Axxe55
Retiretgtshit stirrer
mind your own business!!C'mon man, give it a rest.
mind your own business!!C'mon man, give it a rest.
This is the problem. The bill was not some progress at all, in fact the exact opposite. It gave the left everything they wanted and even went so far as codify into law that we actually HAVE an open border.On the border bill, they felt that making some progress on the border was better than none. I may or may not agree with that. But based on that alone (especially when the above list is taken into account) I would not label them liberal. And no person thinking rationally would.
Respect Other Postersmind your own business!!
Well written !The point is that some people today disagree on one point, and based on that one point the person/paper/organization they disagree with is wholly condemned.
As human beings, we will never agree with anyone on EVERYTHING. But when we agree on most things, we should not wholly condemn the other. This is my point. I do not know how to explain it any simpler.
As I pointed out the WSJ editorial board has taken the following stands (as anyone who ACTUALLY READS IT will know):
And I could go on and on.
- Strong 2A stance
- Strong 1A stance
- Against government agencies having unrestricted power and usurping legislative authority (think ATF, EPA, IRS, etc.)
- Pro U.S. military
- Anti-woke
- Anti-ESG
- Anti-DEI
- Points out the danger in the global warming cult drive, in terms of cost to people and instability of the grid
- Points out hypocrisy of global warming elites
- Hypocrisy of charging Trump for offenses liberals commit while not being charged
- Supports SCOTUS justices who believe in the Constitution as it was written
If this list does not sound conservative, then I don't know what is.
On the border bill, they felt that making some progress on the border was better than none. I may or may not agree with that. But based on that alone (especially when the above list is taken into account) I would not label them liberal. And no person thinking rationally would.
<>AND HOW MANY OF THESE COMPANIES HAVE YOU WRITTEN OR CALLEDTELLING THEM YOU ARE BOYCOTTING THEM AND THE REASON WHY? YOUR SPOUTING OFF IS MORE SELF-SERVING THAN PURPOSEFUL!
We don't really need new laws of any type. We just need to enforce the laws that exist. But that won't happen under Biden.This is the problem. The bill was not some progress at all, in fact the exact opposite. It gave the left everything they wanted and even went so far as codify into law that we actually HAVE an open border.
It was an absolute disaster for anyone thinking we need a secure border and the WSJ EB gave it their stamp of approval, period.
I get we're never going to agree 100% on every issue. However, that one is a massive one to disagree on and I think @General Zod's Romney comparison was entirely appropriate.
Nor do they meet anyone else's for that matter.<>
So sorry that my comments don’t meet your expectations.
<>
They were bought by InBev which is a Belgian companyAB is German after all, right? They're always into the weird shit.
Totally agree. But this bill would have brought new laws that loosen the laws already on the books, which was my point and is why the bill died, as it should have. So you actually make my point about the WSJ EB stance on this issue, which is that it was a step in the right direction when it was the opposite.We don't really need new laws of any type. We just need to enforce the laws that exist. But that won't happen under Biden.
maybe you should have gone into comedy rather than medicine!<>
So sorry that my comments don’t meet your expectations.
<>
On "LAW"....We don't really need new laws of any type. We just need to enforce the laws that exist. But that won't happen under Biden.
Why, has he tickled your funny bone?maybe you should have gone into comedy rather than medicine!
If you would read my posts, my point was that one editorial, in light of many conservatives stances on critical issues, does not make the board liberal.Totally agree. But this bill would have brought new laws that loosen the laws already on the books, which was my point and is why the bill died, as it should have. So you actually make my point about the WSJ EB stance on this issue, which is that it was a step in the right direction when it was the opposite.
Absolutely, DeSantis or even Haley over Trump = however even my ex wife over Biden!Seems like a weird hill to fight for, but Trump is just a stream of his consciousness all the time. He just needs to shut up sometimes.
LOL, I'll vote for him over Biden, but DeSantis was my choice.
Haley over Trump? That has got to be the stupidest thing I'll read today.Absolutely, DeSantis or even Haley over Trump = however even my ex wife over Biden!
<>We were somewhere recently and I said wtf and ordered a Bud Light in a bottle then another. It was just as good as I remembered for so much of my life as my favorite beer. I haven't paid for any 12-packs to bring home yet because I found Karbach with a lime flavor I really like but not exclusively.
At my age I won't deprive myself of something I really like (legally) because of some political boycott. I put my big boy pants on and just do it.
Speaking for all of us now?Nor do they meet anyone else's for that matter.