-
Pavlovian Manipulator
[QUOTE=Warhorse;877451]
 Originally Posted by FLA4NEB
I think with a President Paul we would see the majority of Congress stand up to the encroachment of Executive power over the Legislative branch. I can easily imagine the response of many in congress as a President Paul pushes for what he has proposed.
It is almost as if you have never noticed the ebb and flow of power in DC over the year between the branches of government. Not sure why you think you need to end every post directed towards me with a passive aggressive personal jab. Care to explain this strange compulsion??[/QUOTE]
I don't think that electing Paul would automatically motivate the majority of Congress to "stand up to" or for anything, especially when he would be dealing with Dems in control of both the House and the Senate.
It was directed at you because you asked the poster to clarify his post. Don't play a victim here...
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
-
I've seen many crazy things on this board but for someone to attack Warhorse for a post is just insane. Give him a break.
-
Originally Posted by CombatTargeteer
I've seen many crazy things on this board but for someone to attack Warhorse for a post is just insane. Give him a break.
Where did that happen?
“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.” ― Margaret Thatcher.
-
Originally Posted by FLA4NEB
There was nothing passive aggressive about that jab  And it was directed at you because you addressed me directly. If you don't want to spar don't get in the ring. And that's NOT passive-aggressive? Can you just not help yourself?
I think if Paul was elected and he pushed for what he is proposing Congress would push back and pretty hard. He is proposing not only limiting the power of future Presidents but also Congress in very large ways. I don't see Congress rolling over for that and if he uses executive orders and cabinet appointees to start dismantling what he can from the executive side of the table. I could see Congress challenge executive orders as well as pass laws the compel departments to stay in place.
Congress has a lot more to lose in the small government equation and will fight harder (a cross party lines) to keep their power and control.
(if you are going to continue to do that in line red bold commenting could you please learn how to do it without messing up the formatting tags...thank you.)
A two-for-one special--you started and ended with a passive-aggressive jab but thanks for answering my question inbetween.
I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.
-
[QUOTE=Big Red Rick;877566]
Originally Posted by Warhorse
It was directed at you because you asked the poster to clarify his post. Don't play a victim here...
Sure I asked him to clarify his post but also wondered why he can't help but post some passive-agressive slap at me every time he responds to my posts. So far no answer to that. You seem to want to butt into our conversation so do you have an answer?
I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.
-
Originally Posted by Warhorse
A two-for-one special--you started and ended with a passive-aggressive jab but thanks for answering my question inbetween.
And yet one more "all about me" thread-hijack is complete. 
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
“Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)
-
Originally Posted by Warhorse
And that's NOT passive-aggressive? Can you just not help yourself? ... A two-for-one special--you started and ended with a passive-aggressive jab but thanks for answering my question inbetween.
Can you please explain what you mean by passive-aggressive.
“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.” ― Margaret Thatcher.
-
Originally Posted by redmachine
And yet one more "all about me" thread-hijack is complete.
And yet another player piles on. Let's recap...I asked FLA4 why he thought he had constantly add snarky passive-aggressive comments when I merely asked for a legitimate clarification of a statement he made. You now make the second poster who has seen fit to jump in and add your own snarky passive-aggressive comments directed at me.
I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.
-
Originally Posted by Warhorse
And yet another player piles on. Let's recap...I asked FLA4 why he thought he had constantly add snarky passive-aggressive comments when I merely asked for a legitimate clarification of a statement he made. You now make the second poster who has seen fit to jump in and add your own snarky passive-aggressive comments directed at me.
[snark] [/snark]
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
“Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.” -- (Benjamin Franklin)
-
Originally Posted by FLA4NEB
Can you please explain what you mean by passive-aggressive.
Google it because I am going no further with this conversation as we are headed right off the cliff of one of your silly semantic battles.
I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.
-
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Google it because I am going no further with this conversation as we are headed right off the cliff of one of your silly semantic battles.
Well I think that happened when you implied that I have a personality disorder...
“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.” ― Margaret Thatcher.
-
Originally Posted by FLA4NEB
Well I think that happened when you accused me of having a personality disorder...
Not sure where you came up with the personality disorder silliness but you answered my question and clarified your statement so thank you and let's let it go at that.
I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.
-
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Not sure where you came up with the personality disorder silliness but you answered my question and clarified your statement so thank you and let's let it go at that.
Google it
“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.” ― Margaret Thatcher.
-
-
-
Red Shirt
I wonder what the percentage of people voting for Obama are voting for him because he isn't an Old Rich White Guy? I know that campaign was in full force in 2008 at least in KC, and I'm sure it will come about in 2012 as well. Its no different, the race card goes both ways and yes it is an issue.
-
Originally Posted by ShuckIt
I wonder what the percentage of people voting for Obama are voting for him because he isn't an Old Rich White Guy? I know that campaign was in full force in 2008 at least in KC, and I'm sure it will come about in 2012 as well. Its no different, the race card goes both ways and yes it is an issue.
Which campaign was in full force in KC in 2008?
-
Originally Posted by ChitownHusker
I guess I don't technically fall in the anybody but Obama crowd. I would actually vote for Obama if Ron Paul were the nominee, which there is really no chance of occurring. I believe Obama's policies have been very bad for the country and have stifled the economic recovery, but I believe Ron Paul's policies, particularly the return to the gold standard, would send us into a Second Great Depression. Beyond Ron Paul, however, there is no candidate still standing who I would not vote for instead of Obama. I like President Obama as a person, I respect his intellect, but I think he has been a bad president and has not earned another four years.
That's more or less where I'm at - although I also admit Santorum gives me a bit of heartburn too. But I think his chances are not much better than Paul's, so I haven't spent a lot of contemplating that particular "what if."
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Never been on a liberal blog in my life.
Originally Posted by cactusboy
It's people like me that make cops better.
-
Originally Posted by Formo
Page two and so far this thread is a mess.. lol
Anyway, I vote for which ever candidate matches my views best. So far they've been mostly republicans (only voted for one presidential campaign in my life) with the occasional Libertarian/Indie thrown in the mix.
It's simple as that. Ironically enough, everybody is black when you look at the ballots.
why I'm voting Obama
 
For every minute you remain angry, you give up sixty seconds of peace of mind.
-
Admit it you are voting for him because you hate old white guys.
“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.” ― Margaret Thatcher.
|
|
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
