Chris Christie 2016?

[TxHoops]

It's amazing how time has a way of erasing/changing history. There's not much difference between bil'sl and obama's philosophy. Remember, after 40 years, the Republicans won control of the House after two years of the clinton fiasco. But, to his credit, and to save his Presidency, he worked with the Republicans. Meaning he HAD to move to the right. And guess what -- it saved his Presidency. Imagine that! But, obama just doesn't have it in him to do what bill did. That's the Chicago thugocracy coming out in him!

So the Reagan years the GOPers love to tout were due to the Democratic congress? Ok, got it 😀

[smitty]

So the Reagan years the GOPers love to tout were due to the Democratic congress? Ok, got it

Getting it and actually getting it is two different things.  Read your history.  bill had to Triangulate to save his Presidency.  Knowing that he was a lefty -- do you HONESTLY think Welfare Reform would have been passed if the Dems had all three branches?  NO!  the GOP pulled him dragging and screaming.  Read your history.  THEN you will get it.   ;)

[mat]

The Media will break down Christy before he ever gets rolling.

 

A bipartisan president will not accomplish much with the current division of the parties.

[TxHoops]

Getting it and actually getting it is two different things. Read your history. bill had to Triangulate to save his Presidency. Knowing that he was a lefty -- do you HONESTLY think Welfare Reform would have been passed if the Dems had all three branches? NO! the GOP pulled him dragging and screaming. Read your history. THEN you will get it. ;)

As usual, the point being made flies over your head before you even see it. At least you are consistent ;)

[smitty]

As usual, the point being made flies over your head before you even see it. At least you are consistent ;)

LOL!  Your typical response when you get busted.  It's been stated here before that facts tend to bore you.  As with most liberals.  Why?  Because if they dealt with the truth then they would not be liberal, now would they?!  It's been said that for a lot of people their historical perception is from only when they were born.   ;)

[TxHoops]

LOL!  Your typical response when you get busted.  It's been stated here before that facts tend to bore you.  As with most liberals.  Why?  Because if they dealt with the truth then they would not be liberal, now would they?!  It's been said that for a lot of people their historical perception is from only when they were born.   ;)

 

Busted?  LOL!!!  That is funny. Because it was you who was either clearly oblivious of the point to which you responded, or blatantly ignored it. 

 

I was just letting you know what that sound is buzzing over the top of your head.  As for facts tend to bore me, I don't know who stated that but it was probably you, or your alter ego Bubba.  Either way, I would advise not to listen too closely.  It is the voice of an obsessed, and possibly senile, fool.

[TxHoops]

I don't know why you are wasting time with me though.  You have websites to pour over so you can start another 10-15 threads today over our President.  Not to mention "TTT"ing the ones that are so lame no one responds.  Now get with it...QUICKLY!!!!

[stevenash]

Come on, Smitty.  It is improper to question the President and/or his policies.  Everything is going "swimmingly" and you need to just be quiet.

( freedom of speech does not apply here)  It's only acceptable if Cindy Sheehan wants to exercise it. 

[TxHoops]

Come on, Smitty.  It is improper to question the President and/or his policies.  Everything is going "swimmingly" and you need to just be quiet.

( freedom of speech does not apply here)  It's only acceptable if Cindy Sheehan wants to exercise it. 

 

Don't listen to that mess, Smitty.  You have at least 15 threads to start before sundown!  I am sure Stevie will even give you several "courtesy" replies!

[stevenash]

I will always be here for replies, to those with whom I agree and to those with whom I disagree.  Last time I checked, neither was in violation of any rules or laws.  I just never realized there was going to be any "thread volume" police here.   I figured it would be easier for one to ignore the posts of those who are considered "unworthy". But since there is, I will just watch and see when tickets are issued to me, Big Girl, and EnlightenedChosen One ( with the supposition that two of the three aforementioned will be exempted from scrutiny)

[TxHoops]

Of course, it is all within the rules.  And of course there is no limit.  That is why I am encouraging him!

[stevenash]

Very glad to hear that.  For a while there, I got the impression that you were condescending to Smitty.  Like him or not, his viewpoint is every bit as valid/credible as that of anyone else here.  What some  people dislike about Smitty is that he makes no bones about where he stands just as some others do on the opposite end of the spectrum.  There are folks from varied positions here.  There are those on the left, those on the right, those in the middle, and those in the middle who aren't really there but do there damndest to convince everyone they are because they believe that claiming that viewpoint somehow makes them appear  more intelligent and "above the fray".

[TxHoops]

Very glad to hear that.  For a while there, I got the impression that you were condescending to Smitty.  Like him or not, his viewpoint is every bit as valid/credible as that of anyone else here.  What some  people dislike about Smitty is that he makes no bones about where he stands just as some others do on the opposite end of the spectrum.  There are folks from varied positions here.  There are those on the left, those on the right, those in the middle, and those in the middle who aren't really there but do there damndest to convince everyone they are because they believe that claiming that viewpoint somehow makes them appear  more intelligent and "above the fray".

 

I have seen multiple times on this board where people claim there is no such thing as a moderate.  To be fair, I do not think you have ever said that.  I consider myself moderate, although I am quite certain some here would say I am a bleeding heart liberal.  I am pro-life, vehemently against the death penalty, and believe we need welfare reform again (although I would definitely not be in the camp that would eliminate it altogether).  I am for sliding scale tax bracket and have no problem being on the upper end of that scale.  I am very much an advocate for social equality, whether it be for different races or sexual orientations.  And I am honest enough to admit that I would be closer to the liberal side of things, than the conservative.  I have been told on this board that some of the things I believe in prevent me from being a Christian.  I actually feel pity and empathy for those who believe that.  I am definitely a person of faith, and that defines my views on many political subjects.  I believe in the separation of church and state; however, I do believe one's faith defines their values system and cannot be extricated from their political leanings.  If there is a way to do it, I am not smart enough to have figured it out anyway.

[TxHoops]

And, for the record, I support the SCOTUS's decision in the Hobby Lobby case.  I have read every word of it and think they made the right decision on the right grounds.  I have a lot more respect for Justice Ginsburg than I do Justice Alito, but he got it right in this case, and while I admire the spirit of her dissent, she was on the wrong side of this one.

[smitty]

And, for the record, I support the SCOTUS's decision in the Hobby Lobby case.  I have read every word of it and think they made the right decision on the right grounds.  I have a lot more respect for Justice Ginsburg than I do Justice Alito, but he got it right in this case, and while I admire the spirit of her dissent, she was on the wrong side of this one.

HA!  Now we know you are a flaming liberal.  Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg is as about as competent as Sotomayer and Kagan.  They are 99.9% wrong on every decision made. 

[smitty]

Come on, Smitty.  It is improper to question the President and/or his policies.  Everything is going "swimmingly" and you need to just be quiet.

( freedom of speech does not apply here)  It's only acceptable if Cindy Sheehan wants to exercise it. 

Right, Steve.  It's amazing how liberals here are so far right that all they can do regurgitate their socialist talking points.  All the libs have to do is connect the dots.  But when all they can say is "democrats good Republicans bad", well, connecting the political dots may as well be Quantum Physics. 

[TxHoops]

Right, Steve.  It's amazing how liberals here are so far right that all they can do regurgitate their socialist talking points.  All the libs have to do is connect the dots.  But when all they can say is "democrats good Republicans bad", well, connecting the political dots may as well be Quantum Physics. 

 

I have no doubt that your understanding of Quantum Physics probably rivals your understanding of politics in general.

[stevenash]

I don't understand the first thing about Quantum physics ( same applies to many others on this board but I will go ahead and admit same)  However, that has zero, zilch, nada relevance to the oft discussed topic of the competence and integrity of the current administration