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.
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?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..
And yet another G.O.P. apologist outs themself and promptly leaves in a huff, panties atwist.I don't care what your opinion is, why would I care about this bradcast opinion?Not that the Dems have anything to crow about, but the Repugs sure do take the cake here:
Any G.O.P. apologists care to try and defend any of this?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.
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.
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?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..
I haven't apologized for jack. But I do see another progressive liar, spreading propaganda in service for their own slavery.And yet another G.O.P. apologist outs themself and promptly leaves in a huff, panties atwist.I don't care what your opinion is, why would I care about this bradcast opinion?Not that the Dems have anything to crow about, but the Repugs sure do take the cake here:
Any G.O.P. apologists care to try and defend any of this?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.
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.
An obvious typo, tard. "The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981."Dafuq? 2000? Have finally overdosed on stupid?Reagan was elected in 2000.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?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.
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.
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.
Well golly! His tax cut were EO's? His scotus appointment was a EO? You sure sound a like butthurt little girl.An obvious typo, tard. "The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981."Dafuq? 2000? Have finally overdosed on stupid?Reagan was elected in 2000.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?When we have 61 seats, then get back to me.
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.
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.
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.
Trump nominated who he was told to nominate for the Supreme Court.Well golly! His tax cut were EO's? His scotus appointment was a EO? You sure sound a like butthurt little girl.An obvious typo, tard. "The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981."Dafuq? 2000? Have finally overdosed on stupid?Reagan was elected in 2000.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.
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.
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.
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.Trump nominated who he was told to nominate for the Supreme Court.Well golly! His tax cut were EO's? His scotus appointment was a EO? You sure sound a like butthurt little girl.An obvious typo, tard. "The Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981."Dafuq? 2000? Have finally overdosed on stupid?Reagan was elected in 2000.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:
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.
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.
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.
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.Actually, no, I am quoting on the supposed treasure trove. Maybe get your info from other places than simply biased sources.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?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..
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.Not that the Dems have anything to crow about, but the Repugs sure do take the cake here:
Any G.O.P. apologists care to try and defend any of this?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.
dems can't do wrong, just ask them and the full on friendly mediaYes, 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.
Might as well point at your face and yell "Duh, I'm stupid!"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.