Posted on 09/28/2014 1:45:05 PM PDT by Olog-hai
That’s a ridiculous analogy, per post #17.
What this republican socialist means is he will carry Obama wishes in the same manner as the democrat socialists have.
The "Reach across the aisles" thingy the Democrats always pull when they lose. Like Lucy's football and Peanuts, the Pubbies always fall for it.
The first time I heard that ploy was in '94 when Clinton got clobbered, and I thought it was a parody by someone - it wasn't.
Which they failed to make permanent, IOW not of lasting value.
talking about this story only, idiot. I’m well aware of Boehner’s foibles and your infantile psychotic need to be the most anti Republican poster on FR. Congrats, you win, no one gives a shit!!!!!
read the effen story and STFU
I won’t be staying home. I will be voting for those that earned my vote. If a particular race has no one that has earned my vote, I will write in or leave it blank.
Your mistake is thinking the GOPe is not the enemy.
He can’t now either...
But somehow..
he gets what ever he wants.
Absolutely true, barring two thirds of both houses.
However, Obama vetoing bills he doesn't like is still better than his not having to bother, Dingy Harry having buried the legislation to save his president from having to veto popular law and to save his colleagues from casting votes that will come back at them later in campaign commercials.
Try reading what I wrote. I did not mention the Clinton years.
BTW, the Contract with America was 20 years ago, and that was the last time they did anything useful. How sad is it that their best work was with Clinton as POTUS?
Now I know you're going to bring up the Bush years, and you have a point, but the problem was they didn't want to oppose their own party's President. So 2000-2006 is a phony comparison.
Phony comparison?!?
Talking specifically about the feckless record of the Republican House and Senate, with a Republican president, and a majority Republican-appointed SCOTUS judges is a phony comparison?!? That's not a comparison, that's a statement of fact and history.
C. Edmund Wright appears to be Free Republic’s very own Republican Party Zampolit.
Hold your head in shame and I am serious about that. You owe all of us an apology for voting for Obama in 2012 and that is the effect of not voting for Romney.
Don't you ever complain about anything Obama has done since 2012 because you are a direct cause of that. Voting for Obama has consequences.
You are so high and mighty. You should wear a button that reads "I am pure, so please congratulate me."
Howso?
That is how Obama sold himself. One of constitutional government, transparency and fiscal responsibility. Therefore, if you take him at his word, Obama meets your criteria.
I never said I took him at his word; that's your own assumption.
Hold your head in shame and I am serious about that. You owe all of us an apology for voting for Obama in 2012 and that is the effect of not voting for Romney.
I will not apologize; I did not vote for Obama by not voting Romney.
To claim that is to assert that my vote only counts when I give it in an approved manner.
Don't you ever complain about anything Obama has done since 2012 because you are a direct cause of that. Voting for Obama has consequences.
No!
You are wrong.
My not voting for Romney is not the same as voting for Obama — if you claim that it is so then you need to explain/prove why. Is it because the guy I voted for (Gary Johnson, my state's former gov) lost? If that's the case then everyone who voted Romney can't complain either because he lost too.
You are so high and mighty. You should wear a button that reads "I am pure, so please congratulate me."
That's funny.
You're the one making claims about "purity" and about how people should just get over it
and vote for people they loathe because they have the GOP stamp of approval. Funny how you go from Your "requirements" are so general almost anyone can win your vote
to You are so high and mighty. You should wear a button that reads "I am pure, so please congratulate me."
so quickly [two posts].
So, which is it: am I too accepting [which disregards purity]? Or am I too demanding of purity?
Make up your mind.
More like neglected rather than failed.
You are right, so why do you still post this drivel? I am hardly anti Republican, I define exactly who I detest in the Republican Leadership and do not endorse them, unlike you.
My disgust with the GOPe is no different than Mark Levin or Sarah Palin. (Not counting McCain whom I detest)
Continuing Resolutions brought to the floor and passed by John Boehner and company.
I’m gonna write this really really really slowly - so maybe - just maybe - you can follow along.
I know when you’re talking about, and I explained why it’s a phony comparison. The House and Senate were feckless when Bush was president, but a lot of the problems originated in the Bush White House. Thus, having a GOP President TOTALLY throws off your analogy as not relevant.
You aren’t talking the Newt- Clinton years - BUT YOU SHOULD BE. That would be a more apt comparison.
The Bush tax cuts helped fuel the economy for years and Brought prosperity to millions and you see no value in that?
And the dems were forced to make permanent 99 percent of those and you see no value in conservatives having pushed that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.