CSNbbs

Full Version: Trump Administration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
(04-23-2020 12:18 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-22-2020 11:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Yet at the finale of the saga of Sir Robin, well, there is a different story... and a different wording of the song by the minstrels.... 04-cheers

Sometimes all of the evidence is the best picture.




Yeah, my bad. The clip that OO linked cut out the actual scene where he buggered off, which confused my memory of the saga of Brave Sir Robin.

In any case, Brave Sir Lad did do a runner, so maybe one of yall can help me. Can anybody recommend a nuclear physicist to explain to me the scientific basis for the intricacies of abortion access?
Crazy Joe at it again

I guess "he is trying to steal the election again" hysteria will get out Joe's base.
(04-23-2020 02:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2020 12:10 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Worth remembering that the House Democrats wanted to include $500 billion for small business relief in the phase 3 stimulus while the Senate bill only included $300 billion. The compromise bill that became law included $350 billion (or $367 billion, I saw different amounts in different articles). I'm not advocating for the phase 3 house bill, just pointing this out. Why didn't Mitch or the White House push to include more back in March?

One guess would be because of Nancy's demands of everything under the sun at that time. (student loan forgiveness, requirements relating to minorities on boards, airline carbon emissions, increased union bargaining power). That was discussed here at that time.

I don't think it makes sense that Mitch didn't add more SBA money to the Senate or the compromise bill because of the extraneous things included in Speaker Pelosi's bill. I also don't think it makes sense that Donald or Mick wouldn't negotiate for more SBA money because of Speaker Pelosi's inclusion of those other items. If Mitch, Mick, or Donald had wanted more, they could easily have included up to the $500 billion Speaker Pelosi pushed for. They didn't, so they negotiated a lower compromise then the full amount pushed for by the House. And if they had gone with Speaker Pelosi's request for the SBA, the SBA wouldn't have run out of money as quickly and the heartache/heartbreak would have been prevented. But keep blaming her exclusively all you want if it makes you feel better. We all need to vent sometimes.
(04-24-2020 12:59 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2020 02:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2020 12:10 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Worth remembering that the House Democrats wanted to include $500 billion for small business relief in the phase 3 stimulus while the Senate bill only included $300 billion. The compromise bill that became law included $350 billion (or $367 billion, I saw different amounts in different articles). I'm not advocating for the phase 3 house bill, just pointing this out. Why didn't Mitch or the White House push to include more back in March?

One guess would be because of Nancy's demands of everything under the sun at that time. (student loan forgiveness, requirements relating to minorities on boards, airline carbon emissions, increased union bargaining power). That was discussed here at that time.

I don't think it makes sense that Mitch didn't add more SBA money to the Senate or the compromise bill because of the extraneous things included in Speaker Pelosi's bill. I also don't think it makes sense that Donald or Mick wouldn't negotiate for more SBA money because of Speaker Pelosi's inclusion of those other items. If Mitch, Mick, or Donald had wanted more, they could easily have included up to the $500 billion Speaker Pelosi pushed for. They didn't, so they negotiated a lower compromise then the full amount pushed for by the House. And if they had gone with Speaker Pelosi's request for the SBA, the SBA wouldn't have run out of money as quickly and the heartache/heartbreak would have been prevented. But keep blaming her exclusively all you want if it makes you feel better. We all need to vent sometimes.

You overlook that the singular person with the power to pull the House out of recess was one person. Who steadfastly refused to do so for 21 days.

You also steadfastly overlook that even the initial CARE act was fairly 'goodies free' -- that is until Queen Nancy deemed that bringing the members back was off the table after stomping the beejesus (does that term make me anti-science?) out of the intra-party Senate agreements in order to preen in front of her smorgasborg Clyburn-esque bill.

So yes, one 'exclusive' person wielded the power to even convene -- and she used that 'exclusive' power in order to promote a bill laden with wet-dream liberal agenda items that had zero to do with the subject matter.

Not 'venting' as you note -- stating facts above. Given that the person who has that exclusive set of powers, and wields or refuses to use that exclusive power in an amazingly and explicitly agenda driven manner, am am pretty comfortable about noting those actions and inactions and explicit demands in a fairly exclusive manner.

Had the Speaker position been one of not of exclusive powers, but one of consensus and committee, your comment above might have some bearing. But the facts of how the position works, and how Stretch exercised them, and what Stretch demanded as a quid pro quo to exercise them in a timely manner kind of cuts directly against your complaint of my target.

Come back to me with some facts on how Nancy does not have these exclusive powers, or did not use those exclusive powers, or did not try (twice) to elevate a fairly naked bill into an agenda-driven goodie bag, your complaint about me horrendously venting exclusively on Stretch might be valid.

But, I see nothing above but a surfical scolding complaint that 'if it makes me feel better'. Please do tell us *where* the heck Nancy in any way, shape, or form did not fight a naked bill, let alone a naked bill that everyone knew was necessary, let alone in order to fill her progressive agenda pinata full up. When you do that your 'scold' to me above might have some validity. Strangely I dont see that in your offering.

Or, for that matter in the alternative, can you please denote any purely agenda-based proposals put forward by McConnell in the bills? If you can laser us in to the restrictions on abortions, any across the board tax breaks, the pro-gun rights sections of the bills, for example, I would say your scold would be on point. Again, I cant discern any of the hidden easter eggs, that is, like the ones Pelosi embedded into her demands to move forward against relatively clean, very targeted bills.

Maybe you think the 500 billion loaded with a metric ton of agenda-driven items is called for --- I dont. The 500 billion (or the added 150 billion) was clearly tied to all the agenda based **** she mixed into her stew. It is like you dont even see that extra stuff in there, or her use of her exclusive powers in her unique position.

In short, the bare bones 300 million wouldnt do it for her at first -- she delayed and insisted on her agenda easter eggs. Killed *that* portion by 12 days. In the next round, again a clean bill was a no go for her, and again she poleaxed the process for another 20-ish days to ostensibly get another passle of her agenda-based easter eggs baked in.
So lad commented on Trump's tweet about the Michigan protests -- simply commenting 'ooff'.

As an update,

Quote:In the midst of the continuing spread of the coronavirus in Michigan, the Michigan Legislature has scheduled a special session for Friday to create an oversight committee to examine how Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has responded to the crisis as well as consider bills that would strip the governor of some of her powers.

Michigan Legislature to convene special session to consider restricting governor's emergency powers

To repeat: the Michigan Legislature itself is set to consider bills to strip the Governor of some of her powers. Covening in special session to do so.

Governor Whitmer's response:

Quote:"I'm not going to sign any bill that takes authority away from me..."



ooff indeed.
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]You overlook that the singular person with the power to pull the House out of recess was one person. Who steadfastly refused to do so for 21 days.

I overlook nothing. I didn't say anything about it. I'm not blaming Mitch or Donald or whomever Mick's replacement is. I was just pointing out that Speaker Pelosi tried to include more on the front end.

(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]You also steadfastly overlook that even the initial CARE act was fairly 'goodies free' -- that is until Queen Nancy deemed that bringing the members back was off the table after stomping the beejesus (does that term make me anti-science?) out of the intra-party Senate agreements in order to preen in front of her smorgasborg Clyburn-esque bill.

I overlook nothing. We had a discussion about this and Lad and I agreed that some of the items you complain of should not have been in the House bill. I just don't think its relevant to the current discussion and none of that prevented Mitch, Donald, or Mick from including more for the SBA program in the earlier compromise bill.

(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Not 'venting' as you note -- stating facts above. Given that the person who has that exclusive set of powers, and wields or refuses to use that exclusive power in an amazingly and explicitly agenda driven manner, am am pretty comfortable about noting those actions and inactions and explicit demands in a fairly exclusive manner.

Sounds like some venting to me:
(04-22-2020 07:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Disgusting.

Again, how does Nancy avoid the **** smell around her creation?

(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]But the facts of how the position works, and how Stretch exercised them, and what Stretch demanded as a quid pro quo to exercise them in a timely manner kind of cuts directly against your complaint of my target.

Is Speaker Pelosi taller than I realized or something?
(04-24-2020 01:52 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]You overlook that the singular person with the power to pull the House out of recess was one person. Who steadfastly refused to do so for 21 days.

I overlook nothing. I didn't say anything about it. I'm not blaming Mitch or Donald or whomever Mick's replacement is. I was just pointing out that Speaker Pelosi tried to include more on the front end.

Yes, she did, and a nice way to put it. She absolutely tried 'includ[e] more on the front end'. Lots more, mind you. Oodles and oodles more. Oodles and oodle *more* than your stark characterization notes.

Quote:
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]You also steadfastly overlook that even the initial CARE act was fairly 'goodies free' -- that is until Queen Nancy deemed that bringing the members back was off the table after stomping the beejesus (does that term make me anti-science?) out of the intra-party Senate agreements in order to preen in front of her smorgasborg Clyburn-esque bill.

I overlook nothing. We had a discussion about this and Lad and I agreed that some of the items you complain of should not have been in the House bill. I just don't think its relevant to the current discussion and none of that prevented Mitch, Donald, or Mick from including more for the SBA program in the earlier compromise bill.

Considering she used the exact same tactic, and the exact same methodology, with the exact same types of goals in Round 2 kind of cuts against the logic, mind you.

Quote:
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Not 'venting' as you note -- stating facts above. Given that the person who has that exclusive set of powers, and wields or refuses to use that exclusive power in an amazingly and explicitly agenda driven manner, am am pretty comfortable about noting those actions and inactions and explicit demands in a fairly exclusive manner.

Sounds like some venting to me:
(04-22-2020 07:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Disgusting.

Again, how does Nancy avoid the **** smell around her creation?

I find her multi-week in total delay program to be revolting. It stinks. I take it you are copacetic with it? If so, good for you.

Quote:
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]But the facts of how the position works, and how Stretch exercised them, and what Stretch demanded as a quid pro quo to exercise them in a timely manner kind of cuts directly against your complaint of my target.

Is Speaker Pelosi taller than I realized or something?

A comment on the results of possibly one or more too many facial plastic surgeries.
(04-24-2020 01:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So lad commented on Trump's tweet about the Michigan protests -- simply commenting 'ooff'.

As an update,

Quote:In the midst of the continuing spread of the coronavirus in Michigan, the Michigan Legislature has scheduled a special session for Friday to create an oversight committee to examine how Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has responded to the crisis as well as consider bills that would strip the governor of some of her powers.

Michigan Legislature to convene special session to consider restricting governor's emergency powers

To repeat: the Michigan Legislature itself is set to consider bills to strip the Governor of some of her powers. Covening in special session to do so.

Governor Whitmer's response:

Quote:"I'm not going to sign any bill that takes authority away from me..."



ooff indeed.

Legislatures controlled by Republicans in the Midwest trying to take powers away from Democratic governors?

Seen this one before.

Oof isn't quite right here, but nice try.
(04-24-2020 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 01:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So lad commented on Trump's tweet about the Michigan protests -- simply commenting 'ooff'.

As an update,

Quote:In the midst of the continuing spread of the coronavirus in Michigan, the Michigan Legislature has scheduled a special session for Friday to create an oversight committee to examine how Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has responded to the crisis as well as consider bills that would strip the governor of some of her powers.

Michigan Legislature to convene special session to consider restricting governor's emergency powers

To repeat: the Michigan Legislature itself is set to consider bills to strip the Governor of some of her powers. Covening in special session to do so.

Governor Whitmer's response:

Quote:"I'm not going to sign any bill that takes authority away from me..."



ooff indeed.

Legislatures controlled by Republicans in the Midwest trying to take powers away from Democratic governors?

Seen this one before.

Oof isn't quite right here, but nice try.

I take it you think ol Whitmer is doing a fine Jim Dandy job there with banning seeds, gardening, and buying child car seats. Got it.

Nothing to see there. Move along. All in the fine lad style we have come to expect in defending his party.

Legislatures controlled by Democrats trying to remove a Republican President on a rather continuous basis. Yeah, I guess it does sound familiar.
(04-24-2020 02:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 01:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So lad commented on Trump's tweet about the Michigan protests -- simply commenting 'ooff'.

As an update,

Quote:In the midst of the continuing spread of the coronavirus in Michigan, the Michigan Legislature has scheduled a special session for Friday to create an oversight committee to examine how Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has responded to the crisis as well as consider bills that would strip the governor of some of her powers.

Michigan Legislature to convene special session to consider restricting governor's emergency powers

To repeat: the Michigan Legislature itself is set to consider bills to strip the Governor of some of her powers. Covening in special session to do so.

Governor Whitmer's response:

Quote:"I'm not going to sign any bill that takes authority away from me..."



ooff indeed.

Legislatures controlled by Republicans in the Midwest trying to take powers away from Democratic governors?

Seen this one before.

Oof isn't quite right here, but nice try.

I take it you think ol Whitmer is doing a fine Jim Dandy job there with banning seeds, gardening, and buying child car seats. Got it.

Nothing to see there. Move along. All in the fine lad style we have come to expect in defending his party.

Legislatures controlled by Democrats trying to remove a Republican President on a rather continuous basis. Yeah, I guess it does sound familiar.

I don’t have a strong opinion on Whitmer. But even if she made bad decisions, should legislatures try to strip powers from the governor? Or should they try and correct the specific issues they think are problematic?

I thought the problem was how the powers were being deployed, not that the governor had the power to deploy them.

You’re extrapolating that opinion about the governor (per usual) because I commented that this type of option has recently been employed by a number of state legislatures.

And look at what is happening in Texas - there is now talk about the legislatures trying to strip power away from local governments because they disagree with how they have managed the COVID crisis. They feel like some of the emergency powers may go too far.
(04-24-2020 02:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 02:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 01:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So lad commented on Trump's tweet about the Michigan protests -- simply commenting 'ooff'.

As an update,

Quote:In the midst of the continuing spread of the coronavirus in Michigan, the Michigan Legislature has scheduled a special session for Friday to create an oversight committee to examine how Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has responded to the crisis as well as consider bills that would strip the governor of some of her powers.

Michigan Legislature to convene special session to consider restricting governor's emergency powers

To repeat: the Michigan Legislature itself is set to consider bills to strip the Governor of some of her powers. Covening in special session to do so.

Governor Whitmer's response:

Quote:"I'm not going to sign any bill that takes authority away from me..."



ooff indeed.

Legislatures controlled by Republicans in the Midwest trying to take powers away from Democratic governors?

Seen this one before.

Oof isn't quite right here, but nice try.

I take it you think ol Whitmer is doing a fine Jim Dandy job there with banning seeds, gardening, and buying child car seats. Got it.

Nothing to see there. Move along. All in the fine lad style we have come to expect in defending his party.

Legislatures controlled by Democrats trying to remove a Republican President on a rather continuous basis. Yeah, I guess it does sound familiar.

I don’t have a strong opinion on Whitmer. But even if she made bad decisions, should legislatures try to strip powers from the governor? Or should they try and correct the specific issues they think are problematic?

By limiting the scope of the emergency powers that the legislature previously granted I think is in scope.

Otherwise one would have to piecemeal say -- well you know those plenary powers? we passed a law that says you cant ban home gardening. I guess you would prefer to grant the power en masse, then have the legislature back out, in a specific manner, banning the sale of seeds, banning the use of another house, banning only state citizens from using motor boats, banning home gardening, legally declaring baby seats to be essential sales.... you get the drift.

The specific problem is that Whitmer went ape **** crazy in the application of the emergency powers by decree. So yes, that legislature is actually dealing with the specific problem. Or in your eyes, they should go to town on tens or hundreds of thousands of teeny tiny 'carve out' acts of legislation.

Quote:I thought the problem was how the powers were being deployed, not that the governor had the power to deploy them.

So your solution*is* tens of thousands of carve outs. Wonderful.

Quote:You’re extrapolating that opinion about the governor (per usual) because I commented that this type of option has recently been employed by a number of state legislatures.

No worse that your broad based explanatory opinion. Funny that. How many other adjectives will you need to do that?

Quote:And look at what is happening in Texas - there is now talk about the legislatures trying to strip power away from local governments because they disagree with how they have managed the COVID crisis. They feel like some of the emergency powers may go too far.

Uhhh..... you fundamentally misunderstand the structure of the Texas constitution with that analogy.
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I find her multi-week in total delay program to be revolting. It stinks. I take it you are copacetic with it? If so, good for you.

Wow, you haven't used copacetic in a long time! 04-clap2 I'll be honest, I forgot what it means since I looked it up a few months ago and don't feel like looking it up right now. But your vocabulary is impressive.

(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]A comment on the results of possibly one or more too many facial plastic surgeries.

Ahh, so we're making fun of women for their looks. 03-2thumbsup I'm sure if she looked super old and wrinkly that you would totally have nothing bad to say about her looks. From Kamala the Slut to Stephanie the Hut to mocking the speaker of the house's plastic surgery, you and 69/70/75 seem to have some issues. Bravo to OO and the conservatives who haven't demeaned women in these ways for non-substantive reasons.
(04-24-2020 03:38 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I find her multi-week in total delay program to be revolting. It stinks. I take it you are copacetic with it? If so, good for you.

Wow, you haven't used copacetic in a long time! 04-clap2 I'll be honest, I forgot what it means since I looked it up a few months ago and don't feel like looking it up right now. But your vocabulary is impressive.

(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]A comment on the results of possibly one or more too many facial plastic surgeries.

Ahh, so we're making fun of women for their looks. 03-2thumbsup I'm sure if she looked super old and wrinkly that you would totally have nothing bad to say about her looks. From Kamala the Slut to Stephanie the Hut to mocking the speaker of the house's plastic surgery, you and 69/70/75 seem to have some issues. Bravo to OO and the conservatives who haven't demeaned women in these ways for non-substantive reasons.

I'm sure all the 80 year-old women in the lives of the members of the Parliament are smoking hot. That's why it makes sense to call out Pelosi on her looks.

Not to mention everybody here (and their wives) has a BMI < 22.
(04-24-2020 03:38 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I find her multi-week in total delay program to be revolting. It stinks. I take it you are copacetic with it? If so, good for you.

Wow, you haven't used copacetic in a long time! 04-clap2 I'll be honest, I forgot what it means since I looked it up a few months ago and don't feel like looking it up right now. But your vocabulary is impressive.

I didnt realize the issue was the word 'copacetic'. But I guess if it gives you an edge to make a sarcastic personal shot, I am both a tad dismayed and surprised. Perhaps stick to subject matter as opposed to a personal snark-shot. I dont think I have levered one at you in the recent discourse. Bummer.

Quote:
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]A comment on the results of possibly one or more too many facial plastic surgeries.

Ahh, so we're making fun of women for their looks. 03-2thumbsup I'm sure if she looked super old and wrinkly that you would totally have nothing bad to say about her looks. From Kamala the Slut to Stephanie the Hut to mocking the speaker of the house's plastic surgery, you and 69/70/75 seem to have some issues. Bravo to OO and the conservatives who haven't demeaned women in these ways for non-substantive reasons.

Well I will be honest, I aint no spring chicken, nor anything pleasant on the eyes.

I guess when you run out of substantive comments, you just have to focus on other issues and wave those hands a little faster. Nice try. As the old legal adage goes, I guess you have started to take off your shoe here. I might be ugly, but sometimes I notice things like that.

I guess we are headed down the personal shots avenue. Nice start there. But bummer overall.
(04-24-2020 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 03:38 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I find her multi-week in total delay program to be revolting. It stinks. I take it you are copacetic with it? If so, good for you.

Wow, you haven't used copacetic in a long time! 04-clap2 I'll be honest, I forgot what it means since I looked it up a few months ago and don't feel like looking it up right now. But your vocabulary is impressive.

(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]A comment on the results of possibly one or more too many facial plastic surgeries.

Ahh, so we're making fun of women for their looks. 03-2thumbsup I'm sure if she looked super old and wrinkly that you would totally have nothing bad to say about her looks. From Kamala the Slut to Stephanie the Hut to mocking the speaker of the house's plastic surgery, you and 69/70/75 seem to have some issues. Bravo to OO and the conservatives who haven't demeaned women in these ways for non-substantive reasons.

I'm sure all the 80 year-old women in the lives of the members of the Parliament are smoking hot. That's why it makes sense to call out Pelosi on her looks.

Not to mention everybody here (and their wives) has a BMI < 22.

Typical liberal response. When it gets down to the nubbins, and there isnt a substantive answer, just turn the ageist, sexist, racist crap. I suggest turning it to an 11 for best effect.

Good job there 93. Kind of old and tired, but I guess you think it fully effective.

Here is another for ya' 93. Pelosi is an evil ***** in this instance. I am sure that will get that libbie blood boiling and those hands a-wavering all shocked and fluttery like. By the way, I am sure that you will note the starred out verbiage (ooh another big word that Big will get agander about I am sure) as being 'sexist'. When you decide for cipher which one -- here is a hint: count the stars.

I am sure you have *never* made an unflattering ad-hom comment about any politician ever...... lolz....

As my coach told me on the high school tennis team, and I am finding it applicable now --- get a fing grip.

And, I dont have a fing clue why you are tossing body weight into the mix. Guess that makes that liberal melange all the better. (will 'melange' set off big? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe big is an evil 'wordist' type).
[Image: clorox-chewables.jpg]
(04-24-2020 04:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 03:38 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I find her multi-week in total delay program to be revolting. It stinks. I take it you are copacetic with it? If so, good for you.

Wow, you haven't used copacetic in a long time! 04-clap2 I'll be honest, I forgot what it means since I looked it up a few months ago and don't feel like looking it up right now. But your vocabulary is impressive.

(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]A comment on the results of possibly one or more too many facial plastic surgeries.

Ahh, so we're making fun of women for their looks. 03-2thumbsup I'm sure if she looked super old and wrinkly that you would totally have nothing bad to say about her looks. From Kamala the Slut to Stephanie the Hut to mocking the speaker of the house's plastic surgery, you and 69/70/75 seem to have some issues. Bravo to OO and the conservatives who haven't demeaned women in these ways for non-substantive reasons.

I'm sure all the 80 year-old women in the lives of the members of the Parliament are smoking hot. That's why it makes sense to call out Pelosi on her looks.

Not to mention everybody here (and their wives) has a BMI < 22.

Typical liberal response. When it gets down to the nubbins, and there isnt a substantive answer, just turn the ageist, sexist, racist crap. Good job there 93. Kind of old and tired, but I guess you think it fully effective.

Here is another for ya' 93. Pelosi is an evil ***** in this instance. I am sure that will get that libbie blood boiling and those hands a-wavering all shocked and fluttery like.

I am sure you have *never* made an unflattering ad-hom comment about any politician ever...... lolz....

I don’t feel like making the effort, but feel free to go back over my posting history and see if I have made disparaging remarks about people’s looks. If you do so, while you are there you might calculate the ratio of pejorative comments as to the appearance of female:male politicians from the far right posters here. I’d be curious.

Quote:As my coach told me on the high school tennis team, and I am finding it applicable now --- get a fing grip.

As my high school basketball coach would tell me and my buddies as necessary, and I am finding it applicable now... don’t be an a***hole.
(04-24-2020 04:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 03:38 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I find her multi-week in total delay program to be revolting. It stinks. I take it you are copacetic with it? If so, good for you.

Wow, you haven't used copacetic in a long time! 04-clap2 I'll be honest, I forgot what it means since I looked it up a few months ago and don't feel like looking it up right now. But your vocabulary is impressive.

(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]A comment on the results of possibly one or more too many facial plastic surgeries.

Ahh, so we're making fun of women for their looks. 03-2thumbsup I'm sure if she looked super old and wrinkly that you would totally have nothing bad to say about her looks. From Kamala the Slut to Stephanie the Hut to mocking the speaker of the house's plastic surgery, you and 69/70/75 seem to have some issues. Bravo to OO and the conservatives who haven't demeaned women in these ways for non-substantive reasons.

I'm sure all the 80 year-old women in the lives of the members of the Parliament are smoking hot. That's why it makes sense to call out Pelosi on her looks.

Not to mention everybody here (and their wives) has a BMI < 22.

Typical liberal response. When it gets down to the nubbins, and there isnt a substantive answer, just turn the ageist, sexist, racist crap. I suggest turning it to an 11 for best effect.

Good job there 93. Kind of old and tired, but I guess you think it fully effective.

Here is another for ya' 93. Pelosi is an evil ***** in this instance. I am sure that will get that libbie blood boiling and those hands a-wavering all shocked and fluttery like. By the way, I am sure that you will note the starred out verbiage (ooh another big word that Big will get agander about I am sure) as being 'sexist'. When you decide for cipher which one -- here is a hint: count the stars.

I am sure you have *never* made an unflattering ad-hom comment about any politician ever...... lolz....

As my coach told me on the high school tennis team, and I am finding it applicable now --- get a fing grip.

And, I dont have a fing clue why you are tossing body weight into the mix. Guess that makes that liberal melange all the better. (will 'melange' set off big? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe big is an evil 'wordist' type).

Because of the nickname plays on "Jabba the Hutt" that you guys use for overweight female politicians?
(04-24-2020 04:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 04:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 03:38 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I find her multi-week in total delay program to be revolting. It stinks. I take it you are copacetic with it? If so, good for you.

Wow, you haven't used copacetic in a long time! 04-clap2 I'll be honest, I forgot what it means since I looked it up a few months ago and don't feel like looking it up right now. But your vocabulary is impressive.

(04-24-2020 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]A comment on the results of possibly one or more too many facial plastic surgeries.

Ahh, so we're making fun of women for their looks. 03-2thumbsup I'm sure if she looked super old and wrinkly that you would totally have nothing bad to say about her looks. From Kamala the Slut to Stephanie the Hut to mocking the speaker of the house's plastic surgery, you and 69/70/75 seem to have some issues. Bravo to OO and the conservatives who haven't demeaned women in these ways for non-substantive reasons.

I'm sure all the 80 year-old women in the lives of the members of the Parliament are smoking hot. That's why it makes sense to call out Pelosi on her looks.

Not to mention everybody here (and their wives) has a BMI < 22.

Typical liberal response. When it gets down to the nubbins, and there isnt a substantive answer, just turn the ageist, sexist, racist crap. Good job there 93. Kind of old and tired, but I guess you think it fully effective.

Here is another for ya' 93. Pelosi is an evil ***** in this instance. I am sure that will get that libbie blood boiling and those hands a-wavering all shocked and fluttery like.

I am sure you have *never* made an unflattering ad-hom comment about any politician ever...... lolz....

I don’t feel like making the effort, but feel free to go back over my posting history and see if I have made disparaging remarks about people’s looks. If you do so, while you are there you might calculate the ratio of pejorative comments as to the appearance of female:male politicians from the far right posters here. I’d be curious.

Quote:As my coach told me on the high school tennis team, and I am finding it applicable now --- get a fing grip.

As my high school basketball coach would tell me and my buddies as necessary, and I am finding it applicable now... don’t be an a***hole.

As my legal mentors told me --- stick to the substantive factual issues as opposed to wandering off into tar and feather issue. You want to jump whole hog into being an inane 'how dare you say something -ist', go for it. Knock yourself out with your self-induced bout of apoplexy. (will 'apoplexy' send big over that verbiage issue he has with me? We shall see) (oh no, perhaps I am disparaging the poor disadvantaged apoplexians in the world with this...... horrors.... that would make me an apoplexist I guess....)

But give a liberal the chance to yell, scream, and whine "XXXXX-ist", they will take it like a crank head guns for that freebie mexican eight ball.

Especially when they cannot reply substantively. Looking at proof of that maxim at the right here and now.

Almost like trained circus seals.

Can you bounce a ball on your nose like they do at command?

Wait, why am I telling you to go for it above -- you already jumped off that cliff like the lemming train. Good job.
(04-24-2020 04:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:As my coach told me on the high school tennis team, and I am finding it applicable now --- get a fing grip.

As my high school basketball coach would tell me and my buddies as necessary, and I am finding it applicable now... don’t be an a***hole.

I think Queen Nancy can survive. There is no silver bullet, garlic, crucifix, or a cupful of salt associated with a needle and thread with the term 'Stretch'. I think the Queen can survive this horrible ordeal, notwithstanding the caterwaul put up by her faithful here this afternoon.

Perhaps this is a warning if I call Biden 'Slow Joe' you will go apeshit of the sociological implication on mental retardation or somefink.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Reference URL's