Draining the Swamp -

Link to trashing a republican because he is a republican? Link to me making general assumptions about "all repubs" claiming they are crazier than the other side? Link to me calling someone an asshole, said asshole wins my party nom, and then defending him and every action?

Sheep. I look at things from my point of view and call bullshit when I see it. I've called out GRR and called out you plenty of times. You usually skip by it because I think deep inside even you know you're a sheep.

Cameron wrote:

Cameron wrote:There are probably some issues about which I previously had no opinion/position, but formed one in part thanks to message board discussions (though no examples spring to mind).

Actually, come to think of it, my opinion of term limits has evolved thanks to message boards. In the past, I would have tepidly supported them under the guise of disliking career politicians as a general principle. But seeing someone make the point about the potential ease of influencing newcomers has muddled my opinion and resulted in me being closer to undecided than in favor of either side of the issue.

I voted for them years ago in Michigan because of lawmakers like Dominic Jacobetti who had become powers unto themselves. Today I think I'd only vote for them if they were longer. Say 8-10 years for the House and 12 years for the Senate.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

And again, the question is pointed only at me. Going to bother to ask anyone else?

Bob, do you consider yourself open minded?

lol, 60 hours to an answer.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Link to trashing a republican because he is a republican? Link to me making general assumptions about "all repubs" claiming they are crazier than the other side? Link to me calling someone an asshole, said asshole wins my party nom, and then defending him and every action?

Sheep. I look at things from my point of view and call bullshit when I see it. I've called out GRR and called out you plenty of times. You usually skip by it because I think deep inside even you know you're a sheep.

As usual you didn't bother to read anything, just spew.

Show me where my "herders" support any of the positions I outlined a while back?

"Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's"

I didn't read. Wait - am I using your own words against you again? I'm sorry. Should I pull the quote where you called trump an asshole? Or the quote where you claimed that the "left" are whiners and the "right" are not? Or where one side is more violent than the other? How about where you claimed you weren't a republican? Lmao!



Not sure why I am wasting my time with someone like you. The bob of the right of tswill bin. And that's OK! Just own it.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:"Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's"

I didn't read. Wait - am I using your own words against you again? I'm sorry. Should I pull the quote where you called trump an asshole? Or the quote where you claimed that the "left" are whiners and the "right" are not? Or where one side is more violent than the other? How about where you claimed you weren't a republican? Lmao!



Not sure why I am wasting my time with someone like you. The bob of the right of tswill bin. And that's OK! Just own it.

You're right, they're not whiners. They've only had inauguration boycotts of the last 3 R's elected President.

I own that I vocally support my views. You like to slam me for that, that's your prerogative. But the other point I make is that they're MY views. You still seem to be avoiding that.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

All of those guys might lean left, but they are open to debate. You and Bob will never ever ever see things any way but within your quite narrow viewpoint.

Point out for me where they've been "open to debate" - where they've altered their positions one bit based on discussion? I'll wait.

Point out for me where I've regularly trashed all Republicans.

I'll wait.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Point out for me where they've been "open to debate" - where they've altered their positions one bit based on discussion? I'll wait.

Point out for me where I've regularly trashed all Republicans.

I'll wait.

He can't nigel. It ain't worth it. I give Duffy shit for responding to vlad, lebowski, etc but in the end I'm a hypocrite because I respond to goose on this board. Same thing. I'll try to do better.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Point out for me where I've regularly trashed all Republicans.

I'll wait.

He can't nigel. It ain't worth it. I give Duffy shit for responding to vlad, lebowski, etc but in the end I'm a hypocrite because I respond to goose on this board. Same thing. I'll try to do better.

And still refusing to address the fact that you're dead wrong on the "sheep" statement. No surprise.

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

He can't nigel. It ain't worth it. I give Duffy shit for responding to vlad, lebowski, etc but in the end I'm a hypocrite because I respond to goose on this board. Same thing. I'll try to do better.

And still refusing to address the fact that you're dead wrong on the "sheep" statement. No surprise.

And still waiting for you to address your comment that I regularly trash all Republicans.

Is it going to be awhile?

Or will you just admit that your narrative is wrong?

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:"Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's"

I didn't read. Wait - am I using your own words against you again? I'm sorry. Should I pull the quote where you called trump an asshole? Or the quote where you claimed that the "left" are whiners and the "right" are not? Or where one side is more violent than the other? How about where you claimed you weren't a republican? Lmao!



Not sure why I am wasting my time with someone like you. The bob of the right of tswill bin. And that's OK! Just own it.

You're right, they're not whiners. They've only had inauguration boycotts of the last 3 R's elected President.

I own that I vocally support my views. You like to slam me for that, that's your prerogative. But the other point I make is that they're MY views. You still seem to be avoiding that.

And why do you think that is goose?

Actually, I don't have time for the back and forth today so I'll just get straight to this point. Republicans actively campaign on platforms of taking away people's rights. Whether you agree with them or not, you'd have to admit that's pretty true. Abortions, planned parenthood, LGBT rights, people's health care, etc etc. So people are upset and they want to keep those things. Democrats on the other hand, aren't generally campaigning to take anything away from anyone (despite what the NRA tells you they aren't actually trying to take away your guns.) People may not agree with their way of doing things, but a democrat in office isn't actually going to take anything substantial away from you goose, so you don't feel the need to go to Washington to fight, since you're not actually at risk of losing anything. Now, if a democrat actually did campaign to take away guns, and somehow won, you bet your ass there would be marches by republicans in Washington. No doubt about it. But democrats don't actually do that, so there aren't.

Goose ignore Bob, Jr--- er, Nigel.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
And why do you think that is goose?

Actually, I don't have time for the back and forth today so I'll just get straight to this point. Republicans actively campaign on platforms of taking away people's rights. Whether you agree with them or not, you'd have to admit that's pretty true. Abortions, planned parenthood, LGBT rights, people's health care, etc etc. So people are upset and they want to keep those things.

"Taking away people's rights" you say - then you list:

Abortions? As a right? At least 1/2 of America disagrees with you on that one. Could you point out where in the Constitution YOU would find the right to kill your inconvenient baby?

Planned Parenthood is a right?

LGBT rights? What rights are they "taking away"? The right for a man to piss with a little girl? The "right" to marry? They never had that right in the past so I don't understand why you'd say R's have historically campaigned on "taking it away". In fact in 2008 both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama SPECIFICALLY denied they were in favor of that "right". Somehow that got missed in your analysis.

"Peoples health care" - ?? Again could you point our where in the Constitution this "right" exists? And it's not "health care" that the fight is over, it's health insurance which of course are two very different arguments.

And yes, people are so upset they just elected a jerk that opposed most, if not all of those things. SO the people that support them LOST. Accept that and go to work convincing people to change sides - don't go in the streets and break and burn things like 2 year olds.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
And why do you think that is goose?

Actually, I don't have time for the back and forth today so I'll just get straight to this point. Republicans actively campaign on platforms of taking away people's rights. Whether you agree with them or not, you'd have to admit that's pretty true. Abortions, planned parenthood, LGBT rights, people's health care, etc etc. So people are upset and they want to keep those things.

"Taking away people's rights" you say - then you list:

Abortions?   As a right?   At least 1/2 of America disagrees with you on that one.   Could you point out where in the Constitution YOU would find the right to kill your inconvenient baby?

Planned Parenthood is a right?

LGBT rights?   What rights are they "taking away"?   The right for a man to piss with a little girl?  The "right" to marry?  They never had that right in the past so I don't understand why you'd say R's have historically campaigned on "taking it away".  In fact in 2008 both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama SPECIFICALLY denied they were in favor of that "right".   Somehow that got missed in your analysis.

"Peoples health care" - ??   Again could you point our where in the Constitution this "right" exists?  And it's not "health care" that the fight is over, it's health insurance which of course are two very different arguments.

And yes, people are so upset they just elected a jerk that opposed most, if not all of those things.   SO the people that support them LOST.  Accept that and go to work convincing people to change sides - don't go in the streets and break and burn things like 2 year olds.

Breitbart talking points. Have you ever thought critically once on this board? Seriously, all you ever post is links to some obscure alt-right blog, a random right wing image or something obviously ripped from a Rush Limbaugh talking point.

Goose has proven he would rather trust a guy who refuses to reveal his financial data, who praises Putin, who praises North Korea's leadership all because it will do away with abortion.

I will never support anyone who wants to take reproductive and birth control rights away from my daughter or my wife.

Goose thinks he, more men and a shit load of post menopausal women know what's best for my daughter, my wife and my two female siblings.

Its all freedom shit except with women. Then the Oscoda County conservatives and GOP voters are no different than the Taliban and Betsy DeVos led West MI Taliban. My daughter, my wife and my sisters don't know a goddamn thing.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

"Taking away people's rights" you say - then you list:

Abortions?   As a right?   At least 1/2 of America disagrees with you on that one.   Could you point out where in the Constitution YOU would find the right to kill your inconvenient baby?

Planned Parenthood is a right?

LGBT rights?   What rights are they "taking away"?   The right for a man to piss with a little girl?  The "right" to marry?  They never had that right in the past so I don't understand why you'd say R's have historically campaigned on "taking it away".  In fact in 2008 both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama SPECIFICALLY denied they were in favor of that "right".   Somehow that got missed in your analysis.

"Peoples health care" - ??   Again could you point our where in the Constitution this "right" exists?  And it's not "health care" that the fight is over, it's health insurance which of course are two very different arguments.

And yes, people are so upset they just elected a jerk that opposed most, if not all of those things.   SO the people that support them LOST.  Accept that and go to work convincing people to change sides - don't go in the streets and break and burn things like 2 year olds.

Breitbart talking points. Have you ever thought critically once on this board? Seriously, all you ever post is links to some obscure alt-right blog, a random right wing image or something obviously ripped from a Rush Limbaugh talking point.

lol, he conveniently dismisses all of that with a stupid "breitbart" crack. Sorry that you have absolutely no rebuttal to the facts.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

"Taking away people's rights" you say - then you list:

Abortions? As a right? At least 1/2 of America disagrees with you on that one. Could you point out where in the Constitution YOU would find the right to kill your inconvenient baby?

Planned Parenthood is a right?

LGBT rights? What rights are they "taking away"? The right for a man to piss with a little girl? The "right" to marry? They never had that right in the past so I don't understand why you'd say R's have historically campaigned on "taking it away". In fact in 2008 both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama SPECIFICALLY denied they were in favor of that "right". Somehow that got missed in your analysis.

"Peoples health care" - ?? Again could you point our where in the Constitution this "right" exists? And it's not "health care" that the fight is over, it's health insurance which of course are two very different arguments.

And yes, people are so upset they just elected a jerk that opposed most, if not all of those things. SO the people that support them LOST. Accept that and go to work convincing people to change sides - don't go in the streets and break and burn things like 2 year olds.

Good lord you're full of it. Scales have tipped to the side of pro choice now. Up to 54%. But the minority will shove it down the throats of the majority due to rules we've all agreed to and they've won the house and senate and will appoint the scotus so, we need to deal with it. It will make people like my wife lose more family time because she will be doing more work finding shelters searching for resources for pregnant single women getting counciling for them, while people of your ilk will sit there and say "Harrumph, there you fuckers go". But she'll deal with it.

But what fascinates me way more, because the pro choice shit will be dealt with, but why does it bother anybody or any government if two guys or two girls want to get married? I can't wrap my head around it. We have huge divorce rates, if two people love each other just let it go. I will never understand that. Excuse my ignorance on it.

You know Wags - I'm with ya on the marriage thing. I was simply pointing out that Travis was incorrect in using that as the R's wanting to "take something away" when until very recently that was the position of both parties. I'm more on the civil unions thing but it's not a bid deal to me either way.


Now WOP can hit me with a "talking point" hot mic drop for presenting a fact he can't refute.

GRR Spartan wrote:Goose has proven he would rather trust a guy who refuses to reveal his financial data, who praises Putin, who praises North Korea's leadership all because it will do away with abortion.

I will never support anyone who wants to take reproductive and birth control rights away from my daughter or my wife.

Goose thinks he, more men and a shit load of post menopausal women know what's best for my daughter, my wife and my two female siblings.

Its all freedom shit except with women. Then the Oscoda County conservatives and GOP voters are no different than the Taliban and Betsy DeVos led West MI Taliban. My daughter, my wife and my sisters don't know a goddamn thing.

Jesus you've turned into a rambling wreck. "Reproductive rights" is code for the right to kill my child. You go ahead and support that, I don't. It's simple for a man or a woman - if you don't want a child don't have sex or use protection that is readily available at minimal or no cost all over the United States. And guess what? Not ONE fucking person is trying to "take it away" from anyone.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

You know Wags - I'm with ya on the marriage thing. I was simply pointing out that Travis was incorrect in using that as the R's wanting to "take something away" when until very recently that was the position of both parties. I'm more on the civil unions thing but it's not a bid deal to me either way.


Now WOP can hit me with a "talking point" hot mic drop for presenting a fact he can't refute.

Gallop

Wags? Linking to an older version of the poll doesn't advance your cause.

Goose, I have a daughter, two sisters and a wife.  I'll fight tooth and nail to keep them letting to decide for themselves.

I sure as hell don't trust you and people like you to decide what's best for them.  You want to subjugate your wife, sisters, daughters, grandaughters to your idea of social nirvanna go right ahead.  

But i don't buy your onward Christian Soldier BS, your moral code and fiscal attitude that unborn matter until they are breathing and then they are on their own.  

This is real life, not some Ayn Rand story where we let the weak die off if they can't fend for themselves and they sure as hell can't have a social safety net because that costs money that isn't in the "conservative" equation.

You can run the women in your family and extended family back to 1935 as fast as you want.  But why are you so sure your solution has to be forced on all women?

Because you know best?

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
And why do you think that is goose?

Actually, I don't have time for the back and forth today so I'll just get straight to this point. Republicans actively campaign on platforms of taking away people's rights. Whether you agree with them or not, you'd have to admit that's pretty true. Abortions, planned parenthood, LGBT rights, people's health care, etc etc. So people are upset and they want to keep those things.

"Taking away people's rights" you say - then you list:

Abortions? As a right? At least 1/2 of America disagrees with you on that one. Could you point out where in the Constitution YOU would find the right to kill your inconvenient baby?

Planned Parenthood is a right?

LGBT rights? What rights are they "taking away"? The right for a man to piss with a little girl? The "right" to marry? They never had that right in the past so I don't understand why you'd say R's have historically campaigned on "taking it away". In fact in 2008 both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama SPECIFICALLY denied they were in favor of that "right". Somehow that got missed in your analysis.

"Peoples health care" - ?? Again could you point our where in the Constitution this "right" exists? And it's not "health care" that the fight is over, it's health insurance which of course are two very different arguments.

And yes, people are so upset they just elected a jerk that opposed most, if not all of those things. SO the people that support them LOST. Accept that and go to work convincing people to change sides - don't go in the streets and break and burn things like 2 year olds.

Goose, I was trying to be very very clear that I wasn't saying that everyone agrees that they should have those rights, I thought I was frankly. But they ARE trying to take something away. Whether you think that's good or bad is irrelevant. That's why you see marches. People try to protect what they feel they want to keep. That's why I offered a comparison of guns. If democrats legitimately did try to take guns, which they dont, you'd see the same thing.

Again, to be super super super clear, I'm not saying that they should have any of those things, or that they're right. I'm not saying people shouldn't have guns. But the people in marches do feel like they should have those things and this is a way to try to protect it.

No one said trying to inject a culture of personal responsibility back into society wouldn't be a little painful.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

"Taking away people's rights" you say - then you list:

Abortions? As a right? At least 1/2 of America disagrees with you on that one. Could you point out where in the Constitution YOU would find the right to kill your inconvenient baby?

Planned Parenthood is a right?

LGBT rights? What rights are they "taking away"? The right for a man to piss with a little girl? The "right" to marry? They never had that right in the past so I don't understand why you'd say R's have historically campaigned on "taking it away". In fact in 2008 both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama SPECIFICALLY denied they were in favor of that "right". Somehow that got missed in your analysis.

"Peoples health care" - ?? Again could you point our where in the Constitution this "right" exists? And it's not "health care" that the fight is over, it's health insurance which of course are two very different arguments.

And yes, people are so upset they just elected a jerk that opposed most, if not all of those things. SO the people that support them LOST. Accept that and go to work convincing people to change sides - don't go in the streets and break and burn things like 2 year olds.

Goose, I was trying to be very very clear that I wasn't saying that everyone agrees that they should have those rights, I thought I was frankly. But they ARE trying to take something away. Whether you think that's good or bad is irrelevant. That's why you see marches. People try to protect what they feel they want to keep. That's why I offered a comparison of guns. If democrats legitimately did try to take guns, which they dont, you'd see the same thing.

Again, to be super super super clear, I'm not saying that they should have any of those things, or that they're right. I'm not saying people shouldn't have guns. But the people in marches do feel like they should have those things and this is a way to try to protect it.

And if they want to protect all of those "rights" then they need to win elections. Obviously from the local to the national level they haven't been doing so. That might tell a neutral observer that they're in the minority. Of course it tells them that everything is stolen or gerrymandered. Excuses. For losers.

GRR Spartan wrote:Goose, I have a daughter, two sisters and a wife.  I'll fight tooth and nail to keep them letting to decide for themselves.

I sure as hell don't trust you and people like you to decide what's best for them.  You want to subjugate your wife, sisters, daughters, grandaughters to your idea of social nirvanna go right ahead.  

But i don't buy your onward Christian Soldier BS, your moral code and fiscal attitude that unborn matter until they are breathing and then they are on their own.  

This is real life, not some Ayn Rand story where we let the weak die off if they can't fend for themselves and they sure as hell can't have a social safety net because that costs money that isn't in the "conservative" equation.

You can run the women in your family and extended family back to 1935 as fast as you want.  But why are you so sure your solution has to be forced on all women?

Because you know best?

Tell me more about how oppressed women are. Good lord. Reality checks are needed around here.

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Goose, I have a daughter, two sisters and a wife.  I'll fight tooth and nail to keep them letting to decide for themselves.

I sure as hell don't trust you and people like you to decide what's best for them.  You want to subjugate your wife, sisters, daughters, grandaughters to your idea of social nirvanna go right ahead.  

But i don't buy your onward Christian Soldier BS, your moral code and fiscal attitude that unborn matter until they are breathing and then they are on their own.  

This is real life, not some Ayn Rand story where we let the weak die off if they can't fend for themselves and they sure as hell can't have a social safety net because that costs money that isn't in the "conservative" equation.

You can run the women in your family and extended family back to 1935 as fast as you want.  But why are you so sure your solution has to be forced on all women?

Because you know best?

Tell me more about how oppressed women are.    Good lord.   Reality checks are needed around here.

This sounds like something I'd write... but it's GRR, the same guy who wants to force every adult through the threat of violence to serve in the military.

I'm confused. You don't trust anyone else to make decisions for you but you want to force others to your decisions you believe are right. Isn't that hypocrisy?

Edit: sorry lg, you made an appearance in a post for GRR

No one has such a grasp of women's rights than a 60 year old white guy in mio.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:No one has such a grasp of women's rights than a 60 year old white guy in mio.

Or a snotty young shit in Denver. OR a crabby old ass in GR?

lol, I'm allowed an opinion and a vote.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

And if they want to protect all of those "rights" then they need to win elections. Obviously from the local to the national level they haven't been doing so. That might tell a neutral observer that they're in the minority. Of course it tells them that everything is stolen or gerrymandered. Excuses. For losers.

My God, they're in the minority so fuck em. Is that it? Trump cuts 25 programs for women cause "we won". Seriously? Beat up homeless pregnant women should just stump more?
At least you might have 50-100 bucks extra in your pocket all is well.

So you feel the minority should rule? Did you share that opinion when Obama won or have you now evolved into it?

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

My God, they're in the minority so fuck em. Is that it? Trump cuts 25 programs for women cause "we won". Seriously? Beat up homeless pregnant women should just stump more?
At least you might have 50-100 bucks extra in your pocket all is well.

So you feel the minority should rule? Did you share that opinion when Obama won or have you now evolved into it?

Isn't the minority ruling right now? It's not like trump won the popular vote.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

So you feel the minority should rule?   Did you share that opinion when Obama won or have you now evolved into it?

Didn't say that goose/bob you obtuse stubborn right wing zealot. Re-read it and tell me where I said that.  And don't you dare tell me I've "evolved" into believing our government should be responsible for helping to protect abused homeless women in our society. I was raised from day one to believe that and where government falls short get the fuck up off your ass and do something to help.  When you volunteer your time and rugs are pulled out from you it's frustratin.

I believe in majority rule. I also hope for compassion.

1st of all it hasn't happened yet you act as though it has.   2nd, the cuts might possibly be part of a huge batch of cuts to the federal budget to get it under control.   You might disagree with some parts of those cuts, I might disagree with others but overall it's probably a good thing to try and stop adding debt for your grandkids at the trillions of dollars rates we have been.

Here's an article written without being hysterical about it like the lefty publications:

Trump team prepares dramatic cuts

IF you bother read the facts you'll see it's government wide, he's not just picking on the  women.   But then again that requires you to slow down on the Trump hate and partisanship - the same shit you accuse me of.

Yeah, I politicize everything.....like our twitter feed here?