WH Bars Republicans from Jobs Meeting

bravo said:
This is YOUR POST #7.....
Did someone else make that stupid contention about "invited to everything" or was it YOU...???
Click to expand...

I love how stupid this is. It's a perfect example of how brain-dead you are.

I asked the question. PMP said THAT (as in "being invited to everything") was what some thought bipartisanship was. HE made the contention.

Read English much?

LOL - thanks for fulfilling my expectations....
 
Onceler said:
You said that some think "part of the definition" of "bipartisanship" is "being invited to everything."

I was addressing that contention....
Click to expand...

lol....I was making fun of your apparent conclusion that being invited to a meeting to discuss jobs was a demand to be invited to everything.....as I have said, we'll excuse Obama from inviting Republicans to his birthday party and to the movies.....pretending they shouldn't be invited to this meeting is asinine....
 
Damocles said:
Governors are not the congress, even if the congress had "no interest" in creating jobs Governors do. The reality is the WH is focusing on partisan politics to the detriment of the nation as a whole. A fear that Republicans can use this to advance what can be good ideas is at the heart of this exclusion. Considering many of these Governors just got their jobs from the electorate he is sworn to serve pretty much tells us that exclusion of the opposition party is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

I expect he didn't invite Republicans because he wants to come out of the meeting say "everyone here agrees that the solution of the problems is for the federal government to give the states money to pay their public employees"......
 
Onceler said:
I love how stupid this is. It's a perfect example of how brain-dead you are.

I asked the question. PMP said THAT (as in "being invited to everything") was what some thought bipartisanship was. HE made the contention.

Read English much?

LOL - thanks for fulfilling my expectations....
Click to expand...
Your a sorry asshole....

pmp didn't make a post until post #26....
YOU brought that stupid line up in post #7

and when he did reply, he said,
"well, some might think that's part of the definition.....but then I wouldn't expect a liberal to actually understand that....."

get that "SOME MIGHT THINK"....not he thinks...a remedial reading course would benefit you.

so YOU MADE THE STUPID contention and they lied about it and tryed to blame an innocent party....

The only brain-dead moron here is YOU sonny...try again.:fu:
 
Last edited:
As TCLiberal the clown would say, "well folks, the chronology of the posts proves me right and correct as usual"... but I'll pass on the "neoliberal", "left-wing parrot", "willfully ignorant", etc. stuff....
A classic pwning,.... indeed....
 
bravo said:
As TCLiberal the clown would say, "well folks, the chronology of the posts proves me right and correct as usual"... but I'll pass on the "neoliberal", "left-wing parrot", "willfully ignorant", etc. stuff....
A classic pwning,.... indeed....
Click to expand...

I don't really have time to give you reading lessons, but it's not the chronology, o' braindead one. I asked the question. PMP said THAT - and in his post, the THAT refers to the "inviting" line that you keep calling my "contention" - is what some think bipartisanship is.

Do you really want to continue to embarass yourself here? This is remedial stuff...
 
Onceler said:
I don't really have time to give you reading lessons, but it's not the chronology, o' braindead one. I asked the question. PMP said THAT - and in his post, the THAT refers to the "inviting" line that you keep calling my "contention" - is what some think bipartisanship is.

Do you really want to continue to embarass yourself here? This is remedial stuff...
Click to expand...

well, since you didn't understand if fully, instead of dwelling on what came before let's start from scratch....

it's a silly contention that since we believe a meeting on job's creation ought to be bipartisan, that we somehow believe that every activity on the president's calendar ought to be bipartisan....the fact he didn't include Republicans in this very important meeting is a sign that the upcoming year will be just as devoid of bipartisanship as the last two......
 
Dune said:
Right, because the house republicans are busy trying to repeal Obamacare and have NO INTEREST in creating jobs whatsover, so Obama should include Gov.s from the party that has openly stated that it's only present mission is to cause Obama to fail. Maybe if you use your "genuine brain" more often you could have figured that out on your own.
Click to expand...
Riiiight. This is what you get when you use donkey shit for brains.

Care to pull out quotes from some republican governors who have "openly stated it's their only present mission to cause Obama to fail?"

Or is it an outright bullshit lie - the typical method of rebuttal from those who wear the donkey's ass for headgear?

You democratic partisan hacks are worse than the Bushites of the last decade ever dreamed of being.
 
Good Luck said:
Riiiight. This is what you get when you use donkey shit for brains.

Care to pull out quotes from some republican governors who have "openly stated it's their only present mission to cause Obama to fail?"

Or is it an outright bullshit lie - the typical method of rebuttal from those who wear the donkey's ass for headgear?

You democratic partisan hacks are worse than the Bushites of the last decade ever dreamed of being.
Click to expand...

All the defending aside that these yahoos on here have done...I thought the dems wanted involvement in problem solving from republicans? Since jobs in every state impact the fiscal health of our country why in the hell would Obama prevent 29 states from coming to the table? I say it's because he does not care about fiscal health...he wants power period!
 
Yurt said:
you're awesome onceler...when you get caught in a lie...make another lie to cover up that lie

:good4u:
Click to expand...

I don't think you really understand what a "lie" is.

Actually, watching bravs' difficulties with comprehending the written word made me think you've been giving some reading lessons on here....
 
Onceler said:
True; bravs is generally acknowledged as one of the real mensa here. Maybe I should take another look.

Before I do, maybe you'd like to put $500 on that one, as well?
Click to expand...

i don't bet on what other people say. i only bet on what i say. and i only bet that amount when i know i am right. you're just an petulant whiner who can't accept i never said you support union money. if you weren't such a mangina about the word seem, and you had a 3rd grade reading comprehension level, you would not be running around the forum in numerous threads bringing it up over and over and over and over.

:)
 
Onceler said:
I don't really have time to give you reading lessons, but it's not the chronology, o' braindead one. I asked the question. PMP said THAT - and in his post, the THAT refers to the "inviting" line that you keep calling my "contention" - is what some think bipartisanship is.

Do you really want to continue to embarass yourself here? This is remedial stuff...
Click to expand...
You're a riot dude....

We all KNOW what "that" refers to...is that your attempt to deflect the point...???

PMP said that some think "part of the definition" of "bipartisanship" is "being invited to everything."(actually, the underlined phase are your words, not his)

Are you seriously trying to convince us that "SOME THINK" is pmp's way of saying "I THINK".....
Just man up and admit you're a liar.....
"some think" does not equate to "I think" ....never has and never will....

It kills me to admit Yurt was right about you all along....but I'll bit the bullet in this case.......
You lie...then you shift blame to someone else, then you try to deflect the whole point of contention to something entirely bogus.....

Just man up and take your medicine...the rest of the folks can read...and you're looking like a fool with every attempt to defend your lie.

:palm::lolup:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top