PDA

View Full Version : The right wing reality check.



Ringo
01-16-2009, 05:28 PM
You guys are the minority, in government, and in the country.

The members of CU make up the base of the base of the republican party.

A vast majority of republicans approve of the job Obama is doing during the transition, you guys are in the teeny weeny minority of radicals who are still holding onto the neocon fantasy.

You can throw a fit, kick and cry ...but you will still be the gross minority.

You can murder the truth and spin your lies, but you are still the minority in government and in the country.

You are the base of the base. The Ann Coulters, the Sean Hannitys and the Rush Limpballs of our new nation.

Respect ? ...your party will never see it again. This is your reality.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/iraqgate/igbroch.gif

linda22003
01-16-2009, 05:30 PM
I really think you haven't been here long enough to know who all is here. Your "portrait" of CU is a cartoon. It's a more accurate picture of FR.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 05:32 PM
I really think you haven't been here long enough to know who all is here. Your "portrait" of CU is a cartoon. It's a more accurate picture of FR.

I have read plenty of posts.

Sonnabend
01-16-2009, 05:36 PM
You guys are the minority, in government, and in the country. No.


The members of CU make up the base of the base of the republican party.
Where the hell did you get THAT idea???


A vast majority of republicans approve of the job Obama is doing during the transition, you guys are in the teeny weeny minority of radicals who are still holding onto the neocon fantasy.Oh look, it used "neocon"....how sweet...:rolleyes:


You can throw a fit, kick and cry ...but you will still be the gross minority.Oh we can do much more than that.


You can murder the truth and spin your lies, but you are still the minority in government and in the country.Uh...no."Murder the truth"..you mean like Obama's relationship with the terrorist Ayers? His connections to Farrakhan?

In four years, I know what they will be saying about the Magic Negro.."most corrupt administration in US history"


You are the base of the base. The Ann Coulters, the Sean Hannitys and the Rush Limpballs of our new nation.All of whom are hugely popular and have a massive following....and you are so unhappy about that. You'd like to see them silenced, wouldn't you....


Respect ? ...your party will never see it again. This is your reality.Respect? Obama hasn't got any..and buyers remorse is already setting in. You have no idea of just how hard and how fast he will come crashing to earth..and all those who were expecting "the messiah" will get a massive rude shock when they realise they elected just another Chicago politician.

When he steps into that office..all bets are off.

And we intend to kick the living crap out of him every step of the way.:D

Ringo
01-16-2009, 05:44 PM
No.

No ? ..The vast majority support Obama, the Dems hold the majority. These are facts. And saying "no" ...doesn't fly as a rational debate




All of whom are hugely popular and have a massive following....and you are so unhappy about that. You'd like to see them silenced, wouldn't you....

Ya, popular with the base of the base. Think about it. If 55 million people voted for McCain...the base would be roughly half that, 28 million ...and the base of the base would roughly be half that at 14 million. And that is exactly how many people listen to Rush every week. Like I said, base of the base. Do you think 20 million is a majority out of 300 million ?



Respect? Obama hasn't got any..and buyers remorse is already setting in.

LOL, is that why his numbers keep going up and up ? ....because there is buyers remorse ? ..WTF ?

Zathras
01-16-2009, 05:46 PM
Blah blah blah

Yawn...did the DUmmy say anything inteligent? No? Gee what a surprise.

Hey Ringo...what's your DU name?

biccat
01-16-2009, 05:49 PM
And that is exactly how many people listen to Rush every week. Like I said, base of the base. Do you think 20 million is a majority out of 300 million ?

And surprisingly (or not surprisingly), about 20 times more people than listen to people like Olbermann, Rhodes, or the failure that was liberal talk radio.

Clearly, your message has been met with resounding interest from the American people.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 05:49 PM
Yawn...did the DUmmy say anything inteligent? No? Gee what a surprise.

Hey Ringo...what's your DU name?

Oh Please. DU is a DLC circle jerk fantasy camp. Those idiots are mostly certer-right DLC hacks.

bijou
01-16-2009, 05:50 PM
To be fair, I must say I do approve of the unexpected dose of entertainment that Obama (and Rod Blagojevich, Rahm Emmanuel, Bill Richardson, Timothy Geithner, Roland Burris, Jesse Jackson Jnr and John Harris among others) have brought to the transition period. It's not all misery. :D

Ringo
01-16-2009, 05:51 PM
And surprisingly (or not surprisingly), about 20 times more people than listen to people like Olbermann, Rhodes, or the failure that was liberal talk radio.

Clearly, your message has been met with resounding interest from the American people.

Thats because there is critical thinking in the Democratic Party.

The republicans just tune into Rush and Hannity to find out what to think.

Zathras
01-16-2009, 05:53 PM
Oh Please. DU is a DLC circle jerk fantasy camp. Those idiots are mostly certer-right DLC hacks.

Wow, you consider DU to be center-right? My god you're even more braindead than I thought. Do everyone a favor and don't breed. We can't have your defective DNA polluting the human gene pool.

Sonnabend
01-16-2009, 05:53 PM
No ? ..The vast majority support Obama, the Dems hold the majority. These are facts. And saying "no" ...doesn't fly as a rational debate

No they don't.

They haven't since 2006, and they sure as hell don't control the Senate.They think they have control..what they have is more problems than they can poke a stick at.

Did you notice that none of that 100 days "legislation" ever made it to law? None of it.

Hell, you didnt even have the numbers for a non binding resolution.

You ain't got squat.


Do you think 20 million is a majority out of 300 million ?

I think that Rush and Ann have more readers and listeners than NPR and Err America combined. Rush and Ann have long careers....Err America cant even stand on its own two feet.

EPIC FAIL.


LOL, is that why his numbers keep going up and up ? ....because there is buyers remorse ?..WTF?

He hasn't taken office yet. And when he does, he ain't gonna be the Chosen One any more. Watch the reality set in.

Zathras
01-16-2009, 05:55 PM
Thats because there is critical thinking in the Democratic Party.

Yeah...prove it.


The republicans just tune into Rush and Hannity to find out what to think.

Says the hypocrit parroting the liberal playbook.

Sonnabend
01-16-2009, 05:55 PM
The republicans just tune into Rush and Hannity to find out what to think.

Oh lord, this meme again. :rolleyes:

biccat
01-16-2009, 05:56 PM
Thats because there is critical thinking in the Democratic Party.

The republicans just tune into Rush and Hannity to find out what to think.
Would that explain why people without a high school diploma vote overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats? Or do all of these people with "critical thinking skills" decide that college is too good for them?

Ringo
01-16-2009, 05:57 PM
No they don't.

They haven't since 2006, and they sure as hell don't control the Senate.They think they have control..what they have is more problems than they can poke a stick at.

So...you don't think the republicans are the minority in the Seanate ? ...wtf are you smoking ? ...this isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

Who in their right mind would claim the republicans are not in the minority in the Senate ? ...only a right winger in need of a reality check.

Face the facts.

Goldwater
01-16-2009, 06:03 PM
Thats because there is critical thinking in the Democratic Party.

Not of the last century, it's been the same stuff over and over, either watered down or concentrated for effect depending on who was running and where. Republicans have been the party verging from idea to idea, be it small government, big government, neo-conservatism etc.


The republicans just tune into Rush and Hannity to find out what to think.

This is true for a lot of Republicans, sadly.

bijou
01-16-2009, 06:08 PM
Come on, seriously people, look how unpopular Republicans are in New Jersey:


Election 2009: New Jersey Governor
New Jersey Governor: Christie 42%, Corzine 40%
... oh ... (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2009/new_jersey/election_2009_new_jersey_governor)

Sonnabend
01-16-2009, 06:13 PM
So...you don't think the republicans are the minority in the Seanate ? ...wtf are you smoking ? ...this isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

So tell me, if the Dems have such a massive majority...why is it that they have approval numbers even lower than the President...and have accomplished jack and shit since 2006?

They have zip..nada...and this coming Congress will be no different.Obama will have an uphill fight a lot of the time and there sure as hell wont be a rubber stamp.

The Senate is not filibuster proof..and Pelosi has shown she has feet of clay.

Majority? HAH.


Who in their right mind would claim the republicans are not in the minority in the Senate ? ...only a right winger in need of a reality check.

Face the facts.

So if thats the case....why havent the Dems gotten more done?

Ringo
01-16-2009, 06:19 PM
So if thats the case....why havent the Dems gotten more done?

You do understand math ?

The repubs are in the minority in the House, Senate, White House, Gov's ...ect.

I told you this wouldn't change no matter how much you kicked and screamed.

You are still in the minority, no matter what the voices in your head tell you.

Sonnabend
01-16-2009, 06:22 PM
You do understand math ? The repubs are in the minority in the House, Senate, White House, Gov's ...ect.

I told you this wouldn't change no matter how much you kicked and screamed.

You are still in the minority, no matter what the voices in your head tell you.

Yet if this is the case....why have the Dems accomplished so little since 2006? Why is it that their approval ratings are in the single digits?

Zathras
01-16-2009, 06:25 PM
You do understand math ?

The repubs are in the minority in the House, Senate, White House, Gov's ...ect.

I told you this wouldn't change no matter how much you kicked and screamed.

You are still in the minority, no matter what the voices in your head tell you.

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION DUmbASS!!!!!

Ringo
01-16-2009, 06:26 PM
Yet if this is the case....why have the Dems accomplished so little since 2006? Why is it that their approval ratings are in the single digits?

It's called a filibuster. The repubs have used it more than any congress in the history of our nation.
They are blocking everything.

I am not surprised you don't know what a filibuster is.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 06:27 PM
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION DUmbASS!!!!!

Another one who doesn't know what a filibuster is.

Not surprising.

Zathras
01-16-2009, 06:28 PM
It's called a filibuster. The repubs have used it more than any congress in the history of our nation.
They are blocking everything.

I am not surprised you don't know what a filibuster is.

Umm, it isn't what they've been doing. If it was a true fillibuster the Republicans would have had speakers talking on the floor nonstop to prevent business from happening.

Zathras
01-16-2009, 06:29 PM
Another one who doesn't know what a filibuster is.

Not surprising.

Ringo, yet another braindead lib who thinks he knows more thank he truly does.

Zathras
01-16-2009, 06:31 PM
It's called a filibuster. The repubs have used it more than any congress in the history of our nation.
They are blocking everything.

I am not surprised you don't know what a filibuster is.

You knopw, you keep stating these things as fact but refuse to provide links to back up your claims. Therefore I will treat what you have to say much like what my dog leaves in the back yard...shit for the trash.

Sonnabend
01-16-2009, 06:33 PM
It's called a filibuster. The repubs have used it more than any congress in the history of our nation.
They are blocking everything.You mean like the Kookcinich impeachment hearings when, after the Republicans moved a vote to debate it on the floor, the Dems threw it to a committee who took said articles outside and quietly strangled them??

You mean like the other legislation that their own members wouldnt back or vote for?

You mean like the 100 days legislation that fell flat on its face?

Like the min wage hike that never made it to law because the Dems refused to allow for tax breaks for small business??

There was no filibuster...the Dems didn't have the numbers then or now.

If they had a majority...why weren't they able to reverse Pres. Bush's veto?


I am not surprised you don't know what a filibuster is.I do know what a filibuster is. I also know the rules of the Senate....tell me, without googling it, what is the one instance where a Senator carrying out a filibuster can stop talking?..and remain where he is?

Ringo
01-16-2009, 06:33 PM
Umm, it isn't what they've been doing. If it was a true fillibuster the Republicals would have had speakers talking on the floor nonstop to prevent business from happening.

If you would have paid attention you would have noticed that Harry Reid doesn't force them to do this ...he caves.

I am not surprised at how uninformed you people are.

http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/reidbefore.jpg

Ringo
01-16-2009, 06:35 PM
You knopw, you keep stating these things as fact but refuse to provide links to back up your claims. Therefore I will treat what you have to say much like what my dog leaves in the back yard...shit for the trash.

Don't tell me you are unaware of the national debt ?

Look here to inform yourself on our debt. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

As it turns out, you guys are very uninformed.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 06:37 PM
You mean like the Kookcinich impeachment hearings when, after the Republicans moved a vote to debate it on the floor, the Dems threw it to a committee who took said articles outside and quietly strangled them??

You mean like the other legislation that their own members wouldnt back or vote for?

You mean like the 100 days legislation that fell flat on its face?

Like the min wage hike that never made it to law because the Dems refused to allow for tax breaks for small business??

There was no filibuster...the Dems didn't have the numbers then or now.

If they had a majority...why weren't they able to reverse Pres. Bush's veto?

I do know what a filibuster is. I also know the rules of the Senate....tell me, without googling it, what is the one instance where a Senator carrying out a filibuster can stop talking?..and remain where he is?

Are you still claiming the repubs haven't been filibustering ? ...Thats would be absurd.

Sonnabend
01-16-2009, 06:37 PM
What does one have to do with the other?

Zathras
01-16-2009, 06:37 PM
If you would have paid attention you would have noticed that Harry Reid doesn't force them to do this ...he caves.

I am not surprised at how uninformed you people are.

http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/reidbefore.jpg

Wow, real unbiased source there DUmbass...I'm not surprised you'd use a low life like Harry Reid.

Zathras
01-16-2009, 06:38 PM
You know, the DUmbass Ringo reminds me of a certain banned poster from the Carbondale Il. area. Same ignorant rants, same posting style.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 06:39 PM
What does one have to do with the other?

Ummm, You asked why so much is being blocked in the Senate. The answer is the filibuster.

The Filibuster is the fucking answer to your question. It's why the Dems can't move anything.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 06:40 PM
Wow, real unbiased source there DUmbass...I'm not surprised you'd use a low life like Harry Reid.


Your post implies that you don't believe the repubs have been using the filibuster. Is this true ?

Sonnabend
01-16-2009, 06:43 PM
Ummm, You asked why so much is being blocked in the Senate. The answer is the filibuster.

The Filibuster is the fucking answer to your question. It's why the Dems can't move anything.

Nice try and wrong. Let's go back to the "100 days" in 2006...which of those was filibustered? Answer: none

Democrats didn't have a problem with the filibuster when it came to blocking judicial appointments. And if the Dems have the majority now...then there isnt a problem, is there?

Zathras
01-16-2009, 06:43 PM
Your post implies that you don't believe the repubs have been using the filibuster. Is this true ?

They have, but what I don't believe is that they've used it the most just because you say so. And posting a picture saying it's so doesn't count as proof DUmbass.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 06:49 PM
They have, but what I don't believe is that they've used it the most just because you say so. And posting a picture saying it's so doesn't count as proof DUmbass.

I can't believe how uninformed you guys are. I have to school you on everything. Jeeeesh, the ignorance.

Look here kids...

http://wordpress.com/tag/reporting-filibusters

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/weekinreview/02herszenhorn.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/Filibuster-chart-100708.jpg

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 06:50 PM
dumbass - you don't just use cloture votes to end filibusters. :rolleyes:

Zathras
01-16-2009, 06:52 PM
dumbass - you don't just use cloture votes to end filibusters. :rolleyes:

Shhh, don't confuse it with facts.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 06:53 PM
Shhh, don't confuse it with facts.

You didn't read any links, did you ?

Pesty facts.

Troll
01-16-2009, 07:37 PM
You're an interesting fellow.


You guys are the minority, in government, and in the country.

You're going to have to be a little more specific here. When you say 'you guys', who exactly are you addressing? We're a pretty diverse group here at CU, and sometimes...we disagree with each other. :eek: Plus, I hope you're not making the argument that because 'the majority' thinks something that that makes it correct. I'm of the opinion that the majority of Americans are politically illiterate, hence the popularity of the Democratic party.


The members of CU make up the base of the base of the republican party.

There are a lot of us here who don't vote Republican. You'll find more than a few Libertarian, Independent and Unaffiliated voters here.


A vast majority of republicans approve of the job Obama is doing during the transition, you guys are in the teeny weeny minority of radicals who are still holding onto the neocon fantasy.

Neocons are pretty dumb, aren't they? They are, after all, a nanny-state, big government splinter group that hijacked what was once a pretty good party. Actually, you liberals shouldn't use the word 'neocon' as a pejorative. President Bush has done more to advance liberalism in this country than any President since FDR. Why you guys aren't demanding that he stay in office is beyond me. There is no way Obama will surpass Bush's spending - neocons have out-liberaled the Democrats. If you see a neocon, thank him and offer to walk his dog some time.


You can throw a fit, kick and cry ...but you will still be the gross minority.

Again, I need to know who you're talking about here. If you're talking about the 912 members of CU, then we'll be a minority in any 'group' of 1825 or larger.


You can murder the truth and spin your lies, but you are still the minority in government and in the country.

See above.


You are the base of the base. The Ann Coulters, the Sean Hannitys and the Rush Limpballs of our new nation.

Not that I actually like any of those three, but I'd like you to name me one liberal author that sells half the books that Coulter sells or gets half the weekly listeners that Rush gets.


Respect ? ...your party will never see it again. This is your reality.

I too hope the Republican party will never 'see respect' again. In fact, there are a lot of us at CU that would like to see the Republican party go the way of the Whigs. If a third party can get its act together, we'll see whose political philosophies are really in the minority. I would argue that the Independent conservatives in this country are the real reason McCain lost - if I were you, I'd keep my Congressmen and President on a tight leash for the next few years. There might be a real voter revolution on the horizon.

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 07:43 PM
If a third party can get its act together, we'll see whose political philosophies are really in the minority. I would argue that the Independent conservatives in this country are the real reason McCain lost - if I were you, I'd keep my Congressmen and President on a tight leash for the next few years. There might be a real voter revolution on the horizon.Wouldn't that be WONDERFUL! :cool:

Mythic
01-16-2009, 07:57 PM
No ? ..The vast majority support Obama, the Dems hold the majority. Vast majority? Vast? Not really. Democrats do have a majority in Congress, I am glad you figured that out. But the majority is not all that matters. If only majorities mattered then black people would still be slaves. Your empty rhetoric is ridiculous.

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 08:01 PM
Vast majority? Vast? Not really. Democrats do have a majority in Congress, I am glad you figured that out. But the majority is not all that matters. If only majorities mattered then black people would still be slaves. Your empty rhetoric is ridiculous. Last time I checked - since only 56.8% of Americans voted - and of those who voted - only 52% voted for Obama - the math does not add up to a VAST majority. HELL it doesn't even make a majority of Americans - and he barely had a majority of voters. :rolleyes:

Ringo
01-16-2009, 08:02 PM
Vast majority? Vast? Not really. Democrats do have a majority in Congress, I am glad you figured that out. But the majority is not all that matters. If only majorities mattered then black people would still be slaves. Your empty rhetoric is ridiculous.

What a stupid fucking post.

Your idiotic post implies that most Americans want black people to be slaves.

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 08:04 PM
What a stupid fucking post.

Your idiotic post implies that most Americans want black people to be slaves.At the time of the civil war - YES. Most Americans were OK with slavery. HELL up until the last 100 years - the majority of the WORLD was ok with slavery.

Mythic
01-16-2009, 08:08 PM
Your idiotic post implies that most Americans want black people to be slaves.Well it doesn't and I don't believe that, it implies that the majority of Americans are not black, which is true. But that wasn't the point. Try again to see the comparisson I made.

You rant on and on about how republicans are a "vast" minority, and because they are a minority you seem to discredit them. You use the fact that democrats have a majority to back up your points when really it is insignificant.

And FYI, this is not the Republican Underground. It is the Conservative Underground. The two are not the same.

Mythic
01-16-2009, 08:09 PM
At the time of the civil war - YES. Most Americans were OK with slavery. HELL up until the last 100 years - the majority of the WORLD was ok with slavery.
See he figured out what I was getting at. I didn't think I really needed to explain it that much.

Sonnabend
01-16-2009, 08:13 PM
Your idiotic post implies that most Americans want black people to be slaves.

Democrats certainly did.

Mythic
01-16-2009, 08:13 PM
Democrats certainly did.
Wait for it...

Ringo
01-16-2009, 08:19 PM
Wait for it...

Thats because the filibuster is used by the FUCKING MINORITY party you idiot.

Holy fucking shit, of course the Dems were in controll when the repubs broke the filibuster record.

Do you think the majority party uses a filibuster ? My god are you people stupid.

Mythic
01-16-2009, 08:25 PM
Do you think the majority party uses a filibuster ? My god are you people stupid. Wtf are you talking about?

Troll
01-16-2009, 08:31 PM
What a stupid fucking post.

Your idiotic post implies that most Americans want black people to be slaves.

Eyelids, is that you? Or just someone like him that can't get through a conversation without race-baiting?

Ringo
01-16-2009, 08:32 PM
Wtf are you talking about?

LOL, you edited the stupidity out of your post, and then asked what I was talking about.

Fucking incredible. For everyone who missed it, this idiot claimed the repubs couldn't have used the filibuster a record amount of times because the Dems were in the majority, he even told me to look at this chart to back it up.

Implying the majority party uses the filibuster....holy shit. Then after I schooled him he edited his post and asked "what are you talking about" ...my wife and I are laughing our asses off.

http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/Filibuster-chart-100708.jpg

Mythic
01-16-2009, 08:35 PM
Then after I schooled him he edited his post and asked "what are you talking about" ...my wife and I are laughing our asses off.

Ringo, I misread the chart which Is why I edited the post. Now you are arguing against me using a point that I don't agree with. You "schooled" me after I already edited the post. I didn't edit it after you posted your post. I didn't even know you saw it. I didn't edit the post after you said anything.

Do you think the majority party uses a filibuster ?
Obviously not. A filibuster is used by the minority to stop the majority from doing what it wants. You make yourself look bad by cussing so often and posting in bold.

I don't care what your wife thinks.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 08:39 PM
Ringo, I misread the chart which Is why I edited the post. Now you are arguing against me using a point that I don't agree with. You "schooled" me after I already edited the post. I didn't edit it after you posted your post. I didn't even know you saw it.

You claimed the repubs couldn't have used the filibuster because the dems were in control of congress at the time. You then edited your words out and pretended it never happened.

Yet my response remains right below your edited post.

Unreal.

Thanks for the laugh.

Ranger Rick
01-16-2009, 08:39 PM
You act like "Filibuster" is a bad thing. That we should be ashamed. Me, I don't think Republicans used enough. And hope to see a banner year in 2009.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 08:44 PM
You act like "Filibuster" is a bad thing. That we should be ashamed. Me, I don't think Republicans used enough. And hope to see a banner year in 2009.

It's the repubs who hate the fillibuster, and the repubs who threatened the nuclear option when the Dems even thought about it.

Now they embrace it and have broke all records.

Mythic
01-16-2009, 08:46 PM
You claimed the repubs couldn't have used the filibuster because the dems were in control of congress at the time. You then edited your words out and pretended it never happened.

That whole post was wrong which is why I edited it. To be honest I laughed at myself for posting that, we all make mistakes. I re-read all my posts to make sure I had my facts straight. When I don't, I fix it. I apologize for correcting my error before you could.

Ranger Rick
01-16-2009, 08:47 PM
No idea what "repub" is. But, what you describe is just the normal ebb and flow of congress.

Ranger Rick
01-16-2009, 08:56 PM
Came across this just now. Good old Charlie Daniels:


I'll make you a bet. Ninety percent of these nominees will sail through confirmation hearings like a paper airplane. The reason being that the Senators are in the bag for anything Obama wants or they simply don't have the guts to stand up, even if they know it's wrong. So they won't be asking the hard questions or insisting on truthful answers

We don't have many statesmen any more. Most of what we have supposedly representing us are a bunch of jaded geldings or pantywaist puppets who check their gonads at the door. Timid little men who roar like a lion but are reduced to lambs when push comes to shove.

I never thought I'd see the future of America put into the hands of political cowards who are only concerned with their own survival.

God have mercy on the United States of America.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

January 16, 2009


http://www.charliedanielssoapbox.com/view_topic.php?id=7725&forum_id=4

Apocalypse
01-16-2009, 10:51 PM
Oh look, it used "neocon"....how sweet...:rolleyes:



I'm not going to get into a know down fight here, as I know this will. But I have one challenge to see if this fool does know what crap he is flinging.

I truly wonder if he knows the "Correct" definition of Neocon?

hmac
01-16-2009, 11:19 PM
Did you not see the numbers in the election? Meaning total numbers?? Many individuals did NOT vote for a socialistic president. I, for one, think he may be a decent man, but he is surrounded by evil. He is surrounded by people that have an agenda...who don't "really" speak for the people. "Politics"...you thought this word was negative before...just wait.

All I have to say is that I wish him wisdom and the ability to see the light. That he will become a different man after being in office. He will realize his mistakes and his libertardisms and make changes for the sake of his children. He's already flip flopping on so many things. Ideology?....he has to drop Liberal ideology.
You need to check your history....all I have to say is...please bring back Reagan and JFK.

I will never be fogged by the color of ANYONE'S skin. I will always judge based on character, honesty,
associations, ideas, and outcomes. I am young enough to say, I have not seen people in color. Thank goodness for great parents, christianity, and ethnic friends. I am able to read beyond the "historical events" and see the reality of his goals. The conservative underground is just as strong as liberalism during Bush's presidency...don't minimalize it. It's real and it will prevail....good always prevails over evil. Don't forget the struggles of Jesus.

hmac
01-16-2009, 11:29 PM
Riiiigggght, because we are just a bunch of idiots walking the earth. How hypocritical of democrats supporting the "unfortunate". You claim to be unbias, welcoming of all, yet you criticize anyone who thinks differently than you. Can you be any more arrogant and hypocritical?? You don't know what you believe...do you? You could swing any which way the wind blows, eh?

hmac
01-16-2009, 11:33 PM
You are truly arrogant.

SarasotaRepub
01-17-2009, 12:24 AM
Ringo ehhhh???

OMG, our old buddy supercrash is back!!:D:D

Ree
01-17-2009, 12:33 AM
Ringo ehhhh???

OMG, our old buddy supercrash is back!!:D:D
Wonder how many cars he's "dinged" this winter?;)

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 12:35 AM
See he figured out what I was getting at. I didn't think I really needed to explain it that much.

I have a working knowledge of history and reality. Ringo does not.

Ree
01-17-2009, 12:37 AM
I have a working knowledge of history and reality. Ringo does not.
Me thinks Ringo is a "kiddie"...

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 12:37 AM
You act like "Filibuster" is a bad thing. That we should be ashamed. Me, I don't think Republicans used enough. And hope to see a banner year in 2009.AMEN! too bad the RINOs will be happy to break almost any filibuster . . . . .

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 12:39 AM
It's the repubs who hate the fillibuster, and the repubs who threatened the nuclear option when the Dems even thought about it.

Now they embrace it and have broke all records.YOU ARE SUCH A FUCKING TARD. The only time that conservatives or republicans were upset over the use of the filibuster is when the dems used it on APPOINTMENTS. In all of our history as a nation - ONLY the dems filibustered judges - why? Because they far left of the democratic party KNEW that they were good judges and that any vote would confirm them. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 12:41 AM
Me thinks Ringo is a "kiddie"...Like I said in another thread - if I were a betting man - I'd lay large sums of money that Ringo has yet to finish puberty.

Ree
01-17-2009, 12:42 AM
Like I said in another thread - if I were a betting man - I'd lay large sums of money that Ringo has yet to finish puberty.
Which means any "thinkin" is done with the "little head' not the big one...:cool:

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 12:48 AM
Which means any "thinkin" is done with the "little head' not the big one...:cool:Check out his thread about the banner and the stimulus and see if you can figure out what in that supposed "qoute" of his gave away his age.

AmPat
01-17-2009, 12:49 AM
No ? ..The vast majority support Obama, the Dems hold the majority. These are facts. And saying "no" ...doesn't fly as a rational debate
LOL, is that why his numbers keep going up and up ? ....because there is buyers remorse ? ..WTF ?

What "vast majority?" The vast majority of ignorant Liberals who voted Obama in by a small margin? I can't wait to say "I told you so."

Idiots like you won't be as prevalent as viruses when Obama bungs it up good. You gloat now but already we see Obama's halo tarnished and his wings getting pulled off.:cool:

Ree
01-17-2009, 12:57 AM
Check out his thread about the banner and the stimulus and see if you can figure out what in that supposed "qoute" of his gave away his age.
"ZOMG!!!!"http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i310/ReeW/smilies/hahaha-024.gif
How log to we get to play with this "chew toy"?

jaftr
01-17-2009, 03:24 AM
What a stupid fucking post.

Your idiotic post implies that most Americans want black people to be slaves.

why not in Africa lots of black people are still slaves to other black people

Sonnabend
01-17-2009, 03:46 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/upload/2k12763609fc.jpg

Constitutionally Speaking
01-17-2009, 09:35 AM
Don't tell me you are unaware of the national debt ?

Look here to inform yourself on our debt. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

As it turns out, you guys are very uninformed.

And you sir/madam/thing are misinformed. You lay blame without knowing the whole story.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 10:44 AM
And you sir/madam/thing are misinformed. You lay blame without knowing the whole story.

I love how you fools keep telling me I am wrong ...

But NEVER EVER post what you believe to be the truth. Typical of repubs.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 10:46 AM
I love how you fools keep telling me I am wrong ...

But NEVER EVER post what you believe to be the truth. Typical of repubs.you don't learn thruth from being indoctrinated. You learn truth from getting off your ass and doing research - not of vapid books designed to indoctrinate - but research of the primary source documents. Like most leftists - you are lazy and as long as you are lazy - you will never learn to think for yourself.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 10:51 AM
YOU ARE SUCH A FUCKING TARD. The only time that conservatives or republicans were upset over the use of the filibuster is when the dems used it on APPOINTMENTS. In all of our history as a nation - ONLY the dems filibustered judges - why? Because they far left of the democratic party KNEW that they were good judges and that any vote would confirm them. :rolleyes:

Lie....another lie.

Repubs blocked 60 of Clintons nominees. Ever hear of the Blue Slip method ? ...probably not.

And YES , the repubs have filibustered Judges.

Mythic
01-17-2009, 12:46 PM
Ringo, your main problem is not that you are liberal. Your main problem is that you regard everything you say as some sort of holy law, but disregard everything anyone else says who disagrees with you as lies. That is arrogance.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 12:49 PM
Ringo, your main problem is not that you are liberal. Your main problem is that you regard everything you say as some sort of holy law, but disregard everything anyone else says who disagrees with you as lies. That is arrogance.

I learned you are a damn fool who thinks the repubs could have never used the filibuster a record amount of times because the Dems were in control of congress at the time.

Just what you said....My wife and I laughed our fucking asses off. Thanks.

Mythic
01-17-2009, 12:53 PM
I learned you are a damn fool who thinks the repubs could have never used the filibuster a record amount of times because the Dems were in control of congress at the time.
Well I'm laughing my head off at you. I don't believe in what you just accused me of believing. But like all libtards, when you realize you are wrong about what someone said you just plug your ears, go "NANANANA" stick your tongue out and start spitting nonsense.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 12:56 PM
Well I'm laughing my head off at you. I don't believe in what you just accused me of believing. But like all libtards, when you realize you are wrong about what someone said you just plug your ears, go "NANANANA" stick your tongue out and start spitting nonsense.

Dude. I even created a response to your ignorant claim ...you then edited it and claimed it was never there ...yet my response remained.

And all your post was left with was 'wait for it' ...the rest was removed. LOL...WTF ?

Mythic
01-17-2009, 01:03 PM
Dude. I even created a response to your ignorant claim ...you then edited it and claimed it was never there ...yet my response remained.
*sigh* I edited my post before you even posted a reply. Just look at the time I edited it and the time you made your post. You quoted my new post and I had no idea that you had seen the old one. Which is why is said wtf.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 02:04 PM
Lie....another lie.

Repubs blocked 60 of Clintons nominees. Ever hear of the Blue Slip method ? ...probably not.

And YES , the repubs have filibustered Judges.Blue slips are NOT FILIBUSTERS. Hello??? Blue Slips have been used from the early days of the senate. It's established protocol. FILIBUSTERING JUDGES is something the asshole dems invented in the last 10 years. Get a fucking clue. :rolleyes:

Ringo
01-17-2009, 03:51 PM
Blue slips are NOT FILIBUSTERS. Hello??? Blue Slips have been used from the early days of the senate. It's established protocol. FILIBUSTERING JUDGES is something the asshole dems invented in the last 10 years. Get a fucking clue. :rolleyes:

WTF ? ..are you this stupid ?

You think the Dems invented Filibustering judges about 10 years ago ?

Holy shit are you an idiot. Maybe you should look at who did the VERY FIRST FILIBUSTER AGAINST A JUDGE...

It was the repubs who invented it you stupid fucking idiot. The repubs started this is 1968 when they initiated a filibuster against Lydon Johnsons nominee Abe Fortas.

They were the first you fuck tard. This is a fact of history you idiot.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 03:52 PM
Oh the iroiny of you telling me to get a clue.

You are stupid person.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 04:40 PM
WTF ? ..are you this stupid ?

You think the Dems invented Filibustering judges about 10 years ago ?

Holy shit are you an idiot. Maybe you should look at who did the VERY FIRST FILIBUSTER AGAINST A JUDGE...

It was the repubs who invented it you stupid fucking idiot. The repubs started this is 1968 when they initiated a filibuster against Lydon Johnsons nominee Abe Fortas.

They were the first you fuck tard. This is a fact of history you idiot.
Boy you are stupid aren't ya. Fortas was already a justice. He was also plagued by ethical issues. He was blocked from becoming Chief Justice and ended up resigning in disgrace shortly there after. FURTHERMORE - LBJ was a lame duck president. He should have left the appointment to his successor - but because his successor was a republican . . . . So There is a HUGE difference filibustering someone who took bribes and filibustring someone who would have been approved by the full senate just because you don't like his politics. The DEMOCRATS invented the judicial filibuster. The republicans filibustered the appointment of an indicted criminal.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 04:41 PM
Oh the iroiny of you telling me to get a clue.

You are stupid person.rotfl. Ringo dear child - I have 2 undergrad and 1 graduate degree. Let me know when you get your GED. :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
01-17-2009, 04:43 PM
Oh the iroiny of you telling me to get a clue.

You are stupid person.

So Ringo can get a clue. (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm)


Filibuster and Cloture
19th Century Filibuster


Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 04:49 PM
So Ringo can get a clue. (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm)

We are talking about the filibuster used to block judges you fucking idiot. Why don't you read the thread before posting garbage ?

Ringo
01-17-2009, 04:50 PM
Boy you are stupid aren't ya. Fortas was already a justice. He was also plagued by ethical issues. He was blocked from becoming Chief Justice and ended up resigning in disgrace shortly there after. FURTHERMORE - LBJ was a lame duck president. He should have left the appointment to his successor - but because his successor was a republican . . . . So There is a HUGE difference filibustering someone who took bribes and filibustring someone who would have been approved by the full senate just because you don't like his politics. The DEMOCRATS invented the judicial filibuster. The republicans filibustered the appointment of an indicted criminal.

So you admit that the repubs were the VERY FIRST to use the filibuster against a judge.

At least you admit when you are wrong.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 04:52 PM
So you admit that the repubs were the VERY FIRST to use the filibuster against a judge.

At least you admit when you are wrong.No idiot - the republicans used the filibuster against a CRIMINAL. The Dems are the first to use the filibuster wholesale to block the appointment of judges with whom a certain segment of the caucus had philosophical disagreement with. Not because the judges in question would not have passed a floor vote - but because they WOULD have passed a floor vote with members of the democratic party voting for them. The dems played politics - the republicans blocked a criminal from taking an higher office.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 04:54 PM
No idiot - the republicans used the filibuster against a CRIMINAL. The Dems are the first to use the filibuster wholesale to block the appointment of judges with whom a certain segment of the caucus had philosophical disagreement with. Not because the judges in question would not have passed a floor vote - but because they WOULD have passed a floor vote with members of the democratic party voting for them. The dems played politics - the republicans blocked a criminal from taking an higher office.

So, the repubs never used a filibuster against a judge ?

This is your claim....

MrsSmith
01-17-2009, 05:10 PM
We are talking about the filibuster used to block judges you fucking idiot. Why don't you read the thread before posting garbage ?

Resorting to foul language is the sign of an insecure, immature, unintelligent person. :) Have a nice day.

hampshirebrit
01-17-2009, 05:13 PM
Ringo, please moderate your language. This is GD.

I believe that another mod has already pointed this out to you.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 05:27 PM
Resorting to foul language is the sign of an insecure, immature, unintelligent person. :) Have a nice day. sometimes it's just plain fun too ;)

Mythic
01-17-2009, 05:51 PM
Resorting to foul language is the sign of an insecure, immature, unintelligent person. Have a nice day.

You could also say this:


Resorting to foul language is the sign of an insecure, immature, unintelligent liberal. Have a nice day.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 06:00 PM
You could also say this:did you read my whinny thread???:mad:

The Terminator
01-17-2009, 06:08 PM
So we're in the minority, you say? The premise by which state the comment is so out in left field I can't begin to correct you on it, but let's go ahead and assume you're right. Let's see what America has "won":

1. If you think murdering innocent human beings through legislation is just and moral, you win;
2. If you think financial irresponsibility should be rewarded, you win;
3. If you think tyranny is acceptable, you win;
4. If you think Christianity is evil, you win;
5. If you think trees and animals are more important than human beings, you win;
6. If you think Government is the highest authority in the universe, you win;

There are many more to add, but don't be too sure of yourselves. You won because you own both parties. You had the Dems and you infiltrated the GOP. We don't have a party and we don't have a major candidate to lead us, at least not yet.

Here's an imteresing tidbit: in '04, 121 million voted. In '08, 130 million were expected, but only 122 million voted. What happened to the other 8 million?

Well, of those, 4.1 million religious conservatives said McLame didn't speak out enough on some issues, and didn't say anything on others.

As a sampling, let's take Ohio. In Ohio, Eclair took 40,000 LESS VOTES than Kerry did. So why did McLame lose? Because he got 350,000 LESS VOTES than Bush did!

We didn't lose, because BOTH CANDIDATES WERE YOURS, dip. We didn't have a candidate on the ballot.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 06:35 PM
So why did McLame lose? Because he got 350,000 LESS VOTES than Bush did!

We didn't lose, because BOTH CANDIDATES WERE YOURS, dip. We didn't have a candidate on the ballot.

LOL. You think the Dems nominated McCain ? Thats a hoot.

Your party nominated John McCain ...this is a fact.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 06:37 PM
No idiot - the republicans used the filibuster against a CRIMINAL. The Dems are the first to use the filibuster wholesale to block the appointment of judges with whom a certain segment of the caucus had philosophical disagreement with. Not because the judges in question would not have passed a floor vote - but because they WOULD have passed a floor vote with members of the democratic party voting for them. The dems played politics - the republicans blocked a criminal from taking an higher office.

So...your position is that the repubs never used the filibuster against a judge in 1968 ?

You think this never happened ?

Mythic
01-17-2009, 06:49 PM
LOL. You think the Dems nominated McCain ? Thats a hoot.
He never said that. You are assuming again. I'm not surprised.:rolleyes:

He was explaining how many conservatives do not like the republican party because so many republicans are becoming more liberal.


did you read my whinny thread???
Sorry, its a bad habit of mine.
How about this?

Resorting to foul language is the sign of an insecure, immature, unintelligent leftist. Have a nice day.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 07:05 PM
LOL. You think the Dems nominated McCain ? Thats a hoot.

Your party nominated John McCain ...this is a fact.McCain got the nomination because of high returns in early primary states with OPEN primaries of same day registration. Conservatives did not nominate the man.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 07:06 PM
So...your position is that the repubs never used the filibuster against a judge in 1968 ?

You think this never happened ?The fact is - they used it to block someone guilty of taking bribes who was forced to resign less than a year later. Can you point to a single appointment of Bush's thats guilty of a crime?

The Terminator
01-17-2009, 07:08 PM
LOL. You think the Dems nominated McCain ? Thats a hoot.

Your party nominated John McCain ...this is a fact.

The Republican party is currently a quasi-liberal party. I'm a conservative. There was no conservative on the ticket. Labeling an ideology by a party is like labeling a fruit only by its color. It is intellectually vacant, and only exemplifies your stupidity.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 07:10 PM
The fact is - they used it to block someone guilty of taking bribes who was forced to resign less than a year later. Can you point to a single appointment of Bush's thats guilty of a crime?

Hey genius, the filibuster happened in 1968.

He resigned in 1969 when a scandal broke out.

Your timeline is fucked up.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 07:10 PM
The Republican party is currently a quasi-liberal party. I'm a conservative. There was no conservative on the ticket. Labeling an ideology by a party is like labeling a fruit only by its color. It is intellectually vacant, and only exemplifies your stupidity.He's forgetting that this is not the republican underground. It's the CONSERVATIVE underground.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 07:11 PM
The fact is - they used it to block someone guilty of taking bribes who was forced to resign less than a year later. Can you point to a single appointment of Bush's thats guilty of a crime?

This is a flat out lie ....again.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 07:13 PM
This is a flat out lie ....again.what is a lie? That He took a bribe? that he was forced to resign? or that it happened about a year later?

Ringo
01-17-2009, 07:19 PM
what is a lie? That He took a bribe? that he was forced to resign? or that it happened about a year later?


The filibuster was in 1968.

The 'bribe issue' you are talking about broke out in 1969 ...a year after the filibuster.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 07:35 PM
The filibuster was in 1968.

The 'bribe issue' you are talking about broke out in 1969 ...a year after the filibuster. lol you act like people in the senate are in the dark about things. lol They would have been briefed on any problems the man had including the bribery. Just because it did not become PUBLIC until 69 does not mean that no one knew until then.

Mythic
01-17-2009, 08:45 PM
I did this just for you Ringo.

Well, this may surprise you, but the majority of adult(18+) Americans did not vote for Obama.
As of the 2003 Census, there are roughly 217.8 million adults in the United States.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001703.html
This election:
66,882,230 people voted for Obama.
58,343,671 people voted for McCain.
92,574,099 people did not vote at all.

Which leaves us with these statistics:
30% of adults voted for Obama.
27% of adults voted for McCain
43% of adults didn't bother to vote at all.

Finally, we get this interesting fact.
70% of adults DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.
Some majority he has behind him alright. People loved him so much they didn't vote for him.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 09:05 PM
lol you act like people in the senate are in the dark about things. lol They would have been briefed on any problems the man had including the bribery. Just because it did not become PUBLIC until 69 does not mean that no one knew until then.

If it was known....someone woulod have brought it up in the filibuster ...It was never brought up because nobody knew about it.

Mythic
01-17-2009, 09:07 PM
If it was known....someone woulod have brought it up in the filibuster ...It was never brought up because nobody knew about it.
Just so you know the government doesn't tell you everything you want to know about whats going on.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 09:12 PM
I did this just for you Ringo.

Well, this may surprise you, but the majority of adult(18+) Americans did not vote for Obama.
As of the 2003 Census, there are roughly 217.8 million adults in the United States.

This election:
66,882,230 people voted for Obama.
58,343,671 people voted for McCain.
92,574,099 people did not vote at all.

Which leaves us with these statistics:
30% of adults voted for Obama.
27% of adults voted for McCain
43% of adults didn't bother to vote at all.

Finally, we get this interesting fact.
70% of adults DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.
Some majority he has behind him alright. People loved him so much they didn't vote for him.don't confuse the issue with FACTS!!

Mythic
01-17-2009, 09:16 PM
don't confuse the issue with FACTS!!

Oh crap did I use facts again!? Darn it I forgot that nuts like Ringo avoid facts like a plague. Sorry about that :rolleyes:

AmPat
01-17-2009, 11:23 PM
No idiot - the republicans used the filibuster against a CRIMINAL. The Dems are the first to use the filibuster wholesale to block the appointment of judges with whom a certain segment of the caucus had philosophical disagreement with. Not because the judges in question would not have passed a floor vote - but because they WOULD have passed a floor vote with members of the democratic party voting for them. The dems played politics - the republicans blocked a criminal from taking an higher office.

Worse, the Libtards refused to schedule confirmation hearings. Borderline criminal and certainly negligent disregard in the DIM's failure to perform their (Senatorial) duty.