In article ,
says...

On 4/22/2015 2:23 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

Indeed, I don't vote for candidates who are opposed to gay marriage; who
are enemies of blacks, latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities;
who want more tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of middle and
lower income wage earners; who are anti-abortion; who believe in
Creationism but not evolution; who are opposed to the ACA, Medicare and
Medicaid; who deny mankind is a major contributor to negative climate
change; who think capital is worth more than labor; who oppose sensible
handgun control, and who want to get rid of environmental protections
and safeguards over prescriptions, food, worker safety, clean water, et
cetera.

Unfortunately, *all* Republican presidential candidates seem to want
these days are that which are anti-societal.

That's a pretty broad brush and highly partisan bunch of meaningless
words when you try to imply that *all* Republican candidates fall into
your list of qualifying criteria. For example, some have expressed
their *personal* views on subjects while qualifying that their personal
views do not and should not be reflected in a democratic legislative
process. In everything there must be a balance. The pendulum has swung
to it's liberal extreme and it's time now for some correction.

Personal beliefs have a way of finding themselves represented on SCOTUS.
"Liberal extreme." Just what is that, in your opinion?
The ACA? Here to stay in its essence. It should go single-payer.
Gay marriage? Hasn't been decided. But it will be.
Just what are your "liberal extremes?"
Do you want prayer in school?
A continued Cuba embargo?
Not enough wars for you? Or too many?
Are you against the "War on Christmas?"

On 4/22/2015 3:40 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 4/22/2015 2:23 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

Indeed, I don't vote for candidates who are opposed to gay marriage; who
are enemies of blacks, latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities;
who want more tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of middle and
lower income wage earners; who are anti-abortion; who believe in
Creationism but not evolution; who are opposed to the ACA, Medicare and
Medicaid; who deny mankind is a major contributor to negative climate
change; who think capital is worth more than labor; who oppose sensible
handgun control, and who want to get rid of environmental protections
and safeguards over prescriptions, food, worker safety, clean water, et
cetera.

Unfortunately, *all* Republican presidential candidates seem to want
these days are that which are anti-societal.

That's a pretty broad brush and highly partisan bunch of meaningless
words when you try to imply that *all* Republican candidates fall into
your list of qualifying criteria. For example, some have expressed
their *personal* views on subjects while qualifying that their personal
views do not and should not be reflected in a democratic legislative
process. In everything there must be a balance. The pendulum has swung
to it's liberal extreme and it's time now for some correction.

Personal beliefs have a way of finding themselves represented on SCOTUS.
"Liberal extreme." Just what is that, in your opinion?
The ACA? Here to stay in its essence. It should go single-payer.
Gay marriage? Hasn't been decided. But it will be.
Just what are your "liberal extremes?"
Do you want prayer in school?
A continued Cuba embargo?
Not enough wars for you? Or too many?
Are you against the "War on Christmas?"




I am against political nutcases like you.

In article ,
says...


I am against political nutcases like you.

LOL. You go on a weeks long anti-HRC rampage, and post a statement, to
wit, "The pendulum has swung to it's liberal extreme and it's time now
for some correction."
I ask you what that statement means. Even provided the "usual
suspects" to help you gather your thoughts. You had no answer.
And that makes ME a "political nutcase."
LOL.

On 4/22/2015 5:20 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
And that makes ME a "political nutcase."

Yup!

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 5:20:24 PM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


I am against political nutcases like you.

LOL. You go on a weeks long anti-HRC rampage, and post a statement, to
wit, "The pendulum has swung to it's liberal extreme and it's time now
for some correction."
I ask you what that statement means. Even provided the "usual
suspects" to help you gather your thoughts. You had no answer.
And that makes ME a "political nutcase."
LOL.

No, your usual rants make you a political nutcase.

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 3:40 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 4/22/2015 2:23 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

Indeed, I don't vote for candidates who are opposed to gay
marriage; who
are enemies of blacks, latinos, and other racial and ethnic
minorities;
who want more tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of
middle and
lower income wage earners; who are anti-abortion; who believe in
Creationism but not evolution; who are opposed to the ACA, Medicare
and
Medicaid; who deny mankind is a major contributor to negative climate
change; who think capital is worth more than labor; who oppose
sensible
handgun control, and who want to get rid of environmental protections
and safeguards over prescriptions, food, worker safety, clean
water, et
cetera.

Unfortunately, *all* Republican presidential candidates seem to want
these days are that which are anti-societal.

That's a pretty broad brush and highly partisan bunch of meaningless
words when you try to imply that *all* Republican candidates fall into
your list of qualifying criteria. For example, some have expressed
their *personal* views on subjects while qualifying that their personal
views do not and should not be reflected in a democratic legislative
process. In everything there must be a balance. The pendulum has
swung
to it's liberal extreme and it's time now for some correction.

Personal beliefs have a way of finding themselves represented on SCOTUS.
"Liberal extreme." Just what is that, in your opinion?
The ACA? Here to stay in its essence. It should go single-payer.
Gay marriage? Hasn't been decided. But it will be.
Just what are your "liberal extremes?"
Do you want prayer in school?
A continued Cuba embargo?
Not enough wars for you? Or too many?
Are you against the "War on Christmas?"




I am against political nutcases like you.



Kevin is out there...