Tiberius Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 2 hours ago, keepthefaith said: How about the one that hit and runned my car causing almost $10K in damage? Too bad for him I caught him. Ya, bad apple ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Sure, his SCOTUS nominees, economic policies and military support make him a flaming liberal. What HE THINKS personally, not his actions as held by his voting constituency. For when he really has to make an important decision, such as on immigration. I've given up on the SC being a conservative tool, the GOP keeps sending up enough judges to keep it muddled, a few times sending up totally flaming liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Dreamers are here illegally and are temporarily being protected by an illegal Executive Order Illegal DHS MEMO. Not even an EO. It was issued by Napolitano. That's how stupid that argument is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Illegal DHS MEMO. Not even an EO. It was issued by Napolitano. That's how stupid that argument is. You're right, I forgot that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The problem on the southern border isn't simply "illegal immigration", and the wall isn't intended to address that portion of the problem. The wall is, very specifically, intended to address human slavery and child sex trafficking. I’m aware, but thank you. Quote Human beings being covertly smuggled into the country happens overwhelmingly on unprotected and remote stretches of our border which are difficult to patrol for logistical reasons. This is different than regular illegal passage, as those simply seeking to immigrate here can try again and again as often as they like if apprehended. Slavers make use of these unpatrolled regions almost exclusively. The walls are being placed there in order to forcibly reroute the slavers away from these corridors, and into areas more easily patrolled. Im aware that’s the theory, thank you. Quote No, what's immature is putting you fingers in your ears, and pretending as if the policies the President is pursuing are somehow unrelated to the list I ticked off. The President supports the policies he does because they address the issues in question, the wall, as I mention above, specifically implemented to curb slavery. I didn’t say anything to the contrary. My immature comment was about how you started this discussion. Quote You believe in a human right to safety? That's an absurd rejection of reality. Life is not safe, because it is so fragile. Since you cant tease out meaning of basic sentences, I’ll spell it out more for you: I believe in the right to pursue safety. I’m aware that there isn’t a right to avoid harm... Quote And "the right to live in another country"? Another absurdity. You have the natural right to travel, but not into places which will not have you, and only as you meet their criteria for traveling into areas they own. You have the right to travel (as relates to you and your own confinement), but only the privilege to traverse that which belongs to someone else, and that privilege must be earned, and can be revoked. Is this a lesson on what rights actually exist in this country. I’m willing to bet you aren’t qualified to teach that lesson, nor do I need it. I said that’s my belief, not that it’s an actual right. It’s not complicated. Quote This is absurd. The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect property and culture by cordoning off territory and establishing law representative of the values and culture of the people therein. What? Quote It is the peak of dictatorial immorality to insist a people live under law which disservices them and their culture. Uh huh, I think I said in my opinion it services them and their culture. But ok. Quote Explain, in detail, how new cultures, often incompatible with American culture, and diversity of immutable characteristics which don't matter, are a benefit to Americans. You want me to explain how exposure to diverse views, even those that are incompatible, is beneficial? uh google it? But seeing as how you want to argue like a five year old with me, merely because I have different views, I doubt you will. Quote This is a non-sequitur, and also an absurdity. First, the views you are espousing do not equate with better outcomes for "people". Conversely, immigration from third world countries to America does immense harm to those individual's countries or origin, creating worse outcomes for those who remain there. Yes, and my opinion is the opposite. I see that you failed to grasp that! Quote Second, it implies that Americans are not people. What kind of goofy logic supports that implication? If I said I support the nfl as a whole first, and the bills second, does that mean the bills aren’t part of the nfl....never mind lol. I don’t think I need to teach you logic. Edited January 22, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: What kind of goofy logic supports that implication? what the rest of the world thinks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, row_33 said: what the rest of the world thinks? Sorry, but me saying I support humans more than Americans does not imply Americans aren’t humans. That is goofy logic. Saying you support a whole more than a subpart, does not imply the subpart is not part of the whole. Edited January 22, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Sorry, but me saying I support humans more than Americans does not imply Americans aren’t humans. That is goofy logic. Saying you support a whole more than a subpart, does not imply the subpart is not part of the whole. we know.... just taking some of the gilt off the gingerbread, by gum Edited January 22, 2019 by row_33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: If I said I support the nfl as a whole first, and the bills second, does that mean the bills aren’t part of the nfl... I think that makes you a heathen who must be burned at the stake. Bills uber alles, mother *****! Of course, that's only were you to say such blasphemy. Edited January 22, 2019 by Koko78 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Just now, row_33 said: we know.... just taking some of the gilt off the gingerbread, by gym Ha. Well I never heard that gilt phrase so I’m passing time by googling it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Ha. Well I never heard that gilt phrase so I’m passing time by googling it. probably picked it up in PG Wodehouse novels? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Dreamers are safe for now. Courts are fine with the move. How are they a threat? Rapists? Drug dealers? No and no. All the scapegoating can't smear them. It's only the haters that want to kick them out. Perhaps those Catholic boys that marched against women's reproductive rights can march to save the Dreamers lives. Nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 7 minutes ago, Koko78 said: I think that makes you a heathen who must be burned at the stake. Bills uber alles, mother *****! Of course, that's only were you to say such blasphemy. Is it bad I rooted for the patriots to win against the chiefs because I (1) would rather see them lose in the super bowl again (it felt so good last year) and (2) I want the chiefs to have no success so they stay like us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Crayola64 said: Is it bad I rooted for the patriots to win against the chiefs because I (1) would rather see them lose in the super bowl again (it felt so good last year) and (2) I want the chiefs to have no success so they stay like us? Yes, and you should be ashamed of yourself. For penance, my son, you must say 15 Our Kelly's and 20 Hail Levy's on your Bills rosary. Edited January 22, 2019 by Koko78 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Yea but it’ll feel great when the rams win...which they should have done 18 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 45 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Is it bad I rooted for the patriots to win against the chiefs because I (1) would rather see them lose in the super bowl again (it felt so good last year) and (2) I want the chiefs to have no success so they stay like us? you are free to do what you want, you might tone it down on TSW though lots of people raging about OT rules and missed calls there... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 minute ago, row_33 said: you are free to do what you want, you might tone it down on TSW though lots of people raging about OT rules and missed calls there... Im not disputing any of that. I hate the patriots as much as the next person! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I’m aware, but thank you. Im aware that’s the theory, thank you. You've already undone yourself. You do, in fact, support human slavery and child sex trafficking. You may not like it, but you do. Your Pollyanna vision of the world does not align with reality. The United State's southern border is a global hub of human trafficking, and they are trafficked in exactly the way I've described. No one, save apparently you, even debates this. First, two articles, one from a left leaning site, one from a right leaning site: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ana-davila/drug-cartels-where-human-trafficking-and-human-smuggling-meet-today_b_7588408.html https://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/02/the-trafficking-of-children-at-the-mexican-border-001504697.html Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico Various government and international organizations: https://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/library/2011/human-trafficking-sex-tourism-and-child-exploitation-southern-border https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/protect/trafficking http://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Mexico.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/human-trafficking I didn’t say anything to the contrary. My immature comment was about how you started this discussion. You are, with every post you make, demonstrating that my engagement with you was apt and informed. Since you cant tease out meaning of basic sentences, I’ll spell it out more for you: I believe in the right to pursue safety. I’m aware that there isn’t a right to avoid harm... It is not my fault, nor that of anyone else but yourself, that you aren't precise enough in your use of language to convey what you actually mean when engaging about complex subject matter. The words you chose to use have a specific meaning. If you meant something other than what you said, that's your own damn fault. Do better, and don't blame others for your compromised literacy. Is this a lesson on what rights actually exist in this country. I’m willing to bet you aren’t qualified to teach that lesson, nor do I need it. I said that’s my belief, not that it’s an actual right. It’s not complicated. Actually, the subject matter is incredibly complex; and I doubt there is anyone here more qualified to teach it. I'll start with the notion that, once again, you've betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights actually are; though I'll certainly make way for the possibility that you're a prisoner of your language, and don't understand how to properly convey the ideas you wish to express. With that said, I'm happy to hash this out with you, as I'm trying to understand your belief structure. Your beliefs must be structured in some logically consistent way in order to validate them, and that logical structure must have some foundational tenant on which your belief system is structured. What moral priori do you appeal to at the base of your belief structure? Wh at? /sigh... It's very straight forward. Reread the sentence: "The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect property and culture by cordoning off territory and establishing law representative of the values and culture of the people therein." That is a fact, not an opinion, and is clearly articulated. Uh huh, I think I said in my opinion it services them and their culture. But ok. You've posed an argument which runs counter to the entire purpose and history of the nation state. People are tribal, and different tribes have different and competing values. National borders protect heritage, culture, language, history, etc. Mass migration water those things down, and changes them in ways which creates internal instability and a loss of national identity (again, this is not an opinion, this is an historically observable fact). If you want to take this tact, please explain how I am wrong. You want me to explain how exposure to diverse views, even those that are incompatible, is beneficial? uh google it? But seeing as how you want to argue like a five year old with me, merely because I have different views, I doubt you will Expose to /= saturation in. We can learn about other cultures, especially those that are incompatible with our own, in ways that do not sabotage our national heritage or violate our sovereignty. Simply because something else exists does not merit making it part of ourselves, and the fact of their existence does not make them desirable. There are better cultures and worse cultures, and our culture is the one which has driven the world to prosperity undreamed of because of it's foundational principals of self-ownership and the protection of property rights. To the rest, if you don't want your views challenged, then don't offer them. This place is an excellent resource for vetting political views and moral philosophies; and that's exactly what you should expect when you make an offering. You aren't being treated any differently than anyone else. You offered a view, I challenged it. Now it's incumbent on you to defend it. Yes , and my opinion is the opposite. I see that you failed to grasp that! No, I grasp, quite clearly, that you have a very poor opinion, once again not grounded in reality. What I offered is not an opinion, it is a fact. The best illustration of this I have ever seen can be found here: What kind of goofy logic supports that implication? If I said I support the nfl as a whole first, and the bills second, does that mean the bills aren’t part of the nfl....never mind lol. I don’t think I need to teach you logic. Learn to be precise in your language. Stop communicating ideas which to do not intend to express. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 i am a big proponent of words having meaning. especially in the media that is the present du jour. that is all we have to gain understanding of what is trying to be conveyed. if you are not conveying what you mean, the onus is upon you to do better. feigning indignity because you were misunderstood is a bad look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You've already undone yourself. You do, in fact, support human slavery and child sex trafficking. You may not like it, but you do. Your Pollyanna vision of the world does not align with reality. The United State's southern border is a global hub of human trafficking, and they are trafficked in exactly the way I've described. No one, save apparently you, even debates this. First, two articles, one from a left leaning site, one from a right leaning site: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ana-davila/drug-cartels-where-human-trafficking-and-human-smuggling-meet-today_b_7588408.html https://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/02/the-trafficking-of-children-at-the-mexican-border-001504697.html Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico Various government and international organizations: https://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/library/2011/human-trafficking-sex-tourism-and-child-exploitation-southern-border https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/protect/trafficking http://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Mexico.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/human-trafficking You are, with every post you make, demonstrating that my engagement with you was apt and informed. It is not my fault, nor that of anyone else but yourself, that you aren't precise enough in your use of language to convey what you actually mean when engaging about complex subject matter. The words you chose to use have a specific meaning. If you meant something other than what you said, that's your own damn fault. Do better, and don't blame others for your compromised literacy. Actually, the subject matter is incredibly complex; and I doubt there is anyone here more qualified to teach it. I'll start with the notion that, once again, you've betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights actually are; though I'll certainly make way for the possibility that you're a prisoner of your language, and don't understand how to properly convey the ideas you wish to express. With that said, I'm happy to hash this out with you, as I'm trying to understand your belief structure. Your beliefs must be structured in some logically consistent way in order to validate them, and that logical structure must have some foundational tenant on which your belief system is structured. What moral priori do you appeal to at the base of your belief structure? /sigh... It's very straight forward. Reread the sentence: "The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect property and culture by cordoning off territory and establishing law representative of the values and culture of the people therein." That is a fact, not an opinion, and is clearly articulated. You've posed an argument which runs counter to the entire purpose and history of the nation state. People are tribal, and different tribes have different and competing values. National borders protect heritage, culture, language, history, etc. Mass migration water those things down, and changes them in ways which creates internal instability and a loss of national identity (again, this is not an opinion, this is an historically observable fact). If you want to take this tact, please explain how I am wrong. Expose to /= saturation in. We can learn about other cultures, especially those that are incompatible with our own, in ways that do not sabotage our national heritage or violate our sovereignty. Simply because something else exists does not merit making it part of ourselves, and the fact of their existence does not make them desirable. There are better cultures and worse cultures, and our culture is the one which has driven the world to prosperity undreamed of because of it's foundational principals of self-ownership and the protection of property rights. To the rest, if you don't want your views challenged, then don't offer them. This place is an excellent resource for vetting political views and moral philosophies; and that's exactly what you should expect when you make an offering. You aren't being treated any differently than anyone else. You offered a view, I challenged it. Now it's incumbent on you to defend it. No, I grasp, quite clearly, that you have a very poor opinion, once again not grounded in reality. What I offered is not an opinion, it is a fact. The best illustration of this I have ever seen can be found here: Learn to be precise in your language. Stop communicating ideas which to do not intend to express. I don’t think you are even remotely aware of what my point was, or what you think you are arguing. I’m pretty comfortable with the precision of my words, though I also have the awareness that I am posting on a message board, not writing to a court. Edited January 22, 2019 by Crayola64 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 17 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I don’t think you are even remotely aware of what my point was, or what you think you are arguing. I’m pretty comfortable with the precision of my words, though I also have the awareness that I am posting on a message board, not writing to a court. you'll eventually figure him out.... appears to be serious as well... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I don’t think you are even remotely aware of what my point was, or what you think you are arguing. Then you have done a staggeringly poor job of communicating your ideas. Again, learn to be precise in your language. I have broken down your posts, and the ideas you are expressing, on a line by line basis to make it easier for both you and the reader; and I approach writing with exactness in order to make my points clear. Quote I’m pretty comfortable with the precision of my words, though I also have the awareness that I am posting on a message board, not writing to a court. This is absolutely tragic, because by your own account you didn't express any of the ideas you wished to articulate. Again, these are complex subjects, and you need to be precise. As an example, the idea of "the right to be safe" appeals to an entirely separate underlying philosophy from "the right to pursue safety". This is not a small distinction when speaking of rights theory and moral philosophy. Now, if you would, please feel free to either address the body of my post; or to attempt to clarify your own positions. Edited January 22, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, row_33 said: you'll eventually figure him out.... appears to be serious as well... I think most of the people in this subforum are pretty kind and have interesting insights (even to me as someone who is very liberal). I am learning the 3 or 5 people that don't fit that mold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 cracks in the Dem's wall are beginning to appear. https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1087846608560156675 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 51 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I think most of the people in this subforum are pretty kind and have interesting insights (even to me as someone who is very liberal). I am learning the 3 or 5 people that don't fit that mold. it's not a dismissal, most of what is written is good, it's just.... can't describe it exactly.... you aren't alone.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I think most of the people in this subforum are pretty kind and have interesting insights (even to me as someone who is very liberal). I am learning the 3 or 5 people that don't fit that mold. I'm sorry I challenged your belief structure and world view with facts, and critiqued the complete lack of precision and specificity with which you tried to discuss very complex ideas which led to you communicating entirely different ideas than you set out to express; and I'm also sorry that you can't understand the difference between attacking your ideas and attacking your character. I also find this phrasing to be very interesting: "and have interesting insights (even to me as someone who is very liberal)." Is your quest for truth generally subservient to your liberalism? I applaud your willingness to look outside of your world view as you've articulated above, but am wondering how difficult you find it, and why. Edited January 23, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I'm sorry I challenged your belief structure and world view with facts, and critiqued the complete lack of precision and specificity with which you tried to discuss very complex ideas which led to you communicating entirely different ideas than you set out to express; and I'm also sorry that you can't understand the difference between attacking your ideas and attacking your character. 1 Oh boy. I don't know where you are coming from ever, I don't think you attacked my ideas or character. I think you constantly trying to argue things I am not talking about. The reason my post about my beliefs was simply and vague was because it wasn't anything I was interested in arguing, it was only explained because you couldn't understand what someone means when they say "an opposite view of trump." Look, my first post that you responded to was that I have the opposite stance on immigration that trump. Easy to understand, right? Here is your response: "And if your stance is the opposite of the President's, does that mean you believe unfettered human slavery, the heroin trade, child molesting and rape, and a lack of national sovereignty are good things?" That is such a ridiculous response and will not lead to a discussion, hence why I am not interested in discussion with you. Either you genuinely thought that, or you were being snide. Either way, whatever. It isn't the way to start a discussion because, obviously, I don't think that. Next time you want to have a conversation, trying coming off less dickish. 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I also find this phrasing to be very interesting: "and have interesting insights (even to me as someone who is very liberal)." Is your quest for truth generally subservient to your liberalism? I applaud your willingness to look outside of your world view as you've articulated above, but am wondering how difficult you find it, and why. 1 No it just means most people are on here are conservative, so it is nice to have fair discussions with conservatives, when the opposite may be true sometimes when you are on a message board with people that have different beliefs. It is the only forum I am a member of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 3 hours ago, Foxx said: cracks in the Dem's wall are beginning to appear. https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1087846608560156675 ...and now you know why one of the Democrat rule changes was to prevent a 'no confidence' vote against Pelosi. Nasty Nancy talks (and acts) like a ***** moron, but I'll give the old B word credit: She knew she wasn't going to keep the Democrat coalition cohesive for long. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: This will be big news all over the media tomorrow. Front page everywhere!!! Breaking News on CNN!!! Oh, wait. White kid in MAGA hat stares at drummer who was AWOL in Viet Nam. Nevermind. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Looks like IRS won't be processing tax refunds. Give me my stupid useless wall or tax payers can't have their money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 I see reference herein to being precise with language. I couldn't agree more. So when the president says he will own the shut down, one can only presume he means what he says and that he owns the shut down. Surely the chief executive of the country can be trusted to be precise with his language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: I see reference herein to being precise with language. I couldn't agree more. So when the president says he will own the shut down, one can only presume he means what he says and that he owns the shut down. Surely the chief executive of the country can be trusted to be precise with his language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Not sure where you're going with this. But if words and precision matter, then the president owns the shut down. Why? Because that's what he said. Now the Democrats could be more forthcoming in negotiations to be sure, but their stance is they will do so once the government is reopened. Only one person has the power to reopen government right now, the chief executive. And he won't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Not sure where you're going with this. But if words and precision matter, then the president owns the shut down. Why? Because that's what he said. Now the Democrats could be more forthcoming in negotiations to be sure, but their stance is they will do so once the government is reopened. Only one person has the power to reopen government right now, the chief executive. And he won't do it. No sequiturs are awesome. Edit, ***** that you're an idiot so you understand. so yeah the last shut down the Democrats promise to work on things afterward and did not. They took their ball and went home like a little pussies they are Palma that's not how government works and there's no reason they can't get along now. They've been offered opportunities you're just a calloused butthurt prick who's had daddy Trump bend you over far too many times. I'm surprised your tears aren't providing better lube. Edited January 23, 2019 by Boyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: No sequiturs are awesome. Another meaningless comment. Right now there is only one person who has the authority to open government; the chief executive. And he won't. That is the simple truth. Personally I hope we vote every single member of Congress and the chief executive out of office for the crap they're putting the country through right now. But only one person can open government right now, and to deny that is just stupid. Put another way, if Obama had done this over, say, health care, conservatives would have been screaming for his impeachment and removal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Another meaningless comment. Right now there is only one person who has the authority to open government; the chief executive. And he won't. That is the simple truth. Personally I hope we vote every single member of Congress and the chief executive out of office for the crap they're putting the country through right now. But only one person can open government right now, and to deny that is just stupid. Put another way, if Obama had done this over, say, health care, conservatives would have been screaming for his impeachment and removal. Well, reread my post. I added flavor. And you're an idiot to not understand that Trump can't open the government without a budget. Nothing has been given to him. Can you sit down, shut up and stop blabbering. And obama did far worse with his health Care bull#### that doesn't even relate to this. So, again, go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Well, reread my post. I added flavor. And you're an idiot to not understand that Trump can't open the government without a budget. Nothing has been given to him. Can you sit down, shut up and stop blabbering. And obama did far worse with his health Care bull#### that doesn't even relate to this. So, again, go away. More meaningless posting. Trump can open the government right now by allowing the budget bills that have been passed by both chambers to go forward. That is the reality of the situation. You have no idea what you're talking about. Is it your position that any chief executive, regardless of party, can simply shut down government if he or she does not get his way? You do understand the concept of co-equal branches of government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts