Long Cons: G.O.P.'s Trademark

[Aldo Raine]

 

[Grumblenuts]

You fall for everything. They commissioned a group that reviewed the literature. That was not a study of the data or the accuracy of the literature..

Though you quote the lot, you're apparently just referring to "Royal Dutch Shell's position on the dangers of global warming before a new, recently revealed treasure trove of internal company documents going back to the 50's revealed their realposition on the matter." Try being coherent. Are you claiming here that the Bradcast -or- did Royal Dutch Shell hire some unspecified "group" to "review" some unspecified "literature"? Speak English. Be specific. What's your actual attempted point?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Not that the Dems have anything to crow about, but the Repugs sure do take the cake here:

We unpack alotta long cons on today's BradCast, some of them decades in the making. Among them: Trump's new position on U.S. war in places like Syria, versus his position before he became President; GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan's position on deficit spending before he and Congressional Republicans exploded the deficit and he announced on Wednesday he's retiring from the U.S. House; And, Royal Dutch Shell's position on the dangers of global warming before a new, recently revealed treasure trove of internal company documents going back to the 50's revealed their realposition on the matter.

Any G.O.P. apologists care to try and defend any of this?

I don't care what your opinion is, why would I care about this bradcast opinion?

You ask for someone to defend this, without first determining if it is at all accurate and/or if anyone here supports it as it is being described.

Have a nice day.

And yet another G.O.P. apologist outs themself and promptly leaves in a huff, panties atwist.

 

[depotoo]

Actually, no, I am quoting on the supposed treasure trove. Maybe get your info from other places than simply biased sources.

You fall for everything. They commissioned a group that reviewed the literature. That was not a study of the data or the accuracy of the literature..

Though you quote the lot, you're apparently just referring to "Royal Dutch Shell's position on the dangers of global warming before a new, recently revealed treasure trove of internal company documents going back to the 50's revealed their realposition on the matter." Try being coherent. Are you claiming here that the Bradcast -or- did Royal Dutch Shell hire some unspecified "group" to "review" some unspecified "literature"? Speak English. Be specific. What's your actual attempted point?

 

[Darkwind]

Not that the Dems have anything to crow about, but the Repugs sure do take the cake here:

We unpack alotta long cons on today's BradCast, some of them decades in the making. Among them: Trump's new position on U.S. war in places like Syria, versus his position before he became President; GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan's position on deficit spending before he and Congressional Republicans exploded the deficit and he announced on Wednesday he's retiring from the U.S. House; And, Royal Dutch Shell's position on the dangers of global warming before a new, recently revealed treasure trove of internal company documents going back to the 50's revealed their realposition on the matter.

Any G.O.P. apologists care to try and defend any of this?

I don't care what your opinion is, why would I care about this bradcast opinion?

You ask for someone to defend this, without first determining if it is at all accurate and/or if anyone here supports it as it is being described.

Have a nice day.

And yet another G.O.P. apologist outs themself and promptly leaves in a huff, panties atwist.

I haven't apologized for jack. But I do see another progressive liar, spreading propaganda in service for their own slavery.

 

[g5000]

He did not. He had a Republican majority in the Senate-

The composition of the 109th Congress (2005 - 2007) was as follows: Senate: 44 D, 55 R House: 202 D, 231 R The composition of the 110th Congress (2007 - ) is as follows: Senate: 49 D, 49 R House: 233 D, 198 R Reference:

When we have 61 seats, then get back to me.

Bullshit. Total bullshit.

Ryan and Trump can't claim to have a replacement for Obamacare, and not really have one, and then blame their hoax on not having a foolproof majority.

The GOP massively hoaxed you, man. Wake the fuck up.

Did Reagan have a 61 seat majority?

Nope. He had a Democratic Congress and still managed to get what he wanted.

Your excuse is bogus. Totally bogus. It's the excuse of a huckster which you are parroting.

You know how you get shit done? BY HAVING A SUPERIOR PLAN.


Trump and the Republicans have NOTHING. It's all they have had for the past two decades.

Reagan was elected in 2000.

The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981.

With a Democratic Congress.

After the 2004 election, he STILL didn't have a 61 seat majority. Not even close.

My point stands.

Dafuq? 2000? Have finally overdosed on stupid?

An obvious typo, tard. "The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981."

With a Democratic Congress.

My point stands. Trump is a big spending asshole who is ACCELERATING our country's deficits while you tards are bent over with his cock up your asses and taking it.

 

[miketx]

He did not. He had a Republican majority in the Senate-

The composition of the 109th Congress (2005 - 2007) was as follows: Senate: 44 D, 55 R House: 202 D, 231 R The composition of the 110th Congress (2007 - ) is as follows: Senate: 49 D, 49 R House: 233 D, 198 R Reference:

When we have 61 seats, then get back to me.

Did Reagan have a 61 seat majority?

Nope. He had a Democratic Congress and still managed to get what he wanted.

Your excuse is bogus. Totally bogus. It's the excuse of a huckster which you are parroting.

You know how you get shit done? BY HAVING A SUPERIOR PLAN.


Trump and the Republicans have NOTHING. It's all they have had for the past two decades.

Reagan was elected in 2000.

The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981.

With a Democratic Congress.

After the 2004 election, he STILL didn't have a 61 seat majority. Not even close.

My point stands.

Dafuq? 2000? Have finally overdosed on stupid?

An obvious typo, tard. "The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981."

With a Democratic Congress.

My point stands. Trump is a big spending asshole who is ACCELERATING our country's deficits while you tarsd are bent over with his cock up your asses and taking it.

Well golly! His tax cut were EO's? His scotus appointment was a EO? You sure sound a like butthurt little girl.

 

[g5000]

He did not. He had a Republican majority in the Senate-

The composition of the 109th Congress (2005 - 2007) was as follows: Senate: 44 D, 55 R House: 202 D, 231 R The composition of the 110th Congress (2007 - ) is as follows: Senate: 49 D, 49 R House: 233 D, 198 R Reference:

Did Reagan have a 61 seat majority?

Nope. He had a Democratic Congress and still managed to get what he wanted.

Your excuse is bogus. Totally bogus. It's the excuse of a huckster which you are parroting.

You know how you get shit done? BY HAVING A SUPERIOR PLAN.


Trump and the Republicans have NOTHING. It's all they have had for the past two decades.

Reagan was elected in 2000.

The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981.

With a Democratic Congress.

After the 2004 election, he STILL didn't have a 61 seat majority. Not even close.

My point stands.

Dafuq? 2000? Have finally overdosed on stupid?

An obvious typo, tard. "The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981."

With a Democratic Congress.

My point stands. Trump is a big spending asshole who is ACCELERATING our country's deficits while you tarsd are bent over with his cock up your asses and taking it.

Well golly! His tax cut were EO's? His scotus appointment was a EO? You sure sound a like butthurt little girl.

Trump nominated who he was told to nominate for the Supreme Court.

Trump's tax cut stole $1.5 trillion from your kids and grandkids. You must be so proud.

Trump is going to shatter Obama's spending record.

And you just sit there and take it.

 

[miketx]

He did not. He had a Republican majority in the Senate-

The composition of the 109th Congress (2005 - 2007) was as follows: Senate: 44 D, 55 R House: 202 D, 231 R The composition of the 110th Congress (2007 - ) is as follows: Senate: 49 D, 49 R House: 233 D, 198 R Reference:

Reagan was elected in 2000.

The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981.

With a Democratic Congress.

After the 2004 election, he STILL didn't have a 61 seat majority. Not even close.

My point stands.

Dafuq? 2000? Have finally overdosed on stupid?

An obvious typo, tard. "The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981."

With a Democratic Congress.

My point stands. Trump is a big spending asshole who is ACCELERATING our country's deficits while you tarsd are bent over with his cock up your asses and taking it.

Well golly! His tax cut were EO's? His scotus appointment was a EO? You sure sound a like butthurt little girl.

Trump nominated who he was told to nominate for the Supreme Court.

Trump's tax cut stole $1.5 trillion from your kids and grandkids. You must be so proud.

Trump is going to shatter Obama's spending record.

And you just sit there and take it.

Now now, turn down your trolling motor. You said everything he did was through EO's and I pointed out at least two things that were not done through EO's effectively disproving your claim. Don't you care to address that point? Clearly by seeing how you twist a spin you don't. When caught on one lie, you go off on a tangent.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Actually, no, I am quoting on the supposed treasure trove. Maybe get your info from other places than simply biased sources.

You fall for everything. They commissioned a group that reviewed the literature. That was not a study of the data or the accuracy of the literature..

Though you quote the lot, you're apparently just referring to "Royal Dutch Shell's position on the dangers of global warming before a new, recently revealed treasure trove of internal company documents going back to the 50's revealed their realposition on the matter." Try being coherent. Are you claiming here that the Bradcast -or- did Royal Dutch Shell hire some unspecified "group" to "review" some unspecified "literature"? Speak English. Be specific. What's your actual attempted point?

What the hell is "quoting on" supposed to mean? Commenting on? Ah, forget it. You clearly have nothing to respond with but fart noises anyway.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Not that the Dems have anything to crow about, but the Repugs sure do take the cake here:

We unpack alotta long cons on today's BradCast, some of them decades in the making. Among them: Trump's new position on U.S. war in places like Syria, versus his position before he became President; GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan's position on deficit spending before he and Congressional Republicans exploded the deficit and he announced on Wednesday he's retiring from the U.S. House; And, Royal Dutch Shell's position on the dangers of global warming before a new, recently revealed treasure trove of internal company documents going back to the 50's revealed their realposition on the matter.

Any G.O.P. apologists care to try and defend any of this?

The New Deal, Social Social Security, The war on poverty, switching from the party of slavery, Jim Crow and the KKk to the champions of Civil rights in less than a decade. Democrats wrote the book on the long con and they are still adding chapters.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Yes, though clearly about far more than simply keeping promises, pols lie. Thanks for noticing. Yawn..., sorry, pardon moi. Meanwhile, I've noticed this pattern of apology via two-wrongs-making-a-right fallacious argument, though seemingly somewhat inherent to the human condition, appears to mostly afflict those self-identifying toward the political right. Thus the compulsion to respond as a "G.O.P. apologist" in the first place.

dems can't do wrong, just ask them and the full on friendly media

 

[Grumblenuts]

You guys still don't get it, do you. There's clearly no one here defending Dems. This is about the G.O.P. and Whataboutism is all you manage to offer. Lame assertions of logical fallacy floated to hide the fact that you've got nothing. No excuse. No rational. And, holy crap, "Social Security", really?

Eighty-two years after President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act on August 14, 1935, Social Security remains one of the nation’s most successful, effective, and popular programs.

Might as well point at your face and yell "Duh, I'm stupid!"