100% on point 

Barkley dropping truth bombs

Amen.  Always liked this guy.

Barkley is the man. Would be in my top 5 athletes i would want to have a beer with

That’s some @DrPhilly level gibberish from Barkley.

 

Just now, Dave Moss said:

That’s some @DrPhilly level gibberish from Barkley.

 

So you disagree.   I dont.  
 

I believe it serves the political establishment nothing to unit us and everything to divide us. 

6 minutes ago, SNOORDA said:

So you disagree.   I dont.  
 

I believe it serves the political establishment nothing to unit us and everything to divide us. 

Politicians win elections because people vote for them.  If you want to get rid of the dividers then vote them out.

5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Politicians win elections because people vote for them.  If you want to get rid of the dividers then vote them out.

We couldnt agree more.  Problem is the few non-dividing politicians never win.   And that is on the voters.  So yeah.  I couldnt agree more with you

Wts my point stands that barkley has a point

33 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

That’s some @DrPhilly level gibberish from Barkley.

 

Charles doesn't appreciate your blatant racism Dave

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Charles doesn't appreciate your blatant racism Dave

I get it.  It’s hard to differentiate truth from gibberish these days to be fair  

1 minute ago, SNOORDA said:

I get it.  It’s hard to differentiate truth from gibberish these days to be fair  

Dave isn't interested in the truth.  He's interested in the progressive left getting as much power as possible, truth be damned.

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Dave isn't interested in the truth.  He's interested in the progressive left getting as much power as possible, truth be damned.

I didnt want to go there because even though I disagree with much of his takes, i want to keep civil dialogue with dave. 
 

but your right.  If it doesnt align with his leftist views, his 1st reaction is it is. gibberish.  Im trying to soften his stance in that regard.  Call me crazy

barkley tried to make a point that it isnt a rep or dem thing.  He said it several times.   He called out the entire political system for what it really is. Its a control the money thing. And to control the money you must have the tax payers focused on anything except taxes. 

2 minutes ago, SNOORDA said:

I didnt want to go there because even though I disagree with much of his takes, i want to keep civil dialogue with dave. 
 

but your right.  If it doesnt align with his leftist views, his 1st reaction is it is. gibberish.  Im trying to soften his stance in that regard.  Call me crazy

Yep.  Good policy to keep it civil generally.

Dave and I have been quite direct with each other for years and that hasn't been an issue for either of us so the gloves are mostly off when we reply to each other.  One of his standard gotos is to just leap to the "gibbersh" type attack and he'll go there proactively without me even being involved in a thread (like this one).  He's baiting me in and it usually works.  Of course he's always off base at best

53 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Dave isn't interested in the truth.  He's interested in the progressive left getting as much power as possible, truth be damned.

Disappointed you didn’t say the radical alt-left. You’re slipping.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Disappointed you didn’t say the radical alt-left. You’re slipping.

Trying to be civil

1 hour ago, SNOORDA said:

We couldnt agree more.  Problem is the few non-dividing politicians never win.   And that is on the voters.  So yeah.  I couldnt agree more with you

Wts my point stands that barkley has a point

AOC is a great example of this.  Proposed something like 21 pieces of legislation since she's been in office...none of which have ever been made into law.....yet the progressive left loves her.   Her purpose is only to agitate, not to legislate.  

I think its true of maybe 80-90% of politicians on both sides, but there are some who are exceptions

5 hours ago, SNOORDA said:

We couldnt agree more.  Problem is the few non-dividing politicians never win.   And that is on the voters.  So yeah.  I couldnt agree more with you

Wts my point stands that barkley has a point

I agree.  Divide and conquer isn't like it's a new strategy (and used long before Scott Walker).

 

8 hours ago, The Norseman said:

AOC is a great example of this.  Proposed something like 21 pieces of legislation since she's been in office...none of which have ever been made into law.....yet the progressive left loves her.   Her purpose is only to agitate, not to legislate.  

You're right. AOC is a good example. But not for any of the reasons you state. She triggers right-wing media and the snowflakes that blindly follow. I admit she has gathered quite a social media presence (just how many followers are right-wing types looking to disparage her?)... Otherwise nobody really cares about her, unless you live in her district, I guess... She's young, she hasn't accomplished much in Congress. But give her more time. Bernie is still the dem soc torchbearer, AOC is the wannabe upcomer. Ask yourself, why is she so agitating? Who is pushing her out there?

Better question, why so much disparity? Perfect example how far we are divided.

Always Fing loved Sir Charles.  Need more people like him to step to the podium just so people can hear a different voice than the same 2 Fing arguments of red and blue.

Yeah, a good part of the problem is the blind lemming 'Merican voters, who now more than ever, associate themselves with just 1 party and get their info from the same recycles sources (Fox News, CNN, etc.) who are no longer objective news agencies, but have their own biased agendas and are doing more brainwashing than actual reporting.

And this is also why I want term limits for EVERY office on EVERY level of government (local, state and federal).  Most of these aholes get too comfy in their cushy jobs in the halls of power.  All terms are 4 years and you can only hold any office only once and you can only hold 5 offices during your political career, so 20 years served in office total then you retire from politics.  Too many fat cat career politicians who only care about keeping their lofty status job instead of doing their job of making US citizens lives better.

 

Feel good yet empty words. The bottom line is people are divided and at each other's throats because there is an actual divide on every issue. Every issue will be fought over because every issue has significant implications. This country needs a no fault divorce so people can live in a country that reflects their own beliefs and take accountability for what happens within the country that reflects their beliefs instead of looking at people who live hundreds or even thousands of miles away as the scape goat.

9 hours ago, toolg said:

You're right. AOC is a good example. But not for any of the reasons you state. She triggers right-wing media and the snowflakes that blindly follow. I admit she has gathered quite a social media presence (just how many followers are right-wing types looking to disparage her?)... Otherwise nobody really cares about her, unless you live in her district, I guess... She's young, she hasn't accomplished much in Congress. But give her more time. Bernie is still the dem soc torchbearer, AOC is the wannabe upcomer. Ask yourself, why is she so agitating? Who is pushing her out there?

Better question, why so much disparity? Perfect example how far we are divided.

Look, AOC may be the most noticeable but the right has their fair shared of these types too.  AOC has just been much more successful of branding herself and becoming a household name.  My point is really less about AOC and more about this new breed of "legislator" who doesn't legislate....only agitates.   I don't think any of these people are good for the country, and apparently, neither does Sir Charles. 

19 hours ago, The Norseman said:

AOC is a great example of this.  Proposed something like 21 pieces of legislation since she's been in office...none of which have ever been made into law.....yet the progressive left loves her.   Her purpose is only to agitate, not to legislate.  

But those boobs though