Attacking Trump

[dinosnake]

While it can be a challenge sometimes, I try to remind myself that for the most part our liberal friends really think they're helping, and most of them aren't actively trying to destroy western civilization...

They're not evil, just highly misguided...

Misguided, or duped?  Like the vast majority of Black folks continuing to vote democrat.

How, exactly?

Go ahead, please enlighten us on GOP programs and policies that will help "Black folks" in their lives.  I'm sure millions are waiting.

[Rams]

Was that really confetti dropped at the Democratic convention or just shredded emails?   30,000+ emails shredded would take a lot of clean up.   I also didn't realize that the taxpayer was using colored paper for printing emails but, I doubt that mattered to Hillary, she wasn't the one paying for it.

Enlighten me again, just where does Bill and Hillary land on the economic ladder?   Oh yeah right up there with all the rich folks.  And you really think she's on your side.   

[Rams]

Go ahead, please enlighten us on GOP programs and policies that will help "Black folks" in their lives.  I'm sure millions are waiting.

Gosh, I dunno.   Maybe equal opportunity to ____________  (fill in the blank),   
What more would any self respecting person ask for?

Never mind, don't answer that.   It appears there are few of those out there.   It's all about perspective, from mine, no one owes anyone anything but, a fair opportunity.    There's a huge difference between a helping hand and a hand out ya know.   

[dinosnake]

Go ahead, please enlighten us on GOP programs and policies that will help "Black folks" in their lives.  I'm sure millions are waiting.

Gosh, I dunno.   Maybe equal opportunity to ____________  (fill in the blank),   
What more would any self respecting person ask for?

Never mind, don't answer that.   It appears there are few of those out there.   It's all about perspective, from mine, no one owes anyone anything but, a fair opportunity.    There's a huge difference between a helping hand and a hand out ya know.   

You are right, nobody owes you anything.  But when corporations are taking in record profits and the GOP is against any form of pay scale matching - equal pay for the menial workers making the corporation the profits while the executives rake in millions - your "argument" holds exactly as much water as a colander.

Increased pay for work actually provided, just to keep up with absolutely systemic cost of living, is having to be rammed down conservative's throats.  While they rah-rah Wall Street investment incomes.

So don't try pandering, it doesn't work here.  50 years ago the Baby Boomers were protesting against unreasonable foreign wars and social problems; today, they sound just like their fathers while they do an Archie Bunker whine against anyone not like themselves.

[Rams]

Increased pay for work actually provided,

Sounds like a plan, I'm all for it.   A fair way to do that is to drop the hourly wage and pay for piece work.   The more satisifactory pieces produced, the more you get paid.   Sounds fair to me.   Let's go with it!!       Doesn't matter what sex, race or religion you are.   You get paid for what you do.   Yep, I'll vote for that.   How about you?

Okie Dokie.    Pandering appears to be something you know quite a bit about.   I'll leave it to an expert.  

I can see you had multiple glasses of the Kool Aide.    

[Bighead]

While it can be a challenge sometimes, I try to remind myself that for the most part our liberal friends really think they're helping, and most of them aren't actively trying to destroy western civilization...

They're not evil, just highly misguided...

Misguided, or duped?  Like the vast majority of Black folks continuing to vote democrat.

How, exactly?

Go ahead, please enlighten us on GOP programs and policies that will help "Black folks" in their lives.  I'm sure millions are waiting.

Really?
To quote Ronald Regan " The BEST social program is a JOB"
Dont tell me there are no Jobs , there are plenty. But people aren't willing to do them. I have been successfully employed scine the age of 12, Did I do jobs sometimes I did t want to? Damn right but I did them and have NEVER did you hear that NEVER ask anyone for a single penny and proud of it. Never wanted anyone to foot my bill at all. I did however. Borrow $1500 from my dad to make a down payment on a house just to save PMI money, probably the hardest thing I have ever done was to asm for that LOAN. Couldnt afford to but had him paid back is 3 months ( I just did without) .
Oh and BTW I sometimes work 3 jobs so I could proudly stand on my own. Those are values that are taught.
Also who you callin Black folks?

[Rams]

I recently went to the doctor for a physical and (of course) had to fill out a bunch of silly forms.

One question almost got me into trouble.   The questionnaire asked if I had anyone in my family that had demonstrated any tendencies toward mental illness.   I gave an honest response indicating that my uncle (from Chicago) had voted conservative his entire life but, upon his demise had all of a sudden had become a Clinton Supporter.   We thought he had gone nuts.   Turns out, no one was asking for his Id and he was voting in several locations and making darn good money doing it.  

Some one took pictures of him exiting the voting booth, it seems he resembles several folks I don't know.   I'm sure it's just a disguise so those terrible voter fraud folks from the UN don't catch him making a decent untaxed and undocumented buck.  

[sleepngbear]

You are right, nobody owes you anything.  But when corporations are taking in record profits and the GOP is against any form of pay scale matching - equal pay for the menial workers making the corporation the profits while the executives rake in millions - your "argument" holds exactly as much water as a colander.

Increased pay for work actually provided, just to keep up with absolutely systemic cost of living, is having to be rammed down conservative's throats.  While they rah-rah Wall Street investment incomes.

So don't try pandering, it doesn't work here.  50 years ago the Baby Boomers were protesting against unreasonable foreign wars and social problems; today, they sound just like their fathers while they do an Archie Bunker whine against anyone not like themselves.

I'll agree to a point that there are some greatly overpaid execs out there. But do you think they just walked out of high school and into those high-paying jobs? No. Some of them either built those companies up from nothing, risking everything they had in the process, but most of them grew with the companies or began honing their management skills from an early age. And anyone who has achieved that level of success has had to have a passion for what they do.  Sometimes that passion is demonstrated in less than ethical ways, but those are the minority, even though they are the ones you hear about most. The execs 'raking in millions' are also in the minority, but they are the ones with the greatest passion for whatever it is their companies do. 99.99% of the time it wasn't given to them -- they had to work for it, usually for a long time, and often risking it all to fulfill a dream. You only hear about them after they've reached that level of earning, but no one usually has any idea how they got there. Are you going to tell me they don't deserve to reap the profits of their ventures and risks more than the guy they hired off the street to serve his customers? Because that's basically what people who bitch about how much they make are saying. If it weren't for people like them, there would be no corporations to employ the menial workers. True to a point that those companies probably wouldn't make the profits they do without the peons, but those companies wouldn't even exist without the execs that run them. That is the difference between the bank presidents and the tellers, the Steve Easterbook's and the baggy-pantsed nobodies flipping his burgers, the Ginni Rometty's and the grunts writing code and answering the tech support phone lines.

As for the corporations raking in millions -- if you take away their incentive to make a profit, they suddenly don't make a profit. Socialistic policies with the goal of equalizing income regardless of effort expended or importance to a business is a disincentive for those who work the hardest and risk the most to make those millions for their companies. Lower profits turn into losses, losses turn into fewer jobs. Fewer jobs means more people on the public dole and fewer people contributing to it, which is exactly the direction we're heading with Obama and - God forbid - Clinton.

Conservative fiscal policy in a nutshell is to foster an environment that takes the reins off and allows all businesses to flourish, big or small; because when businesses flourish, they hire people. The more people hired, the more opportunities there are for people committed to what they do to rise in those companies and become higher earners. But they have to be able to be hired first, and encouraging people to remain sucking on the government tit is not the way to get there. See how that works?

[Rams]

Let's suppose "they" get their way and the minimum wage goes to $15.00/hour.  

I wouldn't think anyone is so silly as to think the price of the service or products those minimum hour employees provide isn't going to rise, is there?   So, let's say that the minimum Mickey Dee's employee is making $15.00 per hour.   What's a Big Mac gonna cost?

Or, would you stifle the company and regulate how much they could charge for that Big Mac?   Or, would you prefer the company go under for a lack of profit?   (Edited: and all those employees lose their jobs?)

So, the price of eating that Big Mac goes up, what just happened to your pay raise?

Not only does that effect the minimum wage employee but, now you've just brought the average middle class person closer to the poverty level because, I assure you, that middle class poverty worker who was at $15.00 per hour won't be getting a pay raise in order to maintain his position on the economic ladder.    

Who in the hell taught you folks basic economics?   Saul Alinsky

Opps, I forgot, Hillary did worship him.  

[Serk]

[Willow]

Let's suppose "they" get their way and the minimum wage goes to $15.00/hour.  

I wouldn't think anyone is so silly as to think the price of the service or products those minimum hour employees provide isn't going to rise, is there?   So, let's say that the minimum Mickey Dee's employee is making $15.00 per hour.   What's a Big Mac gonna cost?
...
So, the price of eating that Big Mac goes up, what just happened to your pay raise?

Not only does that effect the minimum wage employee but, now you've just brought the average middle class person closer to the poverty level because, I assure you, that middle class poverty worker who was at $15.00 per hour won't be getting a pay raise in order to maintain his position on the economic ladder.    

Who in the hell taught you folks basic economics?   Saul Alinsky

It's actually a little worse than that.  In a capitalistic economy the value of money (how much a dollar will buy) is purely synthetic.  The value of any item is determined by how much money the people seeking that item hold and how much they are willing to pay for it.  If the government synthetically alters the amount of money a significant portion of the market is holding, the value of the items they're seeking increases (inflation) because the worth of any dollar has diminished.  Remember the value of that dollar is determined by how many dollars people are holding and how many of those dollars they are willing to pay for the items they're seeking to buy.

As the dust settles, the people at the top are still at the top.  The people at the bottom are still at the bottom.  The only thing that has changed is how many dollars each holds although the ration remains about the same.  Competition for goods and services is still what it was.  Each of those dollars held is worth less than it was before and the rankings remain the same.

Honestly the only way out of that disproportionate distribution of wealth is to abandon capitalism and move to complete socialism.  The government (theoretically the people) own and control everything.  Individuals motivation to work harder, risk more, to climb the economic ladder is gone because everything is theoretically distributed evenly.  Experience has taught us that in that environment everyone is poor, well, excepting those in control of the government.  The political elite managed to be a little more wealthy than all the people they "served". 

I'm not sure I think that's a good idea but then I'm one who has, under capitalism, been able to increase my value in the workplace accumulate more than I once had and receive a just return for my efforts and my investments.  If I were one of the poor people who seemed to get stuck at the bottom I might think it would be an improvement if everyone else ere poor also.

I don't honestly know the answer to making poor people stop being poor.  I don't like making everyone poor to match and I do prefer creating an environment in which opportunity and motivation abound.  We can achieve that without allowing the exorbitantly wealthy continue to be exorbitantly wealthy.  In fact, as opportunity increases the wealthy will become even more wealthy unless there's something very seriously wrong with the origin of their wealth.             

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I just watched a little part of her speech where she said that Trump couldn't be trusted with the responsibility of deciding about nuclear bombing,,,,,,,,but she could.

Here's a person who demonstrated that security means nothing, wormed her way out of charges, and the Head of the FBI, on television, denounced her for a security risk.  Technically and legally she couldn't pass the requirement of Top Secret, let alone the secrets that a president is exposed to.

What twisted thinking, what a bunch of idiots, sorta reminds me of double speak Orwell s' "1984"

[Rams]

Let's suppose "they" get their way and the minimum wage goes to $15.00/hour.  

I wouldn't think anyone is so silly as to think the price of the service or products those minimum hour employees provide isn't going to rise, is there?   So, let's say that the minimum Mickey Dee's employee is making $15.00 per hour.   What's a Big Mac gonna cost?
...
So, the price of eating that Big Mac goes up, what just happened to your pay raise?

Not only does that effect the minimum wage employee but, now you've just brought the average middle class person closer to the poverty level because, I assure you, that middle class poverty worker who was at $15.00 per hour won't be getting a pay raise in order to maintain his position on the economic ladder.    

Who in the hell taught you folks basic economics?   Saul Alinsky

It's actually a little worse than that.  In a capitalistic economy the value of money (how much a dollar will buy) is purely synthetic.  The value of any item is determined by how much money the people seeking that item hold and how much they are willing to pay for it.  If the government synthetically alters the amount of money a significant portion of the market is holding, the value of the items they're seeking increases (inflation) because the worth of any dollar has diminished.  Remember the value of that dollar is determined by how many dollars people are holding and how many of those dollars they are willing to pay for the items they're seeking to buy.

As the dust settles, the people at the top are still at the top.  The people at the bottom are still at the bottom.  The only thing that has changed is how many dollars each holds although the ration remains about the same.  Competition for goods and services is still what it was.  Each of those dollars held is worth less than it was before and the rankings remain the same.

Honestly the only way out of that disproportionate distribution of wealth is to abandon capitalism and move to complete socialism.  The government (theoretically the people) own and control everything.  Individuals motivation to work harder, risk more, to climb the economic ladder is gone because everything is theoretically distributed evenly.  Experience has taught us that in that environment everyone is poor, well, excepting those in control of the government.  The political elite managed to be a little more wealthy than all the people they "served".  

I'm not sure I think that's a good idea but then I'm one who has, under capitalism, been able to increase my value in the workplace accumulate more than I once had and receive a just return for my efforts and my investments.  If I were one of the poor people who seemed to get stuck at the bottom I might think it would be an improvement if everyone else ere poor also.

I don't honestly know the answer to making poor people stop being poor.  I don't like making everyone poor to match and I do prefer creating an environment in which opportunity and motivation abound.  We can achieve that without allowing the exorbitantly wealthy continue to be exorbitantly wealthy.  In fact, as opportunity increases the wealthy will become even more wealthy unless there's something very seriously wrong with the origin of their wealth.              

Carl,
I agree and just to be clear, already understood that.   While I wasn't an A student, I did take a few Economics classes while in school.  (I worked a full time job slinging boxes of meat in Emporia, KS while I tried to graduate.)   I was actually trying to keep it at a level that almost anyone could follow.   But, thanks for your assistance.  

Edited:  As far as poor folks staying poor, there has always been a working "labor" force in this country and in every other country.  There will always be that working "labor" force.   Those who lack the ability or drive to strive for something better tend to want a government to step in and do it for them.   It's a self full filling idea.  But, the more those wanting assistance receive, the more the government is asked to provide, the more self full filling the dream becomes until, those who are paying for it can no longer support the masses.   Who do they think is paying for all this free stuff, they aren't.   But then, I'm preaching to the choir, you already know that.  

[Willow]

Carl,
I agree and just to be clear, already understood that.   While I wasn't an A student, I did take a few Economics classes while in school.  (I worked a full time job slinging boxes of meat in Emporia, KS while I tried to graduate.)   I was actually trying to keep it at a level that almost anyone could follow.   But, thanks for your assistance.  

LOL! You are few steps ahead of me.  I wasn't inspired to be an A student either.  I became disillusioned and left high school after my junior year.  Imagine how it would have troubled some of those college students to be told they were being taught by a high school dropout.   

I thought I did keep it at a level that almost anyone could understand.   

[Rams]

I thought I did keep it at a level that almost anyone could understand.  

Carl,
As a guest instructor at a little known school in the Army, the method of teaching required three distinct steps.

1st, tell'em what you're gonna tell them.
2nd, tell'em
3rd, tell'em what you told them and when you get to the important parts (testable information), stomp your feet so they write it down.

I have no doubt you'd be a great instructor but, you gotta learn to stomp them feet.   They ain't listening much less writing it down.  

[..]

Go ahead, please enlighten us on GOP programs and policies that will help "Black folks" in their lives.  I'm sure millions are waiting.

Gosh, I dunno.   Maybe equal opportunity to ____________  (fill in the blank),   
What more would any self respecting person ask for?

Never mind, don't answer that.   It appears there are few of those out there.   It's all about perspective, from mine, no one owes anyone anything but, a fair opportunity.    There's a huge difference between a helping hand and a hand out ya know.   

You are right, nobody owes you anything.  But when corporations are taking in record profits and the GOP is against any form of pay scale matching - equal pay for the menial workers making the corporation the profits while the executives rake in millions - your "argument" holds exactly as much water as a colander.

Increased pay for work actually provided, just to keep up with absolutely systemic cost of living, is having to be rammed down conservative's throats.  While they rah-rah Wall Street investment incomes.

So don't try pandering, it doesn't work here.  50 years ago the Baby Boomers were protesting against unreasonable foreign wars and social problems; today, they sound just like their fathers while they do an Archie Bunker whine against anyone not like themselves.

I've asked you this before and had no response so I'll try again.

Why didn't obama and the democrat party do something about all the injustice you feel when they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

You do know that for quite a few years they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

[Rams]

You do know that for quite a few years they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

Precisely how we got ObamaCare.   

[sleepngbear]

I've asked you this before and had no response so I'll try again.

Why didn't obama and the democrat party do something about all the injustice you feel when they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

You do know that for quite a few years they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

I'll take a crack at this one.... they talked about it. A lot. So much that people on both sides of the argument have become so irate about the issue that the racial divide in this country is wider and racial tensions higher now than probably any time in the last 50 years.

[..]

I've asked you this before and had no response so I'll try again.

Why didn't obama and the democrat party do something about all the injustice you feel when they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

You do know that for quite a few years they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

I'll take a crack at this one.... they talked about it. A lot. So much that people on both sides of the argument have become so irate about the issue that the racial divide in this country is wider and racial tensions higher now than probably any time in the last 50 years.

 

[Rams]

I've asked you this before and had no response so I'll try again.

Why didn't obama and the democrat party do something about all the injustice you feel when they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

You do know that for quite a few years they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

Crickets?   All I hear is crickets?    Damn, that's annoying............ 

[Gavin_Sons]

Go ahead, please enlighten us on GOP programs and policies that will help "Black folks" in their lives.  I'm sure millions are waiting.

Gosh, I dunno.   Maybe equal opportunity to ____________  (fill in the blank),   
What more would any self respecting person ask for?

Never mind, don't answer that.   It appears there are few of those out there.   It's all about perspective, from mine, no one owes anyone anything but, a fair opportunity.    There's a huge difference between a helping hand and a hand out ya know.   

You are right, nobody owes you anything.  But when corporations are taking in record profits and the GOP is against any form of pay scale matching - equal pay for the menial workers making the corporation the profits while the executives rake in millions - your "argument" holds exactly as much water as a colander.

Increased pay for work actually provided, just to keep up with absolutely systemic cost of living, is having to be rammed down conservative's throats.  While they rah-rah Wall Street investment incomes.

So don't try pandering, it doesn't work here.  50 years ago the Baby Boomers were protesting against unreasonable foreign wars and social problems; today, they sound just like their fathers while they do an Archie Bunker whine against anyone not like themselves.

I've asked you this before and had no response so I'll try again.

Why didn't obama and the democrat party do something about all the injustice you feel when they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

You do know that for quite a few years they had COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT???

But but but, it's the Republicans fault Even though democraps were in control. 
It's because democraps/liberals are all talk and no show. They lile to talk a big game but when it comes down to it they either do nothing or the complete opposite. 

[baldo]

Howdee fellas. Nice to see things haven't changed at all around here...

I've poked my head in a few times when I've had a chance. That DNC convention was a doozy! Loved every minute of it....

To get back on message...I just couldn't hold my keyboard still any longer....Obama and the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority for 72 days, not years as some here are claiming...

I've provided a link, and it's not even Snopes! And there's plenty of others...

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

Have a nice day.

[Rams]

Howdee fellas. Nice to see things haven't changed at all around here...

I've poked my head in a few times when I've had a chance. That DNC convention was a doozy! Loved every minute of it....

To get back on message...I just couldn't hold my keyboard still any longer....Obama and the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority for 72 days, not years as some here are claiming...

I've provided a link, and it's not even Snopes! And there's plenty of others...

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

Have a nice day.

While I don't doubt the "filibuster proof" data you've provided, the fact is, they controlled Congress during several years of the first Obama administration.   As close as I can remember, Obama stated in a State of the Union speech in reference to Obama Care, we've got the votes to do what we want or something close to that.    

With a little compromise, the dems could have gotten a lot more done but, they wanted the ball.    I won't suggest the Republicans were guilt free either but, don't deny the Dems had control.   Dems could have done many things while they controlled Congress but, much like the Republicans under Mitch McConnell's reign, they simply won't do what's best for the nation as a whole.

The most important decisions to be made will come when the newly elected President selects new Justices for SCOTUS as they die off or retire.    That will determine the future of our country much more than either candidate.

[..]

Howdee fellas. Nice to see things haven't changed at all around here...

I've poked my head in a few times when I've had a chance. That DNC convention was a doozy! Loved every minute of it....

To get back on message...I just couldn't hold my keyboard still any longer....Obama and the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority for 72 days, not years as some here are claiming...

I've provided a link, and it's not even Snopes! And there's plenty of others...

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

Have a nice day.

You sir are correct. Thank you.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4e5_1346191012&comments=1

EDIT

Uh Oh. maybe not so fast

A majority in the Senate is 51 to pass a bill (unless a supermajority is needed, like a treaty or Constitutional Amendment). This is why the VP is in the Senate, to cast a tie-breaking vote, if needed. You need 60 to break a filibuster and proceed with a vote. The article is misleading about the simple majority (51) without a filibuster.
Read more at

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4e5_1346191012&comments=1

[..]

During much of President Bush's administration, congress was controlled by Republicans. That changed, however, with the 110-111 congress (Jan-04,2007 - Dec-22,2010), at which time, both the house and the senate now had a majority of Democrats. But although Barack Obama had a Democratic congress for the first year and a half of his presidency (Jan 2009 to Nov 2010), that changed in the 2010 midterm elections. Ever since Jan-05, 2011, the 112th congress was divided: it had a majority of Democrats in the Senate and a Republican majority in the House.

[..]

Have we hit the bottom of the rabbit hole yet???

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/us-border-protection-agcy-advertises-safe-zones-illegal-aliens

[Rams]

HELLO

Hello

hello

hell

hel

he

h

Dang, it sure got quiet in here.   Can't even hear the crickets over the echo........................  

Edited:  Actually, I was hoping to get a response/explanation on just how that $15.00 an hour pay was going to save the world.

Edited II:  Oh, BTW.   IF, I were a betting man, I'd wager on Hillary in this horse race.   Way too much free stuff at stake for the "masses" to not go to the polls and vote for her.   Even my dead Uncle Frank is leaning that direction..................  

[baldo]

Howdee fellas. Nice to see things haven't changed at all around here...

I've poked my head in a few times when I've had a chance. That DNC convention was a doozy! Loved every minute of it....

To get back on message...I just couldn't hold my keyboard still any longer....Obama and the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority for 72 days, not years as some here are claiming...

I've provided a link, and it's not even Snopes! And there's plenty of others...

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

Have a nice day.

You sir are correct. Thank you.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4e5_1346191012&comments=1

EDIT

Uh Oh. maybe not so fast

A majority in the Senate is 51 to pass a bill (unless a supermajority is needed, like a treaty or Constitutional Amendment). This is why the VP is in the Senate, to cast a tie-breaking vote, if needed. You need 60 to break a filibuster and proceed with a vote. The article is misleading about the simple majority (51) without a filibuster.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4e5_1346191012&comments=1#1mKM6shWXHk4JBR3.99

A vote passed with 51 votes has been rarer than a day without Trump stepping on his johnson. A 60 vote majority to defeat a filibuster has become the norm and not the exception. It's been that way for just about the whole Obama presidency....

http://fair.org/uncategorized/how-many-votes-does-it-take-to-pass-a-senate-bill/

http://fair.org/uncategorized/of-course-you-need-60-votes-for-now/

There's lots more out there demonstrating this phenomenon, I just don't have much time to go looking....

So much for crickets.....

[G-Man]

While it can be a challenge sometimes, I try to remind myself that for the most part our liberal friends really think they're helping, and most of them aren't actively trying to destroy western civilization...

They're not evil, just highly misguided...

Misguided, or duped?  Like the vast majority of Black folks continuing to vote democrat.

How, exactly?

Go ahead, please enlighten us on GOP programs and policies that will help "Black folks" in their lives.  I'm sure millions are waiting.

School vouchers, for one.  Stopped by Obama.

[Gavin_Sons]

Howdee fellas. Nice to see things haven't changed at all around here...

I've poked my head in a few times when I've had a chance. That DNC convention was a doozy! Loved every minute of it....

To get back on message...I just couldn't hold my keyboard still any longer....Obama and the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority for 72 days, not years as some here are claiming...

I've provided a link, and it's not even Snopes! And there's plenty of others...

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

Have a nice day.

You sir are correct. Thank you.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4e5_1346191012&comments=1

EDIT

Uh Oh. maybe not so fast

A majority in the Senate is 51 to pass a bill (unless a supermajority is needed, like a treaty or Constitutional Amendment). This is why the VP is in the Senate, to cast a tie-breaking vote, if needed. You need 60 to break a filibuster and proceed with a vote. The article is misleading about the simple majority (51) without a filibuster.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4e5_1346191012&comments=1#1mKM6shWXHk4JBR3.99

A vote passed with 51 votes has been rarer than a day without Trump stepping on his johnson. A 60 vote majority to defeat a filibuster has become the norm and not the exception. It's been that way for just about the whole Obama presidency....

http://fair.org/uncategorized/how-many-votes-does-it-take-to-pass-a-senate-bill/

http://fair.org/uncategorized/of-course-you-need-60-votes-for-now/

There's lots more out there demonstrating this phenomenon, I just don't have much time to go looking....

So much for crickets.....

If he could step on his johnson he would not be in politics. 

[baldo]

If he could step on his johnson he would not be in politics.