Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ConservativeBob

Hello From a Conservative

Recommended Posts

Just now, XavierOnassis said:

Because the Congress would not approve funding to close Guantanamo. They did not want the prisoners in their states. Obama was not a tyrant, he did not possess total control, just as Trump does not. Yoiu have to be really stupid to not understand what happened. He sent well over half the prisoners away.

The left has been on here all day howling about why Trump didn't get his wall in the last two years, while he had a Republican Congress.

 

I was simply making a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, harryramar said:

I didn't bother t read your negative screed

 

It wasn't negative at all, unless the TRUTH is negative. Which since you're a liberal, it is. 

 

1 hour ago, harryramar said:

I assume

 

If you would read you wouldn't have to assume what was said.

 

1 hour ago, harryramar said:

lying about me

 

I didn't lie. You said Ninny Nancy didn't say Trump didn't have the votes in the House, and you were lying. NOT ME. Got it?

 

1 hour ago, harryramar said:

like I said you are not worthy of me time

 

Yet you take the time to create this post. LMFAO. Please go back and review the "irony" definition. Obviously you skipped that, along with my lesson on how the Senate works.

 

1 hour ago, harryramar said:

trump said he proudly owns the shutdown

 

He said he WOULD. That was before the House passed a bill funding the wall. Sorry your tiny brain can't comprehend the difference.

 

1 hour ago, harryramar said:

but bye bye you lying sack of texas horses hit.

 

Wow, you're angry. Go drown your anger in the rotgut booze you just bought. Hope you're not an angry drunk, don't take your anger over being called out for your lies out on your family, they deserve better than your drunk ass ranting and raving.

 

And thanks for showing your true colors to Bob ol' buddy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ConservativeBob said:

 

So correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like you're basically saying that "The Wall" is the red meat that Trump throws to his base at the moment he needs their support...  

 

If you have to ask whether that's the case, you really haven't gotten much informed about trump. Of COURSE that's what it is. And trump needs that base support given investigations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ConservativeBob said:

 

Actually I don't think any of us "has anything" just yet... other than (mostly) pleasant greetings and salutations.  👍

Hi Bob. This place could use a rational conservative, but so far...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

 

If you have to ask whether that's the case, you really haven't gotten much informed about trump. Of COURSE that's what it is. And trump needs that base support given investigations.

 

Actually I wasn’t asking whether that was the case or not.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ConservativeBob said:

Hopefully not too much.  If one can effectively articulate a valid viewpoint, then insults and jabs shouldn't be necessary.  

 

No one is more deaf than the ones who don't want to hear ... and there is no one more blind than the ones who do not want to see.

 

The leftist libtards here fit the description.

You can debate your throat sore here ... they'll call you names in return.

 

JUST WATCH !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Faith said:

 

No one is more deaf than the ones who don't want to hear ... and there is no one more blind than the ones who do not want to see.

 

The leftist libtards here fit the description.

You can debate your throat sore here ... they'll call you names in return.

 

JUST WATCH !

You just called a name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, benson13 said:
Or, as SpyCar put it about Leftwinger/Untitled....
 
SpyCar said:

 

Oh BS. You claim to be a "liberal" one minute and then claim to be "as far to the left as it gets" the next.

 

You voted for multiple Republicans for the Senate who went on to (quite predictably) to confirm 4 rightwing anti-choice Supreme Court Justices between them.

 

Then you sat out 2016 with Trump on the ballot while you funded groups that encouraged others to sit out the election which enabled the election of Donald J Trump, while you agitated against the Democrats online.

 

You are an evil mofo.

Actually, that was directed at me.  :lol:  SpyCar's grasp on reality these days is tenuous, at best.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, theLion said:

Hi Bob. This place could use a rational conservative, but so far...

 

I don't really think there is such a thing as a 'rational conservative' without torturing definitions, because they quickly would realize the errors and need to change.

 

There is such a thing if you simply define it as someone who recognize some errors the left sometimes make - but the left can do that, too.

 

There are really two types of 'conservatives' today - the con men who use the word for their con sales pitch, and the suckers who are conned by them. The only real agenda is plutocracy, and the only people really pushing the brand are those who profit.

 

Just like billionaire sports teams owners make money when 'fans' wear their logo and give them money, plutocrats profit when people join the 'conservative' team.

 

The only issue that really matters is concentrating wealth and power at the top, but of course the suckers aren't told that. They're given all kinds of things to distract them, to say they have such great principles and values on hundreds of 'social' and other issues to keep them loyal and supporting.

 

So they're out being 'conservative' for whatever causes they think they're for, while they're really simply putting plutocrats in power.

 

The funny thing is how badly trump has exposed the con, but the 'conservatives' haven't understood that. trump ran on a populist agenda in many ways, to the left of Hillary on many issues, yet did the opposite of what he said on almost all of them (when they conflicted with the plutocratic agenda).

 

So 'drain the swamp' was a perverse lie, because the plutocrats are the swamp, while he is fighting over the wall because the plutocrats don't care about that, but the suckers do. He promised to raise taxes on the rich, while his only major legislative change to date has been to cut their taxes more by trillions, paid for by cuts to the American people and debt.

 

Liberals want a 'rational conservative' because they're tired of the lies, the craziness, the evil, they see from the right, but it's really a contradiction - like wanting a 'nice shark' who doesn't eat other animals or a better deal than a bank from a payday lender, it's just a contradiction.


There has always been a place for a spectrum on the left. FDR today is seen as pretty far left, but he was trying to defeat the socialist movement in the country, which had been led earlier by Eugene Debs. He was followed by the further right, more of a business lackey, Harry Truman - but they were all basically Democrats, while Nixon was bought and paid for by corruption.

 

Many 'conservatives' - I'd say the large majority - simply don't understand the issues and don't understand the harm they advocate. This is why you so often see them claiming liberal ends for the policies they support, e.g., 'supply-side', claiming it won't simply shift wealth to the top - which it will - but rather will really help everyone, which it won't.

 

The list is endless, and why they LOVE to think they're oh so clever in thinking they understand how it's actually the liberals who are supporting good causes but actually supporting policies that hurt the causes - e.g., increase government assistance and you're really HURTING the recipients, not helping them. Thank goodness conservatives see the error.

 

They don't understand that while there are many imperfections to liberal programs and there can be a grain of truth to that concern, the bulk of the issue is that they are actually unwittingly simply serving the plutocrats again, fighting to keep the poor (and the rest of the people below the very top) worse off for the benefit of the rich.

 

They get drunk on thinking they can have their cake and eat it too. It feels GOOD to think they're against 'government waste' and can support cutting billions if not trillions from the government, all the while actually giving us BETTER government and the public being better off. That drunken glee creates loyalty and dedication. It's the drunk of the sucker.

 

It's what leads to, what is it, three American people owning as much as half of the country - and the wealth of most Americans being suppressed, but that's invisible. If people should be making a third more but for plutocratic policies, how do they know that?

 

So, there just isn't that mythical Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, or 'rational conservative', other than the 'rational conservative' who supports the con for plutocracy and benefit - rational but evil - and even that is debatable how 'rational' it is, if you understand plutocracy can be more harm than good even for those at the top at times, just irrational greed.

 

Plutocracy harms growth, harms innovation, harms things that benefit even those at the top, simply so they can grab more in the short term. So much for 'rational conservative'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, slideman said:

You just called a name

 

More like I  "called names" ... generally, to no one specifically or ad-hominem.

Is that too not PC-allowed anymore ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×