We won! Now what?

[fj1200]

Republicans Take Senate Control (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47486-Republicans-Take-Senate-Control)
Now what?

[Jeff]

Republicans Take Senate Control (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47486-Republicans-Take-Senate-Control)


Now what?

I am afraid we are now going to have 2 years of gridlock which will wind up hurting the Republicans in 2 years ( yes the American people forget very quickly ) but what we need to do is secure our borders priority #1, that alone will be a major job ( yes it is that bad ) so we will work on one at a time :laugh:

[fj1200]

I am afraid we are now going to have 2 years of gridlock which will wind up hurting the Republicans in 2 years ( yes the American people forget very quickly ) but what we need to do is secure our borders priority #1, that alone will be a major job ( yes it is that bad ) so we will work on one at a time :laugh:

It's not going to hurt Republicans unless they start passing crap laws. If they can start passing good laws and let BO veto them then they can run for POTUS in two years and clearly show where the obstruction is. They could also pass laws where BO has shown a hint of supporting progress, corporate tax reform for example, then they can take that opportunity to get what they want.

[Jeff]

It's not going to hurt Republicans unless they start passing crap laws. If they can start passing good laws and let BO veto them then they can run for POTUS in two years and clearly show where the obstruction is. They could also pass laws where BO has shown a hint of supporting progress, corporate tax reform for example, then they can take that opportunity to get what they want.

Agreed, and hoping it will work that way !!

[revelarts]

I Predict we get more of the same.

no balanced budget, but an increase.
no reduction in the nat'l debt but a steady increase.
no roll backs on Obama Care,
no roll backs on Warrantless spying,
no roll back on Abortion,
no roll backs or blocks on homosexual marriage,
No move on immigration policy unless it's pro biz,
no roll back on the patriot act or the NDAA,
no holding Obama's feet to the fire on illegal unconstitutional military actions,
no confronting the FBI and NSA on their spying on congress,
no confronting of those caught lying to congress about various illegal spying on the public,
They will add/allow more police/military powers to unconstitutionally control the u.s. public... for your safety.
No significant help on the V.A. issues,
If the banks ask for more bailouts they'll get them,
More unfunded liabilities,
no economic or tax relief to the middle class,
More expanding government,
more war,
Nothing done on brainwashing in our public schools and colleges or Common Core,
More of the same government waste,
Even more government rules and regulations,
Still not reading the bills,
Same refusal to build nuclear power plants,
Same or more bloated bureaucracy,
Nothing done to investigate, expose, or prosecute election fraud,
same payola and corruption,


the ONLY thing i'd predict that might move are gun regs, But i suspect NO CHANGE. which would be better than the dems.


mark it down.
Saying it'd be worse under the dems is little comfort folks, in most cases it will just have a different window dressing.

[namvet]

Republicans Take Senate Control (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47486-Republicans-Take-Senate-Control)


Now what?

hope and change??? :laugh::laugh:

[fj1200]

hope and change??? :laugh::laugh:

;) Hope and change went out with the 20-oughts.

[fj1200]

I Predict we get more of the same.

I predict not. But IMO your list was riddled with a bunch of can'ts, a bunch of won'ts, and a bunch of better nots in with a bunch of can dos.

[namvet]

this election was aimed at Obastard. he's knee deep in kerosene and everyone around him has a match.

[revelarts]

I predict not. But IMO your list was riddled with a bunch of can'ts, a bunch of won'ts, and a bunch of better nots in with a bunch of can dos.

"a bunch of can'ts, a bunch of won'ts, and a bunch of better nots in with a bunch of can dos"

My list is filled with things congress should move on even if they can't etc..
don't you think? This is the thing that republicans congresses are terrible at. proposing "crazy" legislation over and over until it passes.

Obamacare/nat'l health care came to congress under the Clinton admin. the dems have never quit bringing that kinda crap to the table.
Gun control is constantly trotted out in various forms year after year..
Where are the real conservative bills and conservative repeals? why aren't they brought to the table year after year for decades?
I'm tried of the excuses, it's BS game. All one can conclude is that they aren't serious or something worse.

[fj1200]

"a bunch of can'ts, a bunch of won'ts, and a bunch of better nots in with a bunch of can dos"

My list is filled with things congress should move on even if they can't etc..
don't you think? This is the thing that republicans congresses are terrible at. proposing "crazy" legislation over and over until it passes.

Obamacare/nat'l health care came to congress under the Clinton admin. the dems have never quit bringing that kinda crap to the table.
Gun control is constantly trotted out in various forms year after year..
Where are the real conservative bills and conservative repeals? why aren't they brought to the table year after year for decades?
I'm tried of the excuses, it's BS game. All one can conclude is that they aren't serious or something worse.

Sorry but your list was also filled with things Congress better not get near even if they can. If they, for example, send up a repeal ACA bill weekly then they will quickly find themselves on their way out sooner than later. One bill to prove a point would be OK but they need to build an ideology to run on in 2016.

[revelarts]

Sorry but your list was also filled with things Congress better not get near even if they can. If they, for example, send up a repeal ACA bill weekly then they will quickly find themselves on their way out sooner than later. One bill to prove a point would be OK but they need to build an ideology to run on in 2016.

No ones saying they have to try it all at once, though that'd be great. But Someone in the GOP should run it up the flag poll and stand by it in EVERY congress. Gun control hasn't come in ALL AT ONCE. it's a Brady bill here, a Multi-rounds bill there.
The socialist grid can be dismantles in pieces. You seem to giving them excuses to do nothing... again. building an ideology? WTH have they been doing for the last 40 years on that front? the Tea Party has tried to PULL the GOP towards and ideology they claim to embrace already!
the Obamacare bill came up in the FACE of a huge group of people that we against it ideologically. there' no need for public consensus .
many people will just follow because "it's the law". or "it's NOT the law anymore"

[gabosaurus]

Now what? You have to take the White House. Which should prove to be a lot more difficult.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-election-analysis-20141105-story.html#page=1

[fj1200]

No ones saying they have to try it all at once, though that'd be great. But Someone in the GOP should run it up the flag poll and stand by it in EVERY congress. Gun control hasn't come in ALL AT ONCE. it's a Brady bill here, a Multi-rounds bill there.
The socialist grid can be dismantles in pieces. You seem to giving them excuses to do nothing... again. building an ideology? WTH have they been doing for the last 40 years on that front? the Tea Party has tried to PULL the GOP towards and ideology they claim to embrace already!
the Obamacare bill came up in the FACE of a huge group of people that we against it ideologically. there' no need for public consensus .
many people will just follow because "it's the law". or "it's NOT the law anymore"

No, I'm suggesting that they do what they can without looking like ideological Don Quixotes especially in areas that are not Federal issues; Looking at gay marriage. If they try to repeal ACA every week they'll look like minority party hacks whereas passing legislation that has a chance of passing or at the very least advancing what they believe in will show that they can govern and will identify who the real obstructionist is. I'm all for advancing conservative causes and dismantling creeping socialism but they also need to look at 2016 and beyond.

[Drummond]

Now what? You have to take the White House. Which should prove to be a lot more difficult.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-election-analysis-20141105-story.html#page=1

Wishful thinking, Gabby ?

Still, I don't preach complacency. Far from it !! I do think, however, that one should be on guard against publications that'd happily dream up excuses for doom & gloom prognostications. Cue a campaign from your Leftie LA Times to try for such an effect ?

Hopefully our own British 'Guardian' newspaper won't try to influence your election, as they once did in the swing State (we'd call it a 'marginal Constituency') of Clark County. This saw the Guardian ask their British readership to 'cold call' Clark County residents and try to persuade them not to lend support to the Republican side ....

[Happily, that tactic backfired on them ... the Guardian had to abandon it ..]

[Drummond]

No, I'm suggesting that they do what they can without looking like ideological Don Quixotes especially in areas that are not Federal issues; Looking at gay marriage. If they try to repeal ACA every week they'll look like minority party hacks whereas passing legislation that has a chance of passing or at the very least advancing what they believe in will show that they can govern and will identify who the real obstructionist is. I'm all for advancing conservative causes and dismantling creeping socialism but they also need to look at 2016 and beyond.

You're all for advancing Conservative causes, FJ ? Then why, from your post, do I get the impression that you're keen to cherrypick which of them should be fought for ?

I see the point of your argument, in the way you advance it. But I suggest this -- let the GOP show that it will fight for Conservative causes, that their own natural supporters would want them to care about ! Why try to neuter their ideological base ?

Is it your hope that, when it really counts, the GOP's record will seem to be a pale shadow of what its Conservative supporters would WISH it to be ... this giving traction to Dem electioneering arguments, as well as feeding the mood which would see Conservative support drop away ?

But fret not, FJ. You've pledged, in your post, on this forum, for all to see, that you're all for advancing Conservative causes !! That's a memorable statement, coming from you. I'm looking forward to ACTUALLY seeing you make good on that pledge, FJ, in your future contributions here !

-- Don't let me down, now !!! .......

[Thunderknuckles]

My bet is that Republicans will think they have carte blanche, screw it up, and get a Democrat elected as President like they did before.

My advice to Republicans: the only reason you took the Senate and gained in the House is because Americans are getting fed up with Democrats and are looking for a new direction. This does not equate to Americans liking Republicans any better. Try to actually get something positive done and show Americans that you deserve the White House in 2016. And for God's sake, please sack Boehner as Speaker of the House. He's about as useful as a broke dick dog.

[LongTermGuy]

`Now what?

`First things first....They need to start `dismantling and de-funding` all the Crap/stink....obama and crew have made.....

*In the coming months....There is *no need for reasoning or "feel-good" bargaining with Democrat (Liberals)...The American people have spoken last night...they want these leftist roaches and their failed Policies out......NO Compromising.....just getting rid of them and their bullsh!t.........

[fj1200]

`Now what?

`First things first....They need to start `dismantling and de-funding` all the Crap/stink....obama and crew have made.....

*In the coming months....There is *no need for reasoning or "feel-good" bargaining with Democrat (Liberals)...The American people have spoken last night...they want these leftist roaches and their failed Policies out......NO Compromising.....just getting rid of them and their bullsh!t.........

You do know that BO is still POTUS don't you?

[fj1200]

You're all for advancing Conservative causes, FJ ? Then why, from your post, do I get the impression that you're keen to cherrypick which of them should be fought for ?

I see the point of your argument, in the way you advance it. But I suggest this -- let the GOP show that it will fight for Conservative causes, that their own natural supporters would want them to care about ! Why try to neuter their ideological base ?

Is it your hope that, when it really counts, the GOP's record will seem to be a pale shadow of what its Conservative supporters would WISH it to be ... this giving traction to Dem electioneering arguments, as well as feeding the mood which would see Conservative support drop away ?

But fret not, FJ. You've pledged, in your post, on this forum, for all to see, that you're all for advancing Conservative causes !! That's a memorable statement, coming from you. I'm looking forward to ACTUALLY seeing you make good on that pledge, FJ, in your future contributions here !

-- Don't let me down, now !!! .......

Because your a mindless idiot who lets his inner knucklehead get out. My proof is that you've now backed the entire list of someone a short while ago who you've branded a leftie. :confused: You should try some consistency on occasion. :slap:

You know, things would go much more smoothly around here if you would respond to what I post rather than responding to your imagination.

[aboutime]

Come January, after everyone makes sure Harry Reid isn't playing more games with the rules THEY CHANGED. The Senate should instantly submit a FEDERAL BUDGET.

Obama, and Reid have ignored their mandated instructions to submit, and approve a budget since Obama took office.

SIX YEARS and Harry Reid has been sitting on hundreds of bills that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE demanded.

Personally. I will be celebrating the DEMISE of REID, and enjoy every minute of his miserable Whining as he attempts to demand the Republicans REMOVE all of Harry's Rule changes.

[Drummond]

Because your a mindless idiot who lets his inner knucklehead get out. My proof is that you've now backed the entire list of someone a short while ago who you've branded a leftie. :confused: You should try some consistency on occasion. :slap:

You know, things would go much more smoothly around here if you would respond to what I post rather than responding to your imagination.

Your posts are a figment of my imagination ??

I read your rot. I (usually against my better judgment) reply to it. You may not like those replies, but you've no hope of avoiding being 'bested' by convincing me that I've IMAGINED your rot !!

As for ...


.. you've now backed the entire list of someone a short while ago who you've branded a leftie.

.. sorry, but you'll have to explain what you're going on about. What 'list' have I 'backed' (.. this from someone who thinks Lady Thatcher posts approval messages on this forum ..) .. ?:tinfoil::tinfoil::tinfoil::confused0058:

Oh, and please, get cracking on those 'Conservative causes' you want to 'advance'. Don't feel you have to hold back on my account !! :laugh::laugh:

[fj1200]

Your posts are a figment of my imagination ??

I read your rot. I (usually against my better judgment) reply to it. You may not like those replies, but you've no hope of avoiding being 'bested' by convincing me that I've IMAGINED your rot !!

Yup, at least the way you read them is a figment of your imagination. And oh how much time you waste responding to my 'rot.' :laugh: But I do like your replies because I get to use them as proof of you being an idiot. I "best" you because you always end up running away because your imagination can't catch up with reality. ;)


.. sorry, but you'll have to explain ...

Oh, and please, get cracking on those 'Conservative causes' you want to 'advance'. Don't feel you have to hold back on my account !! :laugh::laugh:

Uh huh, that's the one to go with. ;) And one of us has to actually advance conservative causes and it's clearly not you because you're on record quite a few times as having backed Big Government...Big Government...Big Government... /echo :laugh: You hack.

[red state]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=713411#post713411)
It's not going to hurt Republicans unless they start passing crap laws. If they can start passing good laws and let BO veto them then they can run for POTUS in two years and clearly show where the obstruction is. They could also pass laws where BO has shown a hint of supporting progress, corporate tax reform for example, then they can take that opportunity to get what they want.


Agreed, and hoping it will work that way !!


True, true......but hoping it will happen and demanding it is two different things. I hear folks on this board criticizing other members for "talking" or "writing" without DOING.........and they are both correct and equally to blame. We need to constantly harass those who were elected to represent us and keep them on the ball. Make no mistake; the squeaky wheel gets the grease and libs are VERY good at squeaking and squawking.

I remember some of the very first things B.O. did when elected in 2008. I say we start there with the Dim's re-establishment of the "rich-inheritance-death tax". If ever Bush did something right, it was that. With this VETO from B.O. and all the other VETOs that are sure to follow, the Republicans need to voice it loud and clear what they had tried to do and why B.O. denied the American people GOOD laws that look out for the PEOPLE. If they have to, they need to be on every news cast they can and even put out adds. After all, we are walking into a new presidential cycle. I'd like to see them look into CRIMES that this administration has committed and go after them hard but not to the degree that it looks as though they are head hunting. I hate to say that cuz it sounds as if we should turn a blind eye and stick our finger in the wind (much as how the Republicans have conducted themselves) but we do have an economy and border to fix.

If the Republicans put out good laws regarding the border, Obolacare and terrorism/iSLUM, they could simply make Pres. Eboma look bad by VETO default. That alone SHOULD seal any chance of another JACK@$$ in the White House *(unless the Republicans put out losers like Mittens Romney, Christie Cream, McShame or some other FAKE. I am still hopeful that an Allen West can be persuaded to run. Heck, I need to look into Dr. Ben Carlson more. Either one of them beats anything we've been handed in 14+ years.

[LongTermGuy]

You do know that BO is still POTUS don't you?


`Common man..read between the lines...There are many options and possibilities...

[fj1200]

`Common man..read between the lines...There are many options and possibilities...

Uh huh.

[revelarts]

No, I'm suggesting that they do what they can without looking like ideological Don Quixotes especially in areas that are not Federal issues; Looking at gay marriage. If they try to repeal ACA every week they'll look like minority party hacks whereas passing legislation that has a chance of passing or at the very least advancing what they believe in will show that they can govern and will identify who the real obstructionist is. I'm all for advancing conservative causes and dismantling creeping socialism but they also need to look at 2016 and beyond.


It's not going to hurt Republicans unless they start passing crap laws. If they can start passing good laws and let BO veto them then they can run for POTUS in two years and clearly show where the obstruction is. They could also pass laws where BO has shown a hint of supporting progress, corporate tax reform for example, then they can take that opportunity to get what they want.

"Good laws"... "corporate tax reform for example." ?
lol that's funny fj.
the corporations are fat and happy already. CitiBank didn't even PAY taxes a few years back.
Unless you mean reinstating Glass Steagall or something. But neither party is ready to buck their corporate masters to do that yet.

What conservative laws can they pass that are not already on the books? Generally we have enough laws, (too many) they need to try and repeal or amend some. And abide the the Constitution.
But the budget is what's new that they have control of, If they can present a balanced budget that's Obama kills, then they may have some momentum.
But this timid approach is lame. when Bush wanted to go to war he and the executive pulled out all the stopped made up BS to make a case to go into IRAQ. Made a case to torture, made a case for domestic spying, made a case for more executive power. and they just did it... and explained it poorly later. They didn't wait for consensus or follow an ideological trend set. they MADE the trend and now people act as if attacking nations BEfore they attack us is normal. That's torture is NOT Torture because Bush did it "for a good reason". That locking people up in jail without a trial forever is OK if you have a "good reason" that you can keep classified forever for your safety .
If you had told "conservatives any of that would fly during the the Reagan Admin they'd have laughed at. The candiates talk tough during the campaign let them follow through.

and on the broader note
If congress doesn't reassert it's power in a real way constitutionally it will find that it's nearly as irrelevant as the senate was to the Caesars.

but i may already be to late.

[gabosaurus]

Now what?

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8370799360/hDCF55318/

[Drummond]

I think you're trying to set up conditions for just another of your thread hijacks ... eh, FJ ?


Yup, at least the way you read them is a figment of your imagination.

Perhaps I should read them in a way other than believing they're typed in English ?

How about 'double Dutch' or, 'gibberish', then ? If I saw your rot in those terms, would I fare any better ?


And oh how much time you waste responding to my 'rot.' :laugh:

It's a mystery, isn't it, FJ ? Perhaps you're telling me I'd be wiser not to ?

Or, is that what you'd PREFER -- because I keep 'besting' you ?

.. Aw ... diddums ....


But I do like your replies because I get to use them as proof of you being an idiot.

NEWSFLASH .... if that were true, you'd have no need to redraft so many of them !! No, all that's really proved is that you're a troll who can't tolerate decent, Conservative criticism, and cannot meet it in equal terms .....


I "best" you because you always end up running away because your imagination can't catch up with reality. ;)

Utterly delusional. A ridiculous comment.


Uh huh, that's the one to go with. ;) And one of us has to actually advance conservative causes and it's clearly not you because you're on record quite a few times as having backed Big Government...Big Government...Big Government... /echo :laugh: You hack.

.... ahem. YOU are the one on record, FJ, as ASSERTING I back 'Big Government'. The nearest I've got to that is to accept the sheer reality involved of certain problems requiring a 'Big Government' answer, because nothing else will fix those problems (obvious example: 9/11. How ELSE could that have been usefully responded to ?)

Besides, you, as a self-proclaimed 'Thatcherite', support a politician whose solutions to major problems (Union unrest, strikes, terrorist propaganda dissemination, etc) was to use State powers to tackle them !!! By your own so-called 'standards', this should, now, make you an ANTI Thatcherite .... yes ??

By the way, in post #22,I asked you ....


What 'list' have I 'backed' ?

You claimed I had. I've asked you to explain yourself. Why have you ducked that latest challenge ?

[fj1200]

... just another ... thread hijack ...

:blah:

You claimed I had. I've asked you to explain yourself. Why have you ducked that latest challenge ?

He says as he parses my post sentence by sentence. Man you dumb.

Oh, and there was only one list presented you hypocritical idiot. Go sell Big Government somewhere else, we've got enough Dems and RINOs to worry about over here.

[fj1200]

"Good laws"... "corporate tax reform for example." ?
lol that's funny fj.
the corporations are fat and happy already. CitiBank didn't even PAY taxes a few years back.
Unless you mean reinstating Glass Steagall or something. But neither party is ready to buck their corporate masters to do that yet.

What conservative laws can they pass that are not already on the books? Generally we have enough laws, (too many) they need to try and repeal or amend some. And abide the the Constitution.
But the budget is what's new that they have control of, If they can present a balanced budget that's Obama kills, then they may have some momentum.
But this timid approach is lame. when Bush wanted to go to war he and the executive pulled out all the stopped made up BS to make a case to go into IRAQ. Made a case to torture, made a case for domestic spying, made a case for more executive power. and they just did it... and explained it poorly later. They didn't wait for consensus or follow an ideological trend set. they MADE the trend and now people act as if attacking nations BEfore they attack us is normal. That's torture is NOT Torture because Bush did it "for a good reason". That locking people up in jail without a trial forever is OK if you have a "good reason" that you can keep classified forever for your safety .
If you had told "conservatives any of that would fly during the the Reagan Admin they'd have laughed at. The candiates talk tough during the campaign let them follow through.

and on the broader note
If congress doesn't reassert it's power in a real way constitutionally it will find that it's nearly as irrelevant as the senate was to the Caesars.

but i may already be to late.

Uh yeah, corporate tax reform. Do you know how noncompetitive our corporate tax structure is these days? Inversions mean anything? We need some serious corporate reform more than we need individual income tax rate cuts IMO. You're just lucky I didn't go all the way with my normal suggestion of eliminating the corporate tax code :poke: besides I would have guessed that you would like lower rates along with lower corporate "welfare." :dunno:

I'm arguing for the Republicans to live in the world of reality and not the world of "we won, fear us." The American people will toss them right out in two years if that is their position. The realities of a balanced budget will do that in a heart beat especially as the media would help savage the right if they go overboard. The budget was balanced in the '90s and it didn't take drastic measures to do so; spending restraint and pro-growth tax policies took care of it.

And yes, I agree that we need to repeal much of what's out there but realize that's not really going to happen with BO sitting over there not really wanting to be POTUS apparently. He's either tired and will sign on to what we want or he'll be intransigent and sign nothing, either way the only way to convince the people that the Republicans deserve both the POTUS and Congress is to act like they know what they're doing.

[Drummond]

He says as he parses my post sentence by sentence. Man you dumb.

.... says the troll, lapsing into semi-incoherence through reverting to non-grammatical language ...

And there you go AGAIN .... having to rewrite my post !! You see, you persist in proving my point, don't you. You just CANNOT deal with them on equal, fair, terms ... can you ??

Carry on - you just prove, incessantly, how weak your arguments are against me.


Oh, and there was only one list presented you hypocritical idiot. Go sell Big Government somewhere else, we've got enough Dems and RINOs to worry about over here.

Yes, there was the one list. And making any sense of your point with reference to it, is an impossibility. After all, you've yet to explain yourself with any coherence at all, despite REPEATED requests to do so.

I'm not 'selling' Big Government. I'm telling the truth about realities involving its application. However .... YOU have yet to explain your so-called 'Pro-Thatcherite' bona fides in terms of your own so-called 'hatred' of it ...

Fact is, FJ, that only one conclusion is possible about you. YOU ARE NOT AS YOU ADVERTISE YOURSELF TO BE.

[fj1200]

... how weak your arguments are against me.

YOU ARE NOT AS YOU ADVERTISE YOURSELF TO BE.

I see you are still on two idiotic narratives, that I'm on some sort of agenda when I'm the only one of us actually advocating for conservatism and that you are presenting actual arguments. All you do is prattle on about your imagination while spending zero time actually addressing my posts. You suck at this.

[Drummond]

I see you are still on two idiotic narratives, that I'm on some sort of agenda

.... really ?

I mentioned more than just the points you've now 'picked up' on. I understand your avoidance of my post in its entirety (... and your incessant thread-hijacks, by the way).

Yes, you have your LEFTIE, TROLL agenda. One of claiming your 'identity' as a 'Conservative', yet you keep on attacking CONSERVATIVES on this forum. You seemingly never tire of attacking Conservatives here !!

You also claim to be 'Thatcherite' whilst being in denial about a part of her political methodology .....


when I'm the only one of us actually advocating for conservatism

... see what I mean ?

You oppose much of what Lady Thatcher actually DID in her role as PM .... yet, you claim what you do ??

So tell me. Do you deny that Lady Thatcher was a Conservative ?


All you do is prattle on about your imagination

Utter, and bizarre, rot.


.. while spending zero time actually addressing my posts. You suck at this.

Which of us ANSWERS the others' posts .... and which of us just rewrites them, trolling the other, inventing personal bona fides which are patently untrue ??!?

[fj1200]

.... really ?

My god you whine like an idiot. You prattle on about hijacking and now we have to deal with your tripe in this thread too? Do you have any clue what this thread is about? Newsflash: It's not about Mags and it's not about me smoking you in yet another debate so it would be helpful for everyone if you could leave your hypocrisy behind. If you want to start a thread dedicated to defending Big Government please do so, it'll expose you for the hack you are.

[Drummond]

My god you whine like an idiot. You prattle on about hijacking and now we have to deal with your tripe in this thread too? Do you have any clue what this thread is about? Newsflash: It's not about Mags and it's not about me smoking you in yet another debate so it would be helpful for everyone if you could leave your hypocrisy behind. If you want to start a thread dedicated to defending Big Government please do so, it'll expose you for the hack you are.

Hilarious !!

YOU are the thread hijacker here, as an examination of this thread (one of many) readily proves. And you evade answering me, having kicked all of this off in the first place (!!), by claiming ME to be the hijacker ?

You posted. I answered points raised in your post - with very fair points of mine. Your attack on me was then launched in earnest ... in troll fashion.

You're unreal.

And in fact, that's the whole truth. Your bona fides are unreal. Your 'indignation' is unreal, done just for trolling effect. You, the 'Conservative', keep ATTACKING Conservatives here, time and again.

How tiresome you are.

I'm sure we'll all be 'treated' to yet another of your thread hijacks in the coming days (... certainly weeks ...) .....

Bye bye, Leftie ....

[fj1200]

Hilarious !!

I live in delusion here...

Bye bye, Leftie ....

Just checked, yup, you're the hypocritical idiot who keeps bringing up Mags in unrelated threads. Run along now you mindless hack.

[Drummond]

Just checked, yup, you're the hypocritical idiot who keeps bringing up Mags in unrelated threads. Run along now you mindless hack.

Yet another post rewrite, eh, FJ ... just the latest of a long history of them from you. Yet another post of yours, containing text in no way related to the thread's subject matter. And YOU try to preach to ME ....

Judging you by your OWN claimed 'standards' ... it follows that you, in fact, should 'run along' ...

Will you be true to your own advice ? Or are you waiting for the opportunity to attack another Conservative on this forum, instead ?

-- Let's see, shall we ..?

[fj1200]

... in no way related to the thread's subject matter.

:laugh: That's why you're a hypocritical idiot. You can't even follow your own "bye, bye" proclamation either. You'll be better off turning to ignore so you can just get your backslaps from the knuckleheads.