People who lick the bottom of Trumps boot

a reply to: burdman30ott6

What gets to me is that both parties are incapable of seeing that often both sides can win by simply compromising.

For instance on the border issue. There is no reason at all the wall can't be built, as I agree it should, and at the same time make it easy for workers to come here, and also deal with people who have already been living here for most of their lives so they don't get hurt or rounded up. Both sides have their heels dug in which is just wrong.

Health care can't ever be truly dealt with without a compromise and both sides again, heels dug in.

There is no innocent Party in this mess.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I have problems with that, and the Wall is a throw away which isn't a part of those problems. When we are dealing with actual iron clad differences between the two sides we are often dealing with this "fundamentally change America" versus "upholding the existing Rights and values of America" argument. Sorry, you don't compromise on issues of Rights and traditional values. That's a fool's errand at best and I am having dejavu as you and I have had that conversation with each other on multiple occassions.

a reply to: dfnj2015

He compromised initially on DACA. Both Nancy and Chucky passed on it because, well, Orange Man Bad. The proposal offered protection to seven hundred thousand in exchange for five billion in wall funding.

Sadly the DACA folks got screwed and the funding for the wall is around two billion anyway. He makes deals and does compromise but the resistance does not

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't think that both protecting the border and at the same time making it easier to come here and work fundamentally changes anything. That's just a matter of common sense regulation of immigration.

Working together on healthcare fundamentally changes nothing, it just makes healthcare cheaper and more available.

Neither is a Constitutional issue.

Yes we have talked about this before. Both sides can't have it all their way, nor should they. Neither party has a majority. What scares me is single party control from either side. Look what happened when the Left had it for a bit, the ACA was the result.

a reply to: Blaine91555

The Right had full control from 2000 to 2006... I lost no rights and suffered no great tax burdens. I know the keystone of maintaining status as an independent mandates that you decry the idea of monotheistic partisan control, I get you.. I just don't agree with you. Yeah, full left control is a nightmare as proven by history, full Right control, as shown by history, is a prosperous time for this country where the song of Constitutionally enumerated freedom is on every AMERICAN'S lips, paper stuffs the wallets, and personal responsibility frolicks tither and yon.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's tough being a moderate guy

Let's not forget the Iraq War which started in 2003. That has been a bit of a financial burden.

Desert Storm was absolutely the right thing to do, but the Iraq War, not so much.

The economy tanked under Bush and health care skyrocketed. They did not do much to help the little guy either.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Both the economy and health care issues happened under the last 2 years of Bush, though. Dems held the House and the Senate (via the 2 "independents" who caucused with them). Most of the economic crisis and all of the health crisis were credited to the left's incessant positioning of subsidizing that which should instead be worked for earned while driving the prices (and risks) up for the system and those who actually pay their own costs.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm a Reagan kind of moderate with a glass half full viewpoint and an understanding that compromise is in fact a good thing.

I won't say I don't change views at times. I was for the Iraq War before I was against it. That 1.1 trillion dollar boondoggle was a horrible mistake.

I've been on the Far Left and Far Right in my life and in the end, I've settled on being disgusted with both parties and the politics of hate.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I was in favor of the Iraq War, but opposed to *how* Bush opted to fight it. There was no need for troops and "winning hearts and minds" was a losing proposition. Go in, reduce the country to rubble, retrieve Hussein's carcass, leave. is how that should have played out.

originally posted by: Athetos
What about those who lick Soleimani’s boot?

There are just as many people who Vilify Trump as idolize him. To some he is God and the hero to others he is Satan and the villain.
He is just a man as fallible as you and me.

He isn’t however nearly as flawed in my opinion as the media would prefer us to believe.

a reply to: dfnj2015

You said it best. When you have real threats to America like china and radical islam, I think Trump is the best man to take the helm. It's always best to strive for peace, work things out, cause we all need more time to sort things out with the creator. But when the gloves come off, and we are at war, you get behind the president, support and defend America, and thats the way it should be.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I read a very good book recently on American style Fascism which has been on the rise:

Yep - IMO the catalyst was Bush Snr, the globalist CIA director who announced that the NWO will happen, by hook or by crook - next we had Puffin Billy Clinton with his charisma and charm masking his scum. Then Bush Jr - dickhead extraordinaire, then Obama, the silver tongued devil who came in peacefully and ultimately advanced the globalists agenda. Then we had Trump and he has exposed the cabal running the sh!t show since Bush Snr.

All scum from both sides of the aisle can now go & rot in hell - the hammer is coming.

Never again.

End
of
Story.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I was in favor of the Iraq War,

Why? The whole premise was 9/11 and WMD, which was false.

Go in, reduce the country to rubble,

Why? People live there. You might hate the leader, why leave the entire country in ruins for that?

a reply to: Liquesence

Iraq did have WMD's.

really.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

Iraq did have WMD's.

really.

When we gave them to them years ago. Not when we invaded.

Nothing to do with 9/11, which was the official justification.

False premise.

At what point are the progressives going to learn that they're medicated pipe dreams of a socialist utopia aren't going to happen?

You guys are literally surrounded by patriots.

Patriots are not fond of people who want to destroy a very beautiful republic full of opportunity and freedom.

We are your military.
We are your fire department.
We are your EMS.
We are your sheriffs department.

We aren't letting you "interpret" or alter the constitution in any way.

It's not going to happen.


We don't need, and will not sign up for "registries" or "licenses" for firearms.

And at the end of the day, firearms are whats stopping you from becoming tyrant totalitarians.

Mark my words.

You aren't going to ruin our country.



And have a nice day, as this is not personal. And as an American patriot, I will defend your freedom to believe, and say, and do whatever you like.

Because that's what makes this the best country in the planet.



And for non Americans living here illegally, we are waiting for you to join us.

Become a citizen, and enjoy the pride if knowing you are helping, not harming a country that will embrace anyone who embraces it back.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Your hypocrisy is surpassed only by your pathological inadequacy and projections.

How conveniently you forget the Obama youth synchronized chanting, the leftist hack talking heads getting chills up their legs listening to him read off his teleprompter, the absurdity of his nobel prize...

You've become a cartoon character personification of that what you accuse others of.

I'd be embarrassed for you, but it would be wasted.

Should not this thread be in the Rant section ?
Sounds like one to me...
Cannot even live up to the standards of the Mud Pit even

A Rant
A "screamin at the sky" Rant.

a reply to: Gothmog

Oh just wait until the 'Why Do Democrats Enjoy Killing Unborn/Newborn Babies' post pops up.

a reply to: dfnj2015

well, think about it... would you rather lick trumps boot, or hillary's ass?

I know which I'd prefer, despite there being no evidence of such a thing occurring.. I do see evidence of people who say for all the good he has done, if he makes a bad move, I will say something about it.

I think the boot licking ideology comes more from people who are easily led by the nose from a stinking left wing mainstream medeia and prolific high profile people who pretend to be someone else for a living, more than anything.