That didn't take long.

[candycorn]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

 

[Auld Phart]

Seems like just yesterday he was against it.

So was Clinton.

But, that's politics.

 

[S.J.]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

Link?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

Link?

You'd have to link to her head because that's where it originated

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cons always talk about secession on this Board, as we all know. Buncha loons.

 

[Defiant1]

What's wrong with secession?

Aren't many of you divorced?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Extremest views.

 

[occupied]

They always talk like that when they lose another battle in the culture war they started so long ago. When any oppressed group gains equal protection they always feel like it diminishes them, proof it was always an effort to keep white conservative males on a pedestal.

 

[WelfareQueen]

They always talk like that when they lose another battle in the culture war they started so long ago. When any oppressed group gains equal protection they always feel like it diminishes them, proof it was always an effort to keep white conservative males on a pedestal.

Ah.....you may not be aware.....but equal protection under the law has been part of the Constitution since the 19th Century. Nkay.


14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[occupied]

They always talk like that when they lose another battle in the culture war they started so long ago. When any oppressed group gains equal protection they always feel like it diminishes them, proof it was always an effort to keep white conservative males on a pedestal.

Ah.....you may not be aware.....but equal protection under the law has been part of the Constitution since the 19th Century. Nkay.


14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

I am very aware of that, it's one of the things conservatives would strike from the constitution in a hot minute because it just keeps on handing them defeats on their social issues.

 

[Skylar]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

C'mon....is there really any question among some conservatives that if they had to choose between their ideology and their country....they'd go with their ideology? They are conservatives first, Americans second. And its not even close.

 

[Cassandro]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

Gee, you didn't think that one through, did you? In political terms, being divisive means pitting one group against another group in order to create winners and losers. Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

Ironically your reference to "secession" (i.e., respect for state laws) is the antithesis of divisiveness: It allows people free expression of their opinions without disenfranchising those with whom they disagree.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They always talk like that when they lose another battle in the culture war they started so long ago. When any oppressed group gains equal protection they always feel like it diminishes them, proof it was always an effort to keep white conservative males on a pedestal.

Ah.....you may not be aware.....but equal protection under the law has been part of the Constitution since the 19th Century. Nkay.


14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Does not stop the far right from freaking out each time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shut up. Secession is the epitome of divisiveness, simply the act of stop listening and working together.

jwoodie and his weirdies are not going anywhere. We are all in this together. When he publishes the smiley post below, he knows I am right.

 

[candycorn]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

Gee, you didn't think that one through, did you? In political terms, being divisive means pitting one group against another group in order to create winners and losers.

Really? I haven't been pitted against anyone. On the topics of the day, I thought gay marriage was fine and no danger to me my entire adult life. I thought a woman's right to privacy where medical procedures are concerned was self-evident. I thought the confederate battle flag was a sad reminder of the past. The ACA, I didn't see how the government can force you to buy insurance before it and I still don't while recognizing that it is a net positive for society that more people insured is better than fewer people insured.

Obama didn't change my mind about one damn thing. I doubt he's changed many person's minds about anything.

Again, I haven't been pitted against anyone.

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

Obama hasn't been party of any of the lawsuits except where the ACA was brought up by another party like the Owners of Hobby Lobby.

Obama, nor anyone else, can insist that the federal court decide anything or decide one way or the other.

Ironically your reference to "secession" (i.e., respect for state laws) is the antithesis of divisiveness: It allows people free expression of their opinions without disenfranchising those with whom they disagree.

Uh no.

You should be better at lying. You do it often enough.

 

[WelfareQueen]

They always talk like that when they lose another battle in the culture war they started so long ago. When any oppressed group gains equal protection they always feel like it diminishes them, proof it was always an effort to keep white conservative males on a pedestal.

Ah.....you may not be aware.....but equal protection under the law has been part of the Constitution since the 19th Century. Nkay.


14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

I am very aware of that, it's one of the things conservatives would strike from the constitution in a hot minute because it just keeps on handing them defeats on their social issues.

Love the strawman.

 

[occupied]

They always talk like that when they lose another battle in the culture war they started so long ago. When any oppressed group gains equal protection they always feel like it diminishes them, proof it was always an effort to keep white conservative males on a pedestal.

Ah.....you may not be aware.....but equal protection under the law has been part of the Constitution since the 19th Century. Nkay.


14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

I am very aware of that, it's one of the things conservatives would strike from the constitution in a hot minute because it just keeps on handing them defeats on their social issues.

Love the strawman.

No other amendment is more hated by conservatives than the 14th didn't you get the memo?

 

[Cassandro]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

Gee, you didn't think that one through, did you? In political terms, being divisive means pitting one group against another group in order to create winners and losers.

Really? I haven't been pitted against anyone. On the topics of the day, I thought gay marriage was fine and no danger to me my entire adult life. I thought a woman's right to privacy where medical procedures are concerned was self-evident. I thought the confederate battle flag was a sad reminder of the past. The ACA, I didn't see how the government can force you to buy insurance before it and I still don't while recognizing that it is a net positive for society that more people insured is better than fewer people insured.

Obama didn't change my mind about one damn thing. I doubt he's changed many person's minds about anything.

Again, I haven't been pitted against anyone.

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

Obama hasn't been party of any of the lawsuits except where the ACA was brought up by another party like the Owners of Hobby Lobby.

Obama, nor anyone else, can insist that the federal court decide anything or decide one way or the other.

Ironically your reference to "secession" (i.e., respect for state laws) is the antithesis of divisiveness: It allows people free expression of their opinions without disenfranchising those with whom they disagree.

Uh no.

You should be better at lying. You do it often enough.

1. Gay Marriage and Abortion are not divisive issues?

2. By omission, you tacitly admit that Democrats practice divisiveness, but defend Obama because because he isn't a "party" (i.e., plaintiff/defendant) in these lawsuits? Are you unaware of his Executive Orders and prejudicial interference in local law enforcement matters?

3. "Liar, liar, pants on fire." LOL, is that the best you can do?

 

[candycorn]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

Gee, you didn't think that one through, did you? In political terms, being divisive means pitting one group against another group in order to create winners and losers.

Really? I haven't been pitted against anyone. On the topics of the day, I thought gay marriage was fine and no danger to me my entire adult life. I thought a woman's right to privacy where medical procedures are concerned was self-evident. I thought the confederate battle flag was a sad reminder of the past. The ACA, I didn't see how the government can force you to buy insurance before it and I still don't while recognizing that it is a net positive for society that more people insured is better than fewer people insured.

Obama didn't change my mind about one damn thing. I doubt he's changed many person's minds about anything.

Again, I haven't been pitted against anyone.

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

Obama hasn't been party of any of the lawsuits except where the ACA was brought up by another party like the Owners of Hobby Lobby.

Obama, nor anyone else, can insist that the federal court decide anything or decide one way or the other.

Ironically your reference to "secession" (i.e., respect for state laws) is the antithesis of divisiveness: It allows people free expression of their opinions without disenfranchising those with whom they disagree.

Uh no.

You should be better at lying. You do it often enough.

1. Gay Marriage and Abortion are not divisive issues?

Check your calendar; Both were issues before Obama was President (one was an issue before he was born). Why do you blame THIS president for the issue? I'm sure it's a matter of black and white.

2. By omission, you tacitly admit that Democrats practice divisiveness, but defend Obama because because he isn't a "party" (i.e., plaintiff/defendant) in these lawsuits? Are you unaware of his Executive Orders and prejudicial interference in local law enforcement matters?

Never did any such thing. You're the one stating:

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

I'm frankly unaware of the political leanings of the plaintiffs in the cases that made it to the Supreme Court except for Hobby Lobby who publicizes their leanings. You're stating that they are democrats...I'll take your word for it. However, they don't speak for the "Democrats" (the national Party, nor do they have any relationship to your President.

Stop lying and saying they do.

3. "Liar, liar, pants on fire." LOL, is that the best you can do?

It seems to suffice (not to mention fit).

To summarize, the President hasn't pitted me (or any one else) against anyone else.

Who have you been "pitted against" that you were, I guess, aligned with before Obama became President? What specifically did Obama do to make you hate them?

I'm guessing you're now lacing up your tap shoes to try to dance away from your previous statement.

5....4....3....2....1 Start the tap dance.

 

[Cassandro]

Cons are already talking about secession because they are being shown the reality of their extremist views.

Gee, I thought the cornerstone of GOP dogma was to call their President divisive.

Gee, you didn't think that one through, did you? In political terms, being divisive means pitting one group against another group in order to create winners and losers.

Really? I haven't been pitted against anyone. On the topics of the day, I thought gay marriage was fine and no danger to me my entire adult life. I thought a woman's right to privacy where medical procedures are concerned was self-evident. I thought the confederate battle flag was a sad reminder of the past. The ACA, I didn't see how the government can force you to buy insurance before it and I still don't while recognizing that it is a net positive for society that more people insured is better than fewer people insured.

Obama didn't change my mind about one damn thing. I doubt he's changed many person's minds about anything.

Again, I haven't been pitted against anyone.

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

Obama hasn't been party of any of the lawsuits except where the ACA was brought up by another party like the Owners of Hobby Lobby.

Obama, nor anyone else, can insist that the federal court decide anything or decide one way or the other.

Ironically your reference to "secession" (i.e., respect for state laws) is the antithesis of divisiveness: It allows people free expression of their opinions without disenfranchising those with whom they disagree.

Uh no.

You should be better at lying. You do it often enough.

1. Gay Marriage and Abortion are not divisive issues?

Check your calendar; Both were issues before Obama was President (one was an issue before he was born). Why do you blame THIS president for the issue? I'm sure it's a matter of black and white.

2. By omission, you tacitly admit that Democrats practice divisiveness, but defend Obama because because he isn't a "party" (i.e., plaintiff/defendant) in these lawsuits? Are you unaware of his Executive Orders and prejudicial interference in local law enforcement matters?

Never did any such thing. You're the one stating:

Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular, have employed this technique by insisting that every controversial issue be decided at the federal level and then forced upon the states.

I'm frankly unaware of the political leanings of the plaintiffs in the cases that made it to the Supreme Court except for Hobby Lobby who publicizes their leanings. You're stating that they are democrats...I'll take your word for it. However, they don't speak for the "Democrats" (the national Party, nor do they have any relationship to your President.

Stop lying and saying they do.

3. "Liar, liar, pants on fire." LOL, is that the best you can do?

It seems to suffice (not to mention fit).

To summarize, the President hasn't pitted me (or any one else) against anyone else.

Who have you been "pitted against" that you were, I guess, aligned with before Obama became President? What specifically did Obama do to make you hate them?

I'm guessing you're now lacing up your tap shoes to try to dance away from your previous statement.

5....4....3....2....1 Start the tap dance.

Is English your second (or third) language? Otherwise, you must have a reading comprehension disability. Please ask a competent adult to read my post to you and confirm that I never said or implied that the plaintiffs (or defendants) in these cases were Democrats.

Nor did I state or imply that Obama was the originator of the gay marriage and abortion controversies. But I think you knew that. So who is the "liar?"