Englebert

Ooops, I was wrong. You actually don't have the ability to find the online thesaurus.

I think you missed my point. I don't think anyone on here will deny the plethora of sexual escapades on both sides. The point of this topic was to call out the folks that screamed from the rooftops their fake outrage about the Trump tapes. These same people are not very vocal about the recent revelations. It's not the actions by the perpetrators that is causing the disconcerting feelings, it is the response by the Liberals to each. The second part of my post was solely about calling out posters on this board for ignoring evidence. You called out this act from those on the Right, but did not call out the many, many, many examples of this from the Liberals on here. And thus my final sentence in my previous post.

What about the mentally ill? Please detail, or even outline, a law that you want that restricts guns from them. In order to do this you must describe who should be classified as "mentally ill". Go!

I think most of here are gleefully acknowledging the revelations of the dalliances of the Liberals because of the hyper-fake outrage expressed by the Left for the last two years. I find it odd...who am I kidding...I find it predictable that the Liberals went into meltdown mode over the Trump tapes, which was front page news for far too long on every Liberal "news" site, now are subdued by the current "news". I don't think many are defending Trump, just pointing out blatant hypocrisy. Maybe the many, many, many hypocrites on the Liberal side should be wearing those jackets. It gets frustrating when you provide evidence that slaps down someone's post, only to see that same person regurgitate the same ol' lies doesn't it. But yet the Liberals are still running free on this board. If there ever was a more appropriate time for this admonishment, it sure should not be directed at the members from the Right. Slapping down one side while ignoring the blatant and abundant use of this tactic might require someone to pull their jacket out of the closet. And before you start typing the response, I have my jacket in my hand.

Nope, no flaws at all. The analogy/comparision is just as far as you want to take it, and what point of view you want to apply to each situation.

Uh-oh. new tobie found the online dictionary. Wait till he finds the online thesaurus. He will find 50 different ways to say "grab um".

It is not at all flawed in the instance discussed...it is spot on. Republicans were just following a precedent set earlier. But I agree with your second part. I have never been a fan of the use of "precedents" in court cases. Each case should stand on it's on merits, regardless of previous rulings. Precedents are good for guiding behavior, but not for determining guilt or innocence. And in this case, the Democrats are the ones that invoked the precedent, then whined like children when the same tactic was used against them. That is childish. And I used the term Democrat instead of Liberal in this instance for good reason.

So the Supreme Court and every other court should ignore every precedent ruling. Hmmm.

What laws would you suggest? I created a whole topic on this issue a while back. Please tell us peons what you would propose that would allow millions of people to protect themselves while simultaneously ensuring that the "bad guys" do not acquire these weapons. Please list your suggestions so we can see how much you really understand. This seems to be a very important topic for Liberals, and since you are a Liberal, I will deduce that it is a very important one for you. (Correct me if I am wrong.) It will be interesting to see if you run from such an important topic.

Have you downloaded that app that plays the sound of dangling keys? You must not have, you are still on this board.

And you don't even know the reasons why. How sad.

All you can muster for trash talk is to parrot/plagiarize the same lines I used on you...even you must realize how laughingly pathetic that is...yes, even you. And the laughter is only getting louder. You might want to stick with the "grab um" narrative. Your attempts at trash talk sound even worse than that gem. Maybe resurrect that "go feed your cats" line. That one made me literally LOL.

Where did you acquire this clairvoyant crystal ball? Are you actually trying to make a point that if someone doesn't respond to a topic then they somehow condone the issue...or not. That is just nonsense. I don't know how you feel about pro wrestling, therefore I can conclude you hate it. That's the narrative I want to push, so I will just add you to list of confirmations of my theory. And who is fence straddling? Are you implying that anyone that doesn't reply in a particular way to this topic is fence straddling? I have not added my thoughts about Bergdahl to this topic, and I'm sure I've expressed my displeasure about NFL players kneeling/sitting during the anthem. What insightful information do you think you have gleaned about me?

Are you really still trying to push that bogus and pathetic narrative? You sound as childish as new tobie.

I gave wild-spending Bill credit for working with the Right, although that capitulation came reluctantly and not without a fight. The Left will not admit that Bill was forced to change his wild spending ways and continually give him full credit for an economy that would never have happened if he had stuck to his ideology. And I'm very thankful that the Right will not work with the current Liberals in office. The loony Liberals have hi-jacked the once proud Democratic party and turned it into a despicable (or deplorable) platform of anti-American ideas. Compromise with them cannot be good for anybody. Please, I beg you, take back your party from these current nut-cases...then we can talk about compromising.

Newt Gingrich forced Clinton to adopt a more Conservative economic platform. Wild-spending Bill shut the government down twice in childish defiance before acquiescing to Gingrich's policies. I give Bill credit for finally "seeing the light", although he had to be arm-twisted. If left unchallenged Bill would have probably been just as bad as Obama.

Who are the "some" you speak of? Is it okay to respond to someone in the same manner/tone as theirs?

Did you read the article? It confirms you are a liar.

I'm in total agreement with you on the last part. I lost any respect I would have had for Brazile after 1: she gave Clinton the questions, and 2: she continually lied about it.

This coming from someone that constantly lies then runs. Am I supposed to be offended? Since you are in a "debating" mood, please give evidence of your many, many contentions that Trump wants to exclude the pre-existing conditions clause in a new healthcare package.

I for one would complain again.

By this statement I am assuming you think Donna Brazile slipped up and actually told the truth for once. Is that correct?

Comprehension is obviously not your friend.

Do you really think I actually believe that? That post was made in "Tobie style". And he still hasn't provided evidence that Trump wants to get rid of the "pre-existing condition clause" in a new healthcare package, even though he has stated it as fact on many occasions. I noticed you have not called him out on that. Maybe that is the problem in this world.

I believe that the only good folks are non-Liberals, regardless of skin color. Try and argue against that point. I dare you.