Democrats - can we finally come together now?

[mamooth]

Anyone notice that Mammy here never has any links to back up her outrageous statements?

Perv, being I'm a guy, I'd appreciate if you'd stop these gay passes. I don't go for such a lifestyle. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Just not my thing.

Anyways, look at Obama battering down the deficit Bush left him in 2009.

Fiscal policy of the United States - Wikipedia

Interesting, the ways you choose to lie with statistics. Instead of comparing the deficit Bush left for Obama in 2009 to Obama lately, you compare the meaningless Bush 2002.

So, now that you've been busted for that attempted deception, let's get back to what you're running from, which is our little bet.

You claimed I lied when I said I never criticized Democrats. You claim I've never done it, ever, and screamed "liar" at me in a colored font.

So, to test your mettle, I offered you a bet. If I can show me criticizing the Democrats, you leave the board. If I can't, I leave the board.

And would you back up your bullshit and accept? Or could you just admit that, no, I wasn't a liar? The world waited ... and saw you run. Your mettle was tested, and you failed. When push came to shove, you got revealed as a coward. No wonder you have to play the bottom to pudgy conservative men. What woman would find that attractive?

A non-narcissist could admit error and say "Okay, I screwed up."' However, an emotionally stunted manchild like you or your OrangeMessiah is incapable of such simple honesty. In your fantasy world, you are incapable of making a mistake of any type. But since you clearly are wrong, now I get to keep humiliating you. Ah, life is good.

 

[P@triot]

Just pushing his boundaries

A person who takes an oath to respect and defend the U.S. Constitution is not supposed to "push boundaries" to see how far they can go past it.

But thank you for your rare moment of honesty that Barack Obama has intentionally violated the Constitution he took an oath to defend and acted like an oppressive dictator.

 

[P@triot]

Perv, being I'm a guy, I'd appreciate if you'd stop these gay passes. I don't go for such a lifestyle. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Just not my thing.

Well you act like a little whiny bitch sooooo....

 

[Little-Acorn]

Now that all of you on the left are freaking out and completely losing your shit because of a Donald Trump presidency, will you finally admit that the unconstitutional, unlimited power that you built and celebrated for the Oval Office isn't so great after all? The Donald Trump administration could be the watershed moment we need to repair relations and restore order to the U.S.

Can we please agree that the U.S. Constitution isn't "irrelevant" like all of you proclaimed? That limiting the power of the federal government is crucial? We have a serious opportunity here to come together as one nation and demand that our leaders:

• Act with the highest integrity

• Create a completely transparent federal government

• Respect the separation of powers

• Respect the limitations of powers

• Respect the 2nd Amendment

Power is a dangerous thing. You wrongfully believed that power was "harmless" in the hands of Democrats and Barack Obama. Now you can see why it's so dangerous. I'm willing to do everything in my power to restore constitutional government and limit Donald Trump's power. I'm willing to hold my representatives feet to the fire to ensure that. Are you? And will you do it when the next Democrat is in office? Serious question for you Seawytch, mamooth, rdean, candycorn.

As you've seen from the leftist fanatics' responses to your questions in this thread, the answer is an unqualified NO.

NO, they will never agree that the power they want is limited. In fact, they want unlimited power.... limited only by what they feel like doing today.

NO, they will never agree that the Constitution is relevant. Their agenda depends on having no obstructions to any power they want to have. And that's all the Constitution is to them - an obstruction to be gotten around.

NO, they will never agree that limiting the power of a central government is a good idea.

In short, NO, they never come to any agreements with conservatives. The basis of conservatism is that govt power is limited, but the basis of liberalism is that it is unlimited. One result of this is that one of their most important objectives is to destroy conservatives. Not just refute them (which they can't do), but to destroy them so that their arguments for conservatism can never be presented in the first place, in any debate.

Finding agreement between liberal fanatics and conservatives, is like finding "common ground" between Israelis and so-called "Palestinians" in the middle East, and make peace between them. The problem is that, while Israelis want to be left alone, so-called "Palestinians" want to completely destroy Israel. The two desires are incompatible, and you will NEVER get "agreement" between them, no matter what suggestions you make.

Same goes for conservatives and liberal fanatics. They can never come to an agreement - at least one of them would have to stop being what he was.

 

[P@triot]

Anyways, look at Obama battering down the deficit Bush left him in 2009.

Fiscal policy of the United States - Wikipedia

Shocking....the low IQ welfare queen can't read a chart. Each and every one of those bars in -4 to -10 range belong to Barack Obama.

All he has done is reduce his own outrageous deficits and all but two still exceed Bush's highest deficits.

 

[P@triot]

You claimed I lied when I said I never criticized Democrats. You claim I've never done it, ever, and screamed "liar" at me in a colored font.

Wow...that is racist.

 

[P@triot]

So, to test your mettle, I offered you a bet. If I can show me criticizing the Democrats, you leave the board. If I can't, I leave the board.

Why do progressives always want bets to get people to leave the board? Does my intellect intimidate you? Do the facts I provide bother you? Is information annoying to you? Or is just that you're a typical progressive who wants a virtual "safe space" where everyone affirms your feelings and ideology?

 

[P@triot]

And would you back up your bullshit and accept? Or could you just admit that, no, I wasn't a liar?

You were challenged to prove it - you couldn't do it. You got caught lying sweetie. Game over.

 

[candycorn]

Of course I never said any such thing. This is what low IQ bitches like yourself do; mis-characterize what was said to you in hopes that someone out there would believe it.

Well now you're just contradicting yourself.

Then you can quote me saying as such. But you can't so that makes you a liar.

I did quote you. You conveniently edited out that part when you responded. Typical.

Another lie. I never said what you stated I did.

Sure you did. That's why you conveniently edited it out. If you respect the U.S. Constitution, you would advocate adhering to it. If you feel it is "irrelevant", then let's shred them. You can't have it both ways. You're my playing a silly game where you believe it should be violated but you want to pretend like you respect the rule of law.

Again, quote me where I said the Constitution is “irrelevant”. Feel free.

 

[mamooth]

You were challenged to prove it - you couldn't do it. You got caught lying sweetie. Game over.

Everyone notices you're still not taking the bet.

I'm willing to provide what you ask. Just take the bet.

Everyone gets it, you know. You're my sweet little bitch now.

 

[rightwinger]

Just pushing his boundaries

A person who takes an oath to respect and defend the U.S. Constitution is not supposed to "push boundaries" to see how far they can go past it.

But thank you for your rare moment of honesty that Barack Obama has intentionally violated the Constitution he took an oath to defend and acted like an oppressive dictator.

Of course you are...that is why we have courts

It is no crime......just a case of interpretation

 

[francoHFW]

Now that all of you on the left are freaking out and completely losing your shit because of a Donald Trump presidency, will you finally admit that the unconstitutional, unlimited power that you built and celebrated for the Oval Office isn't so great after all? The Donald Trump administration could be the watershed moment we need to repair relations and restore order to the U.S.

Can we please agree that the U.S. Constitution isn't "irrelevant" like all of you proclaimed? That limiting the power of the federal government is crucial? We have a serious opportunity here to come together as one nation and demand that our leaders:

• Act with the highest integrity

• Create a completely transparent federal government

• Respect the separation of powers

• Respect the limitations of powers

• Respect the 2nd Amendment

Power is a dangerous thing. You wrongfully believed that power was "harmless" in the hands of Democrats and Barack Obama. Now you can see why it's so dangerous. I'm willing to do everything in my power to restore constitutional government and limit Donald Trump's power. I'm willing to hold my representatives feet to the fire to ensure that. Are you? And will you do it when the next Democrat is in office? Serious question for you Seawytch, mamooth, rdean, candycorn.

If one wants to "come together" with liberals you have to be willing to take/give it up the ass...that's how these girls roll.

BS. RW idiocy everywhere....but Dems will compromise and vote for good stuff, if any. Unlike you obstructionists, a-holes, and dupes. Go NYC orange genius lol.

 

[P@triot]

Well now you're just contradicting yourself.

Then you can quote me saying as such. But you can't so that makes you a liar.

I did quote you. You conveniently edited out that part when you responded. Typical.

Another lie. I never said what you stated I did.

Sure you did. That's why you conveniently edited it out. If you respect the U.S. Constitution, you would advocate adhering to it. If you feel it is "irrelevant", then let's shred them. You can't have it both ways. You're my playing a silly game where you believe it should be violated but you want to pretend like you respect the rule of law.

Again, quote me where I said the Constitution is “irrelevant”. Feel free.

When you said that you prefer it to be ignored for the 2016 American rather than be hemmed in by some old document.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either you respect the document and the rule of law or you don't. You've made it very clear that you don't. You can update that "old" document but you advocate ignoring it.

 

[P@triot]

Just pushing his boundaries

A person who takes an oath to respect and defend the U.S. Constitution is not supposed to "push boundaries" to see how far they can go past it.

But thank you for your rare moment of honesty that Barack Obama has intentionally violated the Constitution he took an oath to defend and acted like an oppressive dictator.

Of course you are...that is why we have courts

You have to love RW "logic".

Me: You're not supposed to break the law and rape women.

RW: Of course you are....that's why we have courts. To interpret whether or not the woman is raped.

Yes folks...he really does make arguments like this out of desperation. He's unable to logically and rationally support his position.

 

[P@triot]

Just pushing his boundaries

A person who takes an oath to respect and defend the U.S. Constitution is not supposed to "push boundaries" to see how far they can go past it.

But thank you for your rare moment of honesty that Barack Obama has intentionally violated the Constitution he took an oath to defend and acted like an oppressive dictator.

It is no crime......just a case of interpretation

There is nothing to interpret....unless Obama is illiterate. The U.S. Constitution says exactly what is says.

 

[P@triot]

You were challenged to prove it - you couldn't do it. You got caught lying sweetie. Game over.

Everyone notices you're still not taking the bet.

Why do you need a "bet"? You were "called". Show your cards or admit you're a liar.

 

[Faun]

Which proves that the Constitution is a living document.

Neither a piece of paper or a law can be "living" by any definition of the term.

That is the dumbest thing you've ever said. Of course laws are "living." They can be modified and they can be revoked. The Constitution, by design, is also living and can amended at any time.

 

[Faun]

Yes, we get it. You hate the strong economy, low deficits and increased freedom under Obama, because you hate the USA in general.

Bwahahahahaha! "Low deficits" under Obama?!?

Sweetie...Barack Obama added more to the national debt in his first 4 years than all U.S. Presidents combined did in their first terms.

So you're lying outright about the Bush deficits now? Maybe it's that you don't know the difference between debt and deficit, but that's expected, given your abject ignorance of all economics. I said Obama reduced the deficit, shit-for-brains. The deficit Bush left him with, and which you loved when Bush ran it up. If you need further help with the topic, ask a fourth-grader.

Anyone notice that Mammy here never has any links to back up her outrageous statements? You know why? Because you can't provide links to lies.

For starters, it's important to explain to the low IQ welfare queen that the outgoing president sets the budget for the new fiscal year before the incoming president is sworn in. Hence why Bush's first budget doesn't appear until 2002 when he was in office in 2001. So with that in mind, here is a side-by-side comparison of their presidencies...

Year #1
Bush (2002) $421 billion
Obama (2010) $1.652 trillion

Or 4x's what Bush had (and Bush was dealing with post 9/11). Does that sound like a "reduction" to you, liar?

Year #2
Bush (2003) $555 billion
Obama (2011) $1.229 trillion

Or more than 2x's what Bush had. Does that sound like a "reduction" to you, liar?

Year #3
Bush (2004) $596 billion
Obama (2012) $1.229 trillion

Or more than 2x's what Bush had. Does that sound like a "reduction" to you, liar?

Year #4
Bush (2005) $554 billion
Obama (2013) $672 billion

The first time in Obama's reign of terror that his annual deficit does not exceed a trillion dollars - but he still has a higher deficit than Bush. Does that sound like a "reduction" to you, liar?

Year #5
Bush (2006) $574 billion
Obama (2014) $1.086 trillion

Or more than 2x's what Bush had. Does that sound like a "reduction" to you, liar?

Year #6
Bush (2007) $501 billion
Obama (2015) $327 billion

It's not until year #6 that Obama posts a lower national deficit than Bush.

Year #7
Bush (2008) $1.017 trillion
Obama (2016) $1.423 trillion

Well that was short-lived! Once again, Obama has a higher deficit than Bush. Does that sound like a "reduction" to you, liar?

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

View attachment 103404

Watch what happens when you get to year 8.

 

[rightwinger]

Just pushing his boundaries

A person who takes an oath to respect and defend the U.S. Constitution is not supposed to "push boundaries" to see how far they can go past it.

But thank you for your rare moment of honesty that Barack Obama has intentionally violated the Constitution he took an oath to defend and acted like an oppressive dictator.

Of course you are...that is why we have courts

You have to love RW "logic".

Me: You're not supposed to break the law and rape women.

RW: Of course you are....that's why we have courts. To interpret whether or not the woman is raped.

Yes folks...he really does make arguments like this out of desperation. He's unable to logically and rationally support his position.

The definition of rape has also been up to the courts

 

[P@triot]

The definition of rape has also been up to the courts

No. Really. The definition of rape has been up to the legislators. It's the court systems job to decide whether or not the accused met that definition.