LOL- obama's hypocrisy leaves gibbs stumped
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and this has apparently stumped the libs on thsi board as well...
and this has apparently stumped the libs on thsi board as well...
Conservatives & Libertarians, as well. Because they didn't comment either.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
well by golly....you're right
though we all know why libs ran from this thread....and we all know why cons or libers didn't reply...because they most likely agree, obama is a hypocrite
the fact you didn't weigh in on the thread topic shows you're a fraidy cat...because we all know you jump right into a thread you "feel" you can make a good debate and run from threads you can't
I don't think people really "run" from threads. That's a bit of huberis on your part. People either find topics interesting & want to engage in discussion on them, or don't. Personally, there are certain issues I generally like to debate on, and I take part much more in those threads.
I don't really feel a need to defend or try to defend Obama anytime someone throws bait out there, on any issue. That seems to be the general assumption of post #2 here; it just doesn't hold much water.
Some threads just aren't that interesting. I don't really think there is anyone here, on an anonymous message board, who really fears debate.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
onceler, you run from threads you know you can't make a point on....especially when it makes your dems look bad. occasionally you enter a thread and make a point against your precious dems or obama....however, that is so seldom that its laughable you claim you don't run from threads....
do you have anything to say about the thread topic or are you just going to continue to prove me right that your run from certain topics?
let's see if onceler can actually address the thread topic
Honestly, I don't really have anything to say on it. I have absolutely no opinion on it whatsoever.
I was really responding to your post #2, which you tend to do when no one responds to your threads. I just thought you should consider the possibility that it simply might not be that interesting. You seemed to want someone from the "left" to respond, but you don't seem to like the response you got.
I also have to reiterate, the idea of "running" from threads is simply huberis on your part. It's Friday night; how many lefties have posted on the board in general in the 2 hours since you posted this thread initially? I don't think anyone on here shies away from a topic because it's just so scary & indefensible. Posters on both the right & the left here have taken on all kinds of crazy, indefensible positions & topics.
Well that's interesting! So the fact that the point is made bitingly clear by the reporters question, that those states who's municipalities usurp the same federal law that Arizona merely mirrors are not being sued by the feds leaves you without opinion...so what's your opinion on Arizona's law?
Arizona's law bums me out, but I believe pretty strongly in states rights.
I guess that's an opinion. What are you looking for me to say? It just doesn't fire me up like some other issues out there. Do you get fired up about every topic?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i see....so you have nothing to say about the actual thread topic, you're here just to whine about some perceived hubris on the part of dear ol' yurt....apparently my hubris is more interesting to you than just plain politics...slow friday night onceler?
you're taking my wee comment about running away far to seriously....it actually on reinforces my statement that lefties like you run from actual topics...you have spent an incredible amount of time on a side issue, while ignoring the president's hypocrisy.....
why? because he has a D after his name....if this had been bush you would have your machete out attempting to chop this thread to bits
Yurt, you invited a response like mine with your 2nd post. You made the lack of response the topic; I was just trying to engage.
I can't really speak to the "if this had been Bush" line of reasoning anymore. It has been so oft-repeated at this point as to be a nearly insane parody of itself. I simply don't feel a need to defend Obama all of the time, on every issue; that's not my purpose in life. Rush Limbaugh openly admitted carrying water for the GOP. That just isn't my function with Democrats.
So it bums you out? Why?
To me, it's kind of antithesis to how this country came into being. It's also a little too police state for my philosophy.
There are more positive, win-win solutions for the issue, imo.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no onceler....i did not make it the topic, rather a side issue
i know you want to run and continue running from the actual topic of the thread....so i won't bother responding to your inane fraidy cat posts until youi actually address the thread topic
let me help you out....don't you think it is hypocritical of obama to go after AZ while ignoring the sanctuary cities? i thought it was a good question, so good, gibbs was dumbfounded and so are you
one more try....can onceler address the thread topic....
Yeah - I would agree that there is a double-standard at work. Clearly, it has to do with the agenda that he's trying to forward.
I think the characterization that I'm "dumbfounded" is sort of a reach. I thought I did a pretty decent job of explaining why I responded on this thread initially, but you still seem to want to create some sort of partisan one-upsmanship where none really exists.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what is this double standard agenda obama is trying to foward?
you focused all your energy on a side issue onceler....deal with it
Seriously?
Obviously, he is opposed to the AZ law; the sanctuary cities, not so much.
Again, the side issue is of your making. I thought I did deal with it, but no response seems to be satisfactory for you this evening.
So it bums you out to see the federal law enforced, but you don't care if it's broken. So is it OK for the federal government to sue Arizona for enforcing the federal law?
