TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 96,207
- 59,692
- 2,605
I can think of about 475 moreI cannot think of a single politician, ever, that I hated enough to rip to shreds during his swan song, when a long career is about to end in death.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can think of about 475 moreI cannot think of a single politician, ever, that I hated enough to rip to shreds during his swan song, when a long career is about to end in death.
Hate will consume you. Learn to let others have a different opinion without making it personal.I can think of about 475 moreI cannot think of a single politician, ever, that I hated enough to rip to shreds during his swan song, when a long career is about to end in death.
No, the principle is the same, they thought that they were doing right.Bit of a stretch for an analogy isn't it?I'm sure that Hinkley, Oswald and Boothe thought the same thing.He did what HE thought was right.
Jim, they were assassins. McCain is a senator who felt aggressive war strategy was best for our country. The two are NOT at all the same.No, the principle is the same, they thought that they were doing right.Bit of a stretch for an analogy isn't it?I'm sure that Hinkley, Oswald and Boothe thought the same thing.He did what HE thought was right.
How in the hell is needless war, greed and shitting on our constitution an acceptable opinion to have?Hate will consume you. Learn to let others have a different opinion without making it personal.I can think of about 475 moreI cannot think of a single politician, ever, that I hated enough to rip to shreds during his swan song, when a long career is about to end in death.
Obviously assassins are not the same as US Senators. The former kill their targets up close and personal, while Senators justpass bills and call for DoD to do their killing for them.Jim, they were assassins. McCain is a senator who felt aggressive war strategy was best for our country. The two are NOT at all the same.
They thought they were doing what was good for the countryJim, they were assassins. McCain is a senator who felt aggressive war strategy was best for our country. The two are NOT at all the same.No, the principle is the same, they thought that they were doing right.Bit of a stretch for an analogy isn't it?I'm sure that Hinkley, Oswald and Boothe thought the same thing.He did what HE thought was right.
Well the point of the OP was that I can overlook McCains status as Alpha Chicken Hawk due to this wonderful speech.You two gentlemen are calling a man a murderer for having an aggressive military stance. He felt it was what would keep this country safest. He is not the only person who believes that. I'm not going to argue whether it was right or not, the things he thought. It doesn't matter. What mattered when Jim opened this thread was the call to work together with others to get a solution of some sort that would give everyone some satisfaction. Yet it seems neither of you are willing to let your grudges go because the vote did not go your way.
So keep thinking it over, there, Jim.
John McCain was a war hero in the 60s. Since he entered Congress, he's been a traitor. Fuck him.
Letting Clinton get away with crime is not bipartisanship, OL.Why did you pretend to think McCain's speech was moving if you are going to continue posturing this way?Congress straining at Republican gnats wile ignoring Hillary Clinton's hundreds of millions of USD solicited from the Russians as she agreed as Sec of State to allow a Russian company to purchase 25% of our national Uranium reserves is also absurdly partisan.
Same old tired calls for bipartisanship that we always hear from establishment cuckservatives, fuck that, we won, it's time for republicans to start acting like it!
That wont work, dude,
For Republicans to deliver on their promises and to also do their jobs as leaders in Congress they are going to have to reach across the aisle.
The problem with the nuclear option is that, when the political tides turn against you, then the opposing MAJORITY can then nuke you too.No they don't they need to employ the nuclear option.For Republicans to deliver on their promises and to also do their jobs as leaders in Congress they are going to have to reach across the aisle.
The problem with the nuclear option is that, when the political tides turn against you, then the opposing MAJORITY can then nuke you too.No they don't they need to employ the nuclear option.For Republicans to deliver on their promises and to also do their jobs as leaders in Congress they are going to have to reach across the aisle.
Reid only introduced the Nuclear Option for appointment confirmation.The problem with the nuclear option is that, when the political tides turn against you, then the opposing MAJORITY can then nuke you too.No they don't they need to employ the nuclear option.For Republicans to deliver on their promises and to also do their jobs as leaders in Congress they are going to have to reach across the aisle.
The Dems have already used it that's the point, Reid already ended the tradition, that pandoras box was opened years ago, the Republicans need to stop playing nice because the opposition sure as hell doesn't.