Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not until the other, newer old guy in it tells us whose sock puppet he is.
I'll give you pink sock if you really need a sock.
are you Dr.Houses little Mini House?....
I'll give you pink sock if you really need a sock.
are you Dr.Houses little Mini House?....
Mini House? No, but you can call me Cottage if you like.
are you Dr.Houses little Mini House?....
Mini House? No, but you can call me Cottage if you like.
you do know we already have a Dr.House here who always has a Dr. House Avi....just in case you did not know....thats why i asked....
Mini House? No, but you can call me Cottage if you like.
you do know we already have a Dr.House here who always has a Dr. House Avi....just in case you did not know....thats why i asked....
Of course, he dropped in on my intro thread.
you do know we already have a Dr.House here who always has a Dr. House Avi....just in case you did not know....thats why i asked....
Of course, he dropped in on my intro thread.
how sweet
Double for John Sununu types too. He, by himself, prolly cost Romney 5 million votes. By. him. self.We lost an important election. That loss does not require that we all act like a bunch of meniacal partisan jackasses.
We have work to do within our own ranks and crying fowl does nothing for our cause. Except maybe make us look small and petty.
No election was stolen. No great injustice was done. We lost both with moderate and conservative candidates. Thus our problem is within not without. We have a message and branding problem. No ammount of crying about the election outcome will change that.
Just my two cents
The Republican Party has to learn to include those with more moderate views. It doesn't mean they need to completely agree, but they need to stop driving those people from the party. At present, there is no room in the party for those who believe in fiscal responsibility yet do not always believe that getting there involves cutting taxes, and who have more moderate views on social issues. If you're Richard Lugar, you are called a RINO and you are not wanted. Only Richard Mourdock types are now accepted into the party. Well, personally, i was a Richard Lugar type, and now I am no longer a Republican. As far as I'm concerned, if all you want is a party of Richard Mourdocks, then have at it.
When you see that people like Mourdock and Akin both lost in very Republican states, it's time to rethink things. Allen West is another example. If you want to make the Republican Party relevant again, do not fall for the notion that you lost because you weren't conservative enough. Honestly, it has nothing to do with how conservative the candidates are. It has to do with pushing away anyone with a somewhat differing view. For the same reason that Republicans refuse to deal with Dems in the House in a fiscally responsible way, Republicans continue to believe in "my way or the highway" governance. Simply stated, it's not working.
I'm marking all the RWers that thanked this thread and am hoping to be more civil with them going forward.We lost an important election. That loss does not require that we all act like a bunch of meniacal partisan jackasses.
We have work to do within our own ranks and crying fowl does nothing for our cause. Except maybe make us look small and petty.
No election was stolen. No great injustice was done. We lost both with moderate and conservative candidates. Thus our problem is within not without. We have a message and branding problem. No ammount of crying about the election outcome will change that.
Just my two cents
That's a crock. If personal behaviors dictated political affiliation, there wouldn't be an RNC left. The supposed "family values" group loves to hit up strip clubs after conventions, not to mention the retarded amount of sex scandals.
Speak for yourself. And, that you make such a presumption? This only goes to demonstrate your ideals. You figure if you do it, everyone else must too. And, what do you know of what supposed "family values" group hits up strip clubs after conventions? You the one servicing them...or something?
No, they're in the papers because it's just that damned ironic when a political group that espouses family values gives strip clubs a boom night when they're in town.
Consider yourself schooled.
Speak for yourself. And, that you make such a presumption? This only goes to demonstrate your ideals. You figure if you do it, everyone else must too. And, what do you know of what supposed "family values" group hits up strip clubs after conventions? You the one servicing them...or something?
No, they're in the papers because it's just that damned ironic when a political group that espouses family values gives strip clubs a boom night when they're in town.
Consider yourself schooled.
LOL! Perhaps you ought to stop listening to stories which originate from TMZ. Which, others take and run with.
However, if there are any so-called "Republicans" at the strip club? This only goes to reinforce what I've been saying all along. That, they THINK they're Republicans.
But, alas, you haven't "schooled" anyone on crap. The articles are filled with hearsay, vague references to the RNC although it doesn't necessarily say any particular given Republicans are frequenting the strip clubs and, according to the article on Fox News you presented, only one club was allegedly "booming" in customers. Also, when someone goes to a strip club? It isn't always necessarily to ogle nude females. Maybe they liked the food? But, don't get me wrong. I'm by no means saying there are never Republicans frequenting strip clubs to ogle women. They're the ones of whom I reference in another post. The ones who let their inner leftist hang out. Or, their evil side, per se.
Less government in the bedroom as well? When they start keeping it in the bedroom, I'll go right along with you. Respect of privacy? Want to elaborate on how someone's privacy is being infringed upon by the right? And, no one has reproductive "rights". It's just simply not in the Constitution. But, there are laws against murder and why should someone be allowed to abort their child when, if someone were to get in an automobile accident with a pregnant woman and that child were killed, the individual who got in the automobile accident with the woman would likely go to prison on some kind of murder charge? What about the "rights" of the unborn child? Leftists will appoint themselves the champions of animals, plants and, even insects, because the they can't speak for themselves so, why are they so opposed to conservatives appointing themselves champions of someone who can't speak for him/herself...the unborn child?
They don't need to get married to have equal protection under the law and, no one, including heterosexuals, has a "right" to get married. That isn't in the Constitution either.
I'm all with you here. However, to my knowledge, I haven't heard of anyone who isn't for protecting "important" government services. They may want to change them a little and make them more efficient and reduce the waste, fraud, etc., but I'm not aware of anyone who doesn't want to protect what are "important" government services. Further, by whose definition of "important" government services? While leftists may find some particular government service "important", others may find it not necessarily so "important". With the exception of your suggestion concerning spending, the rest pretty much sounds like leftist policies and, you might just as well be a leftist with a slight hint of conservatism in it, insofar as spending goes.
Sure we do. If we turn into leftists, we have quite a bit to lose.
In addition to abandoning the idiocy of rightist social political dogma, obviously many conservatives need to education themselves as to the Constitution and its case law, such as the doctrines of substantive due process, equal protection of the law, and the fact that marriage is indeed a fundamental right:
[D]ecisions of [the Supreme] Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
For someone who has the Bill of Rights as their avatar, seems you have some problems understanding a few things about the Constitution and this nation. No one cares what the Supreme Court says. The Supreme Court doesn't make law nor, does it establish rights. The Constitution establishes rights, the Supreme Court only interprets law. Congress makes law. If Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court's interpretation of a law they are free to argue Supreme Court's interpretation of the law. Whether the Supreme Court allegedly confirms there's some alleged "right" to marry is irrelevant. The Supreme Court doesn't establish "rights"...the Constitution does. And, again, no where in the Constitution does it say anyone, including heterosexuals, have the "right" to marry. Marriage is a God given right, not a Constitutional "right". And, insofar as due process and equal protection of the law? Again, they don't need to be married to enjoy due process and equal protection of the law. They can enjoy the same due process and equal protection through a civil union or, for that matter, they can simply draw up a notarized contract with a lawyer advising them every step of the way. They just want to be contentious.
And oh, P.S. By the way? While you're here giving me lectures on how being conservative is less government intrusion? Here you are, citing a Supreme Court case allegedly, somehow, establishing a "right" to marry. LOL! Last time I checked, the Supreme Court is part of the government and, here they are, intruding in trying to say someone has a "right" to marry.
So in other words...we abandon our principles and become leftists? Talk about indoctrination. If you can't beat them...join them, is your solution?
Uhmmmm, if they smoke weed and suck Dick? They're not REALLY conservatives, they just THINK they are. When, in reality, they're extremely confused leftists who have a demented sense of what being a conservative is.
We lost an important election. That loss does not require that we all act like a bunch of meniacal partisan jackasses.
We have work to do within our own ranks and crying fowl does nothing for our cause. Except maybe make us look small and petty.
No election was stolen. No great injustice was done. We lost both with moderate and conservative candidates. Thus our problem is within not without. We have a message and branding problem. No ammount of crying about the election outcome will change that.
Just my two cents
It's been a fascinating couple of days.
The Republicans seem to have divided into two camps: Those like Grampa, who are engaging in sincere self-reflection (which, frankly, has surprised the livin' shit out of me), and those who are in complete denial and ready to double down on everything that put them in this position.
Question: Did anyone here who thought Obama was going to win (I had him at 300 EV, I undershot) expect any of the Republicans to question themselves? Holy crap, I even heard Limbaugh yesterday sounding very resigned, saying "we're outnumbered". Never would I have expected that.
So who wins - those who can see that the GOP needs to re-evaluate, or those who want to double down?
.
SCOTUS rules on the law, which tells Gramps what to do or not to do.
SCOTUS rules only on that law Congress establishes. And, by the way? If you want something to become a "right"? This is how you do it. You encourage Congress to adopt an amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, it isn't a "right" unless it has already been amended to the Constitution.
CrochetyGeezer is just grumpy cause he got his electoral butt royally kicked.
CrochetyGeezer is just grumpy cause he got his electoral butt royally kicked.
SCOTUS rules on the law, which tells Gramps what to do or not to do.
SCOTUS rules only on that law Congress establishes. And, by the way? If you want something to become a "right"? This is how you do it. You encourage Congress to adopt an amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, it isn't a "right" unless it has already been amended to the Constitution.
CrochetyGeezer is just grumpy cause he got his electoral butt royally kicked.
No, I'm grumpy because more than half the people (if you really want to call them that) in this nation are brainless wonders of biblical proportions. I mean, it's clear in all the polls. These morons didn't elect that Obamination because they thought he can do a good job and get done what he couldn't get done in four years. They didn't elect him because he's got some special miraculous plan to restore the greatness this nation once had. No, they elected him simply so they could rub others' faces in it.
On September 8 through the 12th, a CBS News/New York Times poll indicated that 28% thought they were worse off than four years ago while 25% said they were better off. In a Fox News poll conducted September 9 through 11th, 42% said they weren't better off than four years ago and the same said they were better off. In a USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted August 11 and 13th, 53% said they were worse off today than four years ago while 45% said they were better off.
In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted November 1 through 3rd, 53% of those polled thought the nation was on the wrong track while 42% thought it was on the right track. And AP-GfK poll conducted on October 19 through 23rd, 50% of those polled thought the nation was on the wrong track while 41% thought it was on the right track. In a CBS News poll conducted October 17 through 20th, 53% thought the nation was on the wrong track while 40% thought it was on the right track.
In a Pew Research Center poll conducted October 24 through 28th, 50% of those polled believed that Romney would do a better job improving the job situation while 42% believed Obama would improve the job situation. In the same poll, 51% thought Romney would to a better job reducing the federal budget deficit, while 37% believed Obama would do a better job reducing the federal budget deficit.
In an AP-GfK poll conducted October 19 through 13th, 51% of those polled thought Romney would do a better job handling the economy while 44% thought Obama would do a better job handling the economy. In the same poll, 51% thought Romney would do a better job handling the federal budget deficit while 43% thought Obama would do a better job handling the federal budget deficit.
In a CBS News poll conducted October 17 through 20th, 48% of those polled thought Romney would do better handling the federal budget deficit while 42% thought Obama would do a better job handling the federal budget deficit. In the same poll, 48% thought Romney would do a better job handling the economy and unemployment while 45% thought Obama would do a better job handling the economy and unemployment.
In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted on October 17 through 20th, 46% of those polled thought Romney would do a better job dealing with the economy while 40% believed Obama would do a better job dealing with the economy. And, in the same poll, 46% thought Romney would do a better job on jobs and unemployment while 39% thought Obama would do a better job on jobs and unemployment.
So, with all this, it is clear that anyone who voted for Obama didn't do so because they believed he'd improve the economy and get people back to work and, they didn't vote for him because they thought he could get the country back on track and, they didn't vote for him because they thought they were better off today than they were four years ago. No, they just voted for him because they're brainless petty loons who just simply wanted to say "HA! We won, you lost". But, considering what is reflected above? I don't know as if you've necessarily won. You may have won the election but, "HA! We won, you lost" doesn't get you very far in getting you a job, getting the economy better and reducing the federal budget deficit if you believe Obama is incapable of achieving these tasks.
So, don't kid yourself. I'm grumpy because you and yours are just plain and simply stupid.
Uhmmmm, if they smoke weed and suck Dick? They're not REALLY conservatives, they just THINK they are. When, in reality, they're extremely confused leftists who have a demented sense of what being a conservative is.
What is your definition of "conservative?"
I assure you that Ann Coulter and Laura Ingram have sucked several dicks, and both Dennis Miller and John Stossel have admitted to smoking pot in the past.
Hell, I've smoked it in the past.
We lost an important election. That loss does not require that we all act like a bunch of meniacal partisan jackasses.
We have work to do within our own ranks and crying fowl does nothing for our cause. Except maybe make us look small and petty.
No election was stolen. No great injustice was done. We lost both with moderate and conservative candidates. Thus our problem is within not without. We have a message and branding problem. No ammount of crying about the election outcome will change that.
Just my two cents
