ADVERTISEMENT

Trump to Canada...

Is this what the Gilded Age was like but without the internet? Or is this more Hooverism? Either way neither turned out great for the Country or the World.
 
I know who the guilty party is the majority of time on this board.
I have no doubt who stands out to you on the board. But both of those terms I got from this board and there are a few that constantly throw names. You just agree with them so they don't stand out.

For the record, I don't like when either side calls names.
 
I have no doubt who stands out to you on the board. But both of those terms I got from this board and there are a few that constantly throw names. You just agree with them so they don't stand out.

For the record, I don't like when either side calls names.

I said the majority of time. I’ll stand by that statement. Why don’t you just fact check it? I don’t have time. I have a life outside this board. I just pop in from time to time for a football update or a good laugh at all the Left’s hypocrisy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UrHuckleberry
I said the majority of time. I’ll stand by that statement. Why don’t you just fact check it? I don’t have time. I have a life outside this board. I just pop in from time to time for a football update or a good laugh at all the Left’s hypocrisy.
You have triggered some men and made them cry.

In before the TI blue hairs …

Too late

Ok, here’s an explanation even a 5 year old could understand…

The entire Biden Administration sucked great big donkey balls…

He's dumber than bricks, don't bother engaging with him

No one really cares what spencer_dork thinks anyway. We can just turn on Rachel Maddow to know what he thinks
Fact checked just this thread, and more insults, including from yourself one page one, or name calling from the right. But could go find another thread if you'd like?
 
Fact checked just this thread, and more insults, including from yourself one page one, or name calling from the right. But could go find another thread if you'd like?


Stop it. Triggered some men and made them cry is not name calling. That’s a broad statement. Spencer quoted fat piggy and said he was dumber than bricks. That’s singling out one poster with an insulting, personal attack. And I’m not a fan.

I have been insulted by some posters for zero reason except my political views. More times than I can count. And I have ignored them and not said a word back more times than I can count. And verbally and personally attacking someone anonymously behind a keyboard is despicable. We can disagree respectfully. Period.
 
Stop it. Triggered some men and made them cry is not name calling. That’s a broad statement. Spencer quoted fat piggy and said he was dumber than bricks. That’s singling out one poster with an insulting, personal attack. And I’m not a fan.

I have been insulted by some posters for zero reason except my political views. More times than I can count. And I have ignored them and not said a word back more times than I can count. And verbally and personally attacking someone anonymously behind a keyboard is despicable. We can disagree respectfully. Period.
k
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spencer_York
Stop it. Triggered some men and made them cry is not name calling. That’s a broad statement. Spencer quoted fat piggy and said he was dumber than bricks. That’s singling out one poster with an insulting, personal attack. And I’m not a fan.

I have been insulted by some posters for zero reason except my political views. More times than I can count. And I have ignored them and not said a word back more times than I can count. And verbally and personally attacking someone anonymously behind a keyboard is despicable. We can disagree respectfully. Period.
Always the victim
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spencer_York
He is absolutely getting his chance. I don't understand that argument. People are saying it isn't a good policy based on studies that have been done testing some of Oren's conclusions. It is their opinion of the policy. They can have opinions on policies prior to the end game of the policy playing out.

Just like, Biden can put DEI policies into place to try to drive for more equity. And I don't remember your opinion being that we should see if those policies work and actually do provide equity, etc. You had an opinion on the policies based on what you have seen in life, etc and thought they wouldn't work like stated. (I am sure it's not a perfect analogy, but I think my point is coming across regardless).
EQUITY as related to all Americans being treated the same regardless of their color, age, etc I can agree with but I don't think that's what is being debated in the country.

What I see more than anything these days is people wanting economic EQUITY. I should have what you have, or you should have what I have depending on which one of us is better off. Regardless of effort, hours put it, what the job is, etc. I have a BIG problem with that. It would be like me saying I should make as much as Trevor Lawrence. I don't do the same job, put in the same hours, and was never as athletic as he is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy
EQUITY as related to all Americans being treated the same regardless of their color, age, etc I can agree with but I don't think that's what is being debated.

What I see more
I hear ya. That just isn't what I was saying. Was just the first policy example I could think of.

Was literally just saying that with every single policy that Biden would've proposed, we'll say economically so its less about "morals", people on the board would've had objections about them as policies before they actually play out. So to say dems can't now have objections to a policy because it hasn't played out yet is silly to me.
 
I hear ya. That just isn't what I was saying. Was just the first policy example I could think of.

Was literally just saying that with every single policy that Biden would've proposed, we'll say economically so its less about "morals", people on the board would've had objections about them as policies before they actually play out. So to say dems can't now have objections to a policy because it hasn't played out yet is silly to me.
Dems are going to have objections to Reps and Reps are going to have objections to Dems. I get what you're saying and it's a valid point. That's why ALL politicians should be on a short leash. I think they are probably 5-10 of them in my mind worth keeping. The rest are in it for themselves. They could care less what any of us think. They're there to get rich.
 
Still waiting on an answer to this. If we say we're annexing Canada, they say "no you aren't", then what happens next? What is called when one country takes over another against its will?
I don't think anyone has said we are taking over Canada against their will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy
Dems are going to have objections to Reps and Reps are going to have objections to Dems. I get what you're saying and it's a valid point. That's why ALL politicians should be on a short leash. I think they are probably 5-10 of them in my mind worth keeping. The rest are in it for themselves. They could care less what any of us think. They're there to get rich.
Hey, we agree!

I don't like that the Dems are delaying votes on some of his appointments. I don't like some of his appointments, and am on board not voting to confirm, or whatever. That is what they should do. But hate the political games being played. But also find humor in that objection coming from the Rep's who for years have played similar games during Biden's administration.
 
Hey, we agree!

I don't like that the Dems are delaying votes on some of his appointments. I don't like some of his appointments, and am on board not voting to confirm, or whatever. That is what they should do. But hate the political games being played. But also find humor in that objection coming from the Rep's who for years have played similar games during Biden's administration.
Politics is most cases is like professional wrestling. Both sides get before the microphone and talk trash about the other. Then it ends and they all get together and have drinks/supper together while laughing at us.
 
Genuinely curious what is meant by Annex means in that context though.
I must have missed where we are going to annex Canada. I do know where Trump said Canada could be the 51st state. I never saw anything like the USA was going to invade Canada and take it regardless of what they wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy
I must have missed where we are going to annex Canada. I do know where Trump said Canada could be the 51st state. I never saw anything like the USA was going to invade Canada and take it regardless of what they wanted.
I'll admit, I had only seen it in this thread and was just replying. @Spencer_York ?
 
I must have missed where we are going to annex Canada. I do know where Trump said Canada could be the 51st state. I never saw anything like the USA was going to invade Canada and take it regardless of what they wanted.
What on earth do you think making Canada the 51st state means?
 
Politics is most cases is like professional wrestling. Both sides get before the microphone and talk trash about the other. Then it ends and they all get together and have drinks/supper together while laughing at us.
Except they make decisions that then impact peoples lives, sometimes globally, sometimes for decades to come.

I love pro wrestling. I don’t want my government run like a pro wrestling show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spencer_York
Except they make decisions that then impact peoples lives, sometimes globally, sometimes for decades to come.

I love pro wrestling. I don’t want my government run like a pro wrestling show.
In his defense, I don't think he does either. Think he was complaining.
 
Got you. He doesn't use the term annex though. That's what I was fighting for you on lol

I am reading him like he is saying "if they don't like the economic hardship, they can just join us and not have to worry about it"

I don't love having to interpret what a President means all the time, to be fair.
 
Got you. He doesn't use the term annex though. That's what I was fighting for you on lol

I am reading him like he is saying "if they don't like the economic hardship, they can just join us and not have to worry about it"

I don't love having to interpret what a President means all the time, to be fair.
Yeah and that’s annexation. By definition it is annexation. It was annexation when Texas joined the US https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation

It would be annexation if Canada joined the US even willingly. And Canadians have 0 interest in joining the US. A huge part of Canadian identity is not being American.

I’m just blown away at how stupid these people are being
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT