate won't find him guilty, but the House passes Articles of Impeachment without any action needed by the Senate.






subrosaDom -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/13/2014 2:12:27 PM)

Even Michelle Obama? :)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

So, it's OK for the LEADER of a country to LIE - IN COURT - UNDER OATH?

He didn't "deserve" to be impeached for that?



Me? I say "Everything is beautiful, in it's own way"...






BamaD -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/13/2014 2:14:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've hunted Eastern whitetail for 30 odd years


Of course you have, do ya use a shotgun ? You're an expert on that and everything else on these forums. Joe Biden must be proud.



No, in my younger years .30-06 and more recently .30-30. You know actually calibers you use for deer hunting. Although if CWD doesn't stop spreading I won't be doing much more hunting since it is getting hard to find a place near me that isn't infected.

That's funny before I left Mo Ill had limited deer hunting to shot guns.
Poor sir Robin

Did I say I hunted in Illinois? I'm not a big fan of hunting deer with slugs so I'd have to do it with a bow here and that simply isn't my thing. My cousin is really into bow hunting and sometimes I'll go down to southern Ill. when he comes up from Al to do some but that is mostly just to hang out with him for a weekend.

I hunt deer with a rifle in northern Wisconsin.

Are you done poking you nose into my business?

I wasn't poking my nose in your business, just pointing out that you can't deer hunt with a rifle in Ill.




DesideriScuri -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/13/2014 9:45:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.


If there is a strong case for impeachment, outside of petty political bickering, they should impeach asap. There is zero reason to not impeach. If there is strong evidence that proves the articles of impeachment to be correct, We the People will see it, and the Democrats in the Senate will end up with egg on their face if they don't find the President guilty.

I think the House is "suing" just for grandstanding and the GOP leadership don't believe they have a strong case to bring forth Articles of Impeachment.




BamaD -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/13/2014 10:14:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.


If there is a strong case for impeachment, outside of petty political bickering, they should impeach asap. There is zero reason to not impeach. If there is strong evidence that proves the articles of impeachment to be correct, We the People will see it, and the Democrats in the Senate will end up with egg on their face if they don't find the President guilty.

I think the House is "suing" just for grandstanding and the GOP leadership don't believe they have a strong case to bring forth Articles of Impeachment.


If conviction is impossible articles of impeachment would only be used to "prove" that the Reps are extremists no matter how strong the case. See the Clinton impeachment when Dem senators like Byrd said the charges were impeachable and that he was clearly guilty but voted to acquit because there was less than 2 years left in his term. And as you see it is an article of faith that it was a purely political impeachment.
"If you strike at the King you must kill him" (don't impeach unless you can win)




DomKen -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 2:57:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.


If there is a strong case for impeachment, outside of petty political bickering, they should impeach asap. There is zero reason to not impeach. If there is strong evidence that proves the articles of impeachment to be correct, We the People will see it, and the Democrats in the Senate will end up with egg on their face if they don't find the President guilty.

I think the House is "suing" just for grandstanding and the GOP leadership don't believe they have a strong case to bring forth Articles of Impeachment.


If conviction is impossible articles of impeachment would only be used to "prove" that the Reps are extremists no matter how strong the case. See the Clinton impeachment when Dem senators like Byrd said the charges were impeachable and that he was clearly guilty but voted to acquit because there was less than 2 years left in his term. And as you see it is an article of faith that it was a purely political impeachment.
"If you strike at the King you must kill him" (don't impeach unless you can win)

Byrd's statement was that the impeachment was too blatantly partisan and that 2/3rds of the American people did not want Clinton removed from office so he would not vote to convict.
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/byrd.html

But you nuts go ahead and try, try again. You're never going to be satisfied till you actually do get a Democrat. So keep trying.




Musicmystery -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 3:08:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.


If there is a strong case for impeachment, outside of petty political bickering, they should impeach asap. There is zero reason to not impeach. If there is strong evidence that proves the articles of impeachment to be correct, We the People will see it, and the Democrats in the Senate will end up with egg on their face if they don't find the President guilty.

I think the House is "suing" just for grandstanding and the GOP leadership don't believe they have a strong case to bring forth Articles of Impeachment.


If conviction is impossible articles of impeachment would only be used to "prove" that the Reps are extremists no matter how strong the case. See the Clinton impeachment when Dem senators like Byrd said the charges were impeachable and that he was clearly guilty but voted to acquit because there was less than 2 years left in his term. And as you see it is an article of faith that it was a purely political impeachment.
"If you strike at the King you must kill him" (don't impeach unless you can win)

The House is suing because (1) they haven't done a damn thing and surely can't run on that, and (2) Obama has managed to get things done despite them and it pisses them off, so they'll try to run on this spin. They know they won't win the suit -- it's the press they want.




Moderator7 -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 3:46:50 PM)

Here you go all cleaned up. Enjoy your discussion. [:D]




BamaD -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 4:15:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.


If there is a strong case for impeachment, outside of petty political bickering, they should impeach asap. There is zero reason to not impeach. If there is strong evidence that proves the articles of impeachment to be correct, We the People will see it, and the Democrats in the Senate will end up with egg on their face if they don't find the President guilty.

I think the House is "suing" just for grandstanding and the GOP leadership don't believe they have a strong case to bring forth Articles of Impeachment.


If conviction is impossible articles of impeachment would only be used to "prove" that the Reps are extremists no matter how strong the case. See the Clinton impeachment when Dem senators like Byrd said the charges were impeachable and that he was clearly guilty but voted to acquit because there was less than 2 years left in his term. And as you see it is an article of faith that it was a purely political impeachment.
"If you strike at the King you must kill him" (don't impeach unless you can win)

Byrd's statement was that the impeachment was too blatantly partisan and that 2/3rds of the American people did not want Clinton removed from office so he would not vote to convict.
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/byrd.html

But you nuts go ahead and try, try again. You're never going to be satisfied till you actually do get a Democrat. So keep trying.

He said that perjury is an impeachable offense and that he had no doubt that Clinton was guilty. The rest was window dressing. If it was guilty that is all that matters.
As for the rest of your BS, you will never hear me saying that Nixon should have been acquitted even though there was massive political motivation in his prosecution.
You should also note that it was Sen Baker (R TN) who asked the definitive question in the hearings "what did the President know and when did he know it?" Also Nixon resigned because Goldwater and two other Rep Sen told him to.
If Clinton had been a Republican I would have favored impeachment and it would have been successful because some Republican Senators would have voted guilty.




AQRMZ -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 4:28:32 PM)

This is not in reply to anyone. OK?

I guess we can post anything on here so here is another one from Austin craigs rants and raves.

http://austin.craigslist.org/rnr/4567736649.html


[Mod deleted complete article.]
****************

and thanks to naughtytale for taking time from his pown business of ripping off poor, underemployed folks that can' earn enough from their 3 pt jobs in this economy to complement me in the other forum. See I am learning here, but what the fuck is a sock. Something that naughtier wears to "work"?




Moderator3 -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 4:32:42 PM)

Another complete article?

There isn't enough coffee or sleep for this.

You don't have to give the mods a break, we tend to take them.




DomKen -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 6:11:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.


If there is a strong case for impeachment, outside of petty political bickering, they should impeach asap. There is zero reason to not impeach. If there is strong evidence that proves the articles of impeachment to be correct, We the People will see it, and the Democrats in the Senate will end up with egg on their face if they don't find the President guilty.

I think the House is "suing" just for grandstanding and the GOP leadership don't believe they have a strong case to bring forth Articles of Impeachment.


If conviction is impossible articles of impeachment would only be used to "prove" that the Reps are extremists no matter how strong the case. See the Clinton impeachment when Dem senators like Byrd said the charges were impeachable and that he was clearly guilty but voted to acquit because there was less than 2 years left in his term. And as you see it is an article of faith that it was a purely political impeachment.
"If you strike at the King you must kill him" (don't impeach unless you can win)

Byrd's statement was that the impeachment was too blatantly partisan and that 2/3rds of the American people did not want Clinton removed from office so he would not vote to convict.
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/byrd.html

But you nuts go ahead and try, try again. You're never going to be satisfied till you actually do get a Democrat. So keep trying.

He said that perjury is an impeachable offense and that he had no doubt that Clinton was guilty. The rest was window dressing. If it was guilty that is all that matters.
As for the rest of your BS, you will never hear me saying that Nixon should have been acquitted even though there was massive political motivation in his prosecution.
You should also note that it was Sen Baker (R TN) who asked the definitive question in the hearings "what did the President know and when did he know it?" Also Nixon resigned because Goldwater and two other Rep Sen told him to.
If Clinton had been a Republican I would have favored impeachment and it would have been successful because some Republican Senators would have voted guilty.

Politics in the Nixon prosecution? You've lost it. There was no prosecution to start with. There was an investigation. An investigation that so disgusted the Senate Republicans that they told him he was going to get convicted so he resigned rather than face the inevitable.

Honestly I think a lot of what is wrong today traces back to Nixon. Not actually RMN but the true believers who had it stick in their craw that their guy, their precious anti communist guy, was a paranoid who broke the law with impunity and was simply not worthy of the office. So they set out to prove that it was the Democrats fault somehow someway and that hatred has taken hold 2 generations later in ways I don't think you guys even understand.




DomKen -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 6:12:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

Another complete article?

There isn't enough coffee or sleep for this.

You don't have to give the mods a break, we tend to take them.

The ban hammer tends to work best on the slow learners.




Musicmystery -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 7:29:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AQRMZ

what the fuck is a sock.

"Sock" is short for "sock puppet." It means someone who creates a dummy account rather than have the simple respect and courage to put one's name next to what one posts.

When someone joins a kink site, has no profile, and immediately goes for the political discussion, it's a dead giveaway.

That it didn't take you long to break your "be nice" rule in either thread is also telling.





BamaD -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 7:40:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.


If there is a strong case for impeachment, outside of petty political bickering, they should impeach asap. There is zero reason to not impeach. If there is strong evidence that proves the articles of impeachment to be correct, We the People will see it, and the Democrats in the Senate will end up with egg on their face if they don't find the President guilty.

I think the House is "suing" just for grandstanding and the GOP leadership don't believe they have a strong case to bring forth Articles of Impeachment.


If conviction is impossible articles of impeachment would only be used to "prove" that the Reps are extremists no matter how strong the case. See the Clinton impeachment when Dem senators like Byrd said the charges were impeachable and that he was clearly guilty but voted to acquit because there was less than 2 years left in his term. And as you see it is an article of faith that it was a purely political impeachment.
"If you strike at the King you must kill him" (don't impeach unless you can win)

Byrd's statement was that the impeachment was too blatantly partisan and that 2/3rds of the American people did not want Clinton removed from office so he would not vote to convict.
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/byrd.html

But you nuts go ahead and try, try again. You're never going to be satisfied till you actually do get a Democrat. So keep trying.

He said that perjury is an impeachable offense and that he had no doubt that Clinton was guilty. The rest was window dressing. If it was guilty that is all that matters.
As for the rest of your BS, you will never hear me saying that Nixon should have been acquitted even though there was massive political motivation in his prosecution.
You should also note that it was Sen Baker (R TN) who asked the definitive question in the hearings "what did the President know and when did he know it?" Also Nixon resigned because Goldwater and two other Rep Sen told him to.
If Clinton had been a Republican I would have favored impeachment and it would have been successful because some Republican Senators would have voted guilty.

Politics in the Nixon prosecution? You've lost it. There was no prosecution to start with. There was an investigation. An investigation that so disgusted the Senate Republicans that they told him he was going to get convicted so he resigned rather than face the inevitable.

Honestly I think a lot of what is wrong today traces back to Nixon. Not actually RMN but the true believers who had it stick in their craw that their guy, their precious anti communist guy, was a paranoid who broke the law with impunity and was simply not worthy of the office. So they set out to prove that it was the Democrats fault somehow someway and that hatred has taken hold 2 generations later in ways I don't think you guys even understand.

You either did not watch the hearings or as always remember it different than it happened.
This is quite possible since you already forgot that I said I didn't defend Nixon.
Republicans had the character to go against a sitting Republican President, in the Clinton affair no Democrat did. Both times the Dems voted a straight party line.




subrosaDom -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 8:09:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: AQRMZ

what the fuck is a sock.

"Sock" is short for "sock puppet." It means someone who creates a dummy account rather than have the simple respect and courage to put one's name next to what one posts.

When someone joins a kink site, has no profile, and immediately goes for the political discussion, it's a dead giveaway.

That it didn't take you long to break your "be nice" rule in either thread is also telling.




Finally. Something we can agree on!




DomKen -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 9:48:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.


If there is a strong case for impeachment, outside of petty political bickering, they should impeach asap. There is zero reason to not impeach. If there is strong evidence that proves the articles of impeachment to be correct, We the People will see it, and the Democrats in the Senate will end up with egg on their face if they don't find the President guilty.

I think the House is "suing" just for grandstanding and the GOP leadership don't believe they have a strong case to bring forth Articles of Impeachment.


If conviction is impossible articles of impeachment would only be used to "prove" that the Reps are extremists no matter how strong the case. See the Clinton impeachment when Dem senators like Byrd said the charges were impeachable and that he was clearly guilty but voted to acquit because there was less than 2 years left in his term. And as you see it is an article of faith that it was a purely political impeachment.
"If you strike at the King you must kill him" (don't impeach unless you can win)

Byrd's statement was that the impeachment was too blatantly partisan and that 2/3rds of the American people did not want Clinton removed from office so he would not vote to convict.
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/byrd.html

But you nuts go ahead and try, try again. You're never going to be satisfied till you actually do get a Democrat. So keep trying.

He said that perjury is an impeachable offense and that he had no doubt that Clinton was guilty. The rest was window dressing. If it was guilty that is all that matters.
As for the rest of your BS, you will never hear me saying that Nixon should have been acquitted even though there was massive political motivation in his prosecution.
You should also note that it was Sen Baker (R TN) who asked the definitive question in the hearings "what did the President know and when did he know it?" Also Nixon resigned because Goldwater and two other Rep Sen told him to.
If Clinton had been a Republican I would have favored impeachment and it would have been successful because some Republican Senators would have voted guilty.

Politics in the Nixon prosecution? You've lost it. There was no prosecution to start with. There was an investigation. An investigation that so disgusted the Senate Republicans that they told him he was going to get convicted so he resigned rather than face the inevitable.

Honestly I think a lot of what is wrong today traces back to Nixon. Not actually RMN but the true believers who had it stick in their craw that their guy, their precious anti communist guy, was a paranoid who broke the law with impunity and was simply not worthy of the office. So they set out to prove that it was the Democrats fault somehow someway and that hatred has taken hold 2 generations later in ways I don't think you guys even understand.

You either did not watch the hearings or as always remember it different than it happened.
This is quite possible since you already forgot that I said I didn't defend Nixon.
Republicans had the character to go against a sitting Republican President, in the Clinton affair no Democrat did. Both times the Dems voted a straight party line.

Nixon was guilty. You understand that, right.

Clinton's impeachment was much like Johnson's. it was strictly a matter of politics. Civil suits against sitting Presidents shouldn't be allowed to proceed while they are in office. The conflicts are enormous and of course the President's political enemies will try and get involved which will sully what is supposed to be an impartial hearing. We will never know whether Paula Jones was actually harassed since she let herself get tied up with the fringe nuts who think the Clinton are serial killers amongst many other wild accusations.

2/3rds of the country believed the Clinton impeachment was political and that he should not have been impeached. Which ultimately is what will drive any successful future impeachment. Whatever crime the President does has got to convince the overwhelming majority of Americans that he has got to go. It is insufficient that the right wing echo chamber believes it. You have to convince the ret of us and that simply didn't happen then and isn't happening now..




njlauren -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/14/2014 10:08:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
I'd like Obama impeached, although that's impossible today given the composition of the Senate. So we'll have to settle for Lois Lerner's being put into jail and ratting on The Great One. Then even Dems would have to vote for impeachment (well, enough of them: 33 needn't turn at all).
Biden is maybe an idiot or perhaps it's a vaudeville act, but I don't think he hates the US and he lacks the support Obama has. You can't oppose Joe Biden and be called a racist. The country would benefit from a Biden presidency (as compared to an Obama one). Also Biden has some political chops. He'd actually talk to the Republicans. Not sure if that's good or bad for us, but I do believe he'd talk.


The Senate has nothing to do with the President being impeached or not. That is completely under the authority of the House of Representatives. The Senate tries the President after he is impeached. It could be the Senate won't find him guilty, but the House passes Articles of Impeachment without any action needed by the Senate.




To impeach Obama they would need to have proof that Obama had something to do with the IRS incident, that he ordered it, and the problem is there is zero proof of it. If they try to impeach Obama, and if they succeed, it will simply make the GOP look even worse than they do right now, they will be seen as the party of racist white guys out to lynch a black president, period. The only people who believe the IRS incident is criminal are the GOP base, and the rest of the country quite frankly is tired of them. Between the tea party wack jobs, the religious right and a sack of shit like John Boehner who is the worst speaker of the house, probably in history, people look at the GOP more and more as the party of crackpots and idiots like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Besides the fact that the Senate would never vote to remove him from office, barring some major revelation, all the GOP would do is make them look like they often are, the ranting white people's party of the confederacy, and that is the last thing they need. Among other things, other than the Koch Brothers, I think the big money guys would as a whole be pissed off, because they know that if the GOP keeps up with this nonsense, that it will make it likely that their slide in national elections will continue.

Among other things, unlike the nixon era IRS shenanigans, the IRS didn't use its resources to 'get' anyone, at most, the data suggests the IRS might have given more scrutiny to tea party groups filing for 501c4 status, and possibly delayed approvals for some of the groups, but that is way different than the IRS being used to intimidate opponents and such, I doubt very much it would rank up their with the Nixon era high crimes and misdemeanors.

It also shows the desperation of the GOP that they are still pushing this crap, when everyone else moved on. The FBI found nothing in its investigation, and those responsible for what happened have been reprimanded or fired, and there isn't one shred of evidence that anyone told the IRS to do what they did, so it comes down to questionable activity on the part of a few people, not a conspiracy. The GOP knows they are losing ground with the economy, which is picking up along with consumer confidence,they know that young people think the GOP is the party of the CHristian taliban, and a large percentage of the population despises the Tea Party, which the GOP cannot seem to control, and as a result, they have to grasp anything they can. I doubt Joe Biden could talk to the republicans, the problem with talking is that doesn't mean "oh yes, sure, whatever your want", it means compromise. When the speaker of the house negotiates a budget deal with the white house and then cannot get his own party to approve it, it shows how bad it is. Talking means give or take, but with the Tea Party maroons with their "its my way or no way", there is no talking to them, and caving in to those morons would be like letting the country be run by a bunch of redneck buffoons.




Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625