Well in my travels every GD Biden supporter is a moron with his head stuck up his ass. Every GD one of them, they voted for a senile old man that is ruining the country and they are blind to it . You should stick to basketball.
Happy Monday!
Men can get pregnant
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
Happy Monday!
Hahaha well if history has taught us anything the past few years it's whatever liberals say it's the exact opposite. Great post.
Lol I agree. I am very ignorant on politics. But, I am never one to shy from my opinions. Trump is a little bitch. I’d say it to his face.
I’m not saying that all Buyden supports have purple hair and rainbow eyelashes, but every one with purple hair and rainbow eye lashes is a buyden supporter.
lol
I’m not a liberal. I’ll vote republican in 24 as long as it isn’t trump most likely.
I know this is crazy for you, but I don’t see the republican candidate and vote for them blindly.
Correct. And every toothless guy that bangs his cousin is a trump supporter. Lot more purple haired folks in the city. I deal with the mother****ers out here in rural America.
Yeah, if they don’t shoot at you, they invite you in for something to eat!
Actually, pretty fair statement. Not gonna lie tho, when I pull up in my truck and boots, I’ll talk a little slower and say how much Biden sucks.
If Biden was sitting in a nursing home cafeteria, he wouldn’t be the most coherent person in the room.
Dont disagree. I bet you would vote for him over Harris tho if those were your only options. How I viewed it with him vs. Trump.
I wouldn't have considered Hillary if you put a gun to my head. Now that it's all come out it would have been disastrous.
Another way to make friends is ask them if you can pet their bull. That will help close some deals.
Because Trump supporters don’t want a good, solid conservative Republican. That person would be called a RINO. They want Trump and all the chaos and damage he brings.
Last edited:
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
To be fair, I had to look at a list. From what I can see, Vilsack was a good one for Ag (8 years previous experience). I thought Garland was an excellent pick at the time (although I think he should have saved that for the next SCt vacancy since Garland got hosed before) but think he has done some things to politicize the office that he should not have. I think Ketanji Brown Jackson a good pick for SCt--obviously that will be TBD.
Most of the others on Biden's list I see as political hacks.
Agree on Vilsack. Garland is a political hack and awful. Thank the good lord he’s not sitting on the SCOTUS. We will see if Ketanji Brown Jackson is just another 100% vote for left policies. Would be a welcome sight if she was like most of the Republican appointees and didn’t always vote a straight ticket.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Re KBJ, I think she very well might "vote straight ticket" but I'm hoping she will do so using legitimate arguments. That's what qualifies a SCt justice to me (along with resume qualifications).
Did you think Garland a political hack before his job as Atty Gen?
Chaos? Are you kidding? Trump normalized the border to our advantage. He stabilized energy production and high levels. He brought back some common sens.e to federal sentencing, His education objectives actually were directed towards education. He appointed at least one legal rock star to SCOTUS.
Biden canned all of Trumps orderly government functions, brought chaos and incompetence to all aspects of government, and who knows what his first SCOTUS appointee will do with sex discrimination law since she can’t define a woman.
I’ll take the chaos of stupid tweets any day instead the incompetent ideological chaos we have now.
Oh, it’s all Putin‘s fault.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I don't want "rock stars" on the SCt. I want boring people who apply boring principles of law to create stability and predictability in our democracy.
Too few people--including lawyers--recognize just how important that is.
That’s why I said legal rock star.
People think Gorsuch is a conservative jurist. He really isn’t. He voted with the liberals in several important cases. Legal rock stars show themselves through the power of reasoning, argument and simplicity. That’s Gorsuch.
Over a year later and the best the left has is orange man bad. Nothing has changed and they have no answers on anything beyond racism. They are weak-minded and super sensitive. Fragile.
I'd take Trump's accomplishments while fighting off a Russia hoax and a dishonest media over anything Biden has done to date and you can include his lifetime in politics living off tax payers. Still waiting for that list of Biden/Harris accomplishments. Still waiting for Pencil Neck Schiff's overwhelming evidence.
This board seems to have more than its share of beta males who are butt hurt over anyone challenging their liberal beliefs. Their favorite teacher/professor, who never worked a real job, once told them they were special and smarter than everyone else and now they struggle in life. Predictable. They follow the crowd and whoever is trending on twitter. Weak, whinny, and can't admit when they are wrong. Thus their ever growing need for safe spaces.
The one thing that really stands out is most of what I read from the left stems from jealousy and envy. The left hates that someone has more than them and since they are not willing to work for anything they demand from others. They make fun of farmers, which is hilarious. The farmer works for a living. The farmer lives by a budget. The farmer owns his home, cars, equipment and property. The fragile left, especially those in academics, are left to cry about their student loan debt and how someone else should pay it for them. It's the difference between being an adult and being a petulant child.
I'd take Trump's accomplishments while fighting off a Russia hoax and a dishonest media over anything Biden has done to date and you can include his lifetime in politics living off tax payers. Still waiting for that list of Biden/Harris accomplishments. Still waiting for Pencil Neck Schiff's overwhelming evidence.
This board seems to have more than its share of beta males who are butt hurt over anyone challenging their liberal beliefs. Their favorite teacher/professor, who never worked a real job, once told them they were special and smarter than everyone else and now they struggle in life. Predictable. They follow the crowd and whoever is trending on twitter. Weak, whinny, and can't admit when they are wrong. Thus their ever growing need for safe spaces.
The one thing that really stands out is most of what I read from the left stems from jealousy and envy. The left hates that someone has more than them and since they are not willing to work for anything they demand from others. They make fun of farmers, which is hilarious. The farmer works for a living. The farmer lives by a budget. The farmer owns his home, cars, equipment and property. The fragile left, especially those in academics, are left to cry about their student loan debt and how someone else should pay it for them. It's the difference between being an adult and being a petulant child.
In my mind no Justice should be a straight ticket.
And no I didn’t think of Garland as a political hack until observing him in the AG job.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I won't respond to all of your generalization of the left vs. right, but this narrative of the individualistic farmer, standing up and doing it all on his own, is a bit off:
EWG's Farm Subsidy Database
EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.
farm.ewg.org
Farmers, no doubt, are hard workers, though. I'll grant you that.
As a liberal who grew up on a farm in a small rural town, worked hard for two master's degrees and a good job without being told I'm special, and nearly paid off all of my student loans, I have to disagree.
I'm sure generalizations like your comment make you feel like part of the group though. Here's a pat on the butt.
Congrats on finding Google. If you want to be fair you have to admit the small gentleman farms are disappearing rapidly. Either bought up by larger farm operations or more likely having to sell to a developer. The giant farm operations may be able to withstand the ups and downs that go with the trade but even if a small farmer manages to stay afloat through their lifetime, once they die it's an ongoing push by the government, almost exclusively dems, to have the death tax or estate tax crush them out of existence. Between property tax and death tax it's less and less likely a farm will continue into the future. That's not a good thing as we are starting to see how globalization can greatly impact us. Even Biden has talked about likely food shortages. That's not just food grown for people. Livestock will suffer as well, which will impact people.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Thanks I find Google very helpful. Ironically, it was created by a lot of liberals who worked really hard without billions in governmental subsidies, to boot.
Of course, small farms are disappearing; they aren't profitable. I think that fact undercuts your narrative and supports the countervailing facts I introduced via Google. The only reason they still exist is because of government handouts. Yes, BigFarm can weather the ups and downs better, which is an argument FOR farm consolidation-it will lessen food shortages, not increase them. I admit there are problems and risks with BigAg (that you can google).
My response to you, though, regarded your narrative that the small gentleman farmer is some bastion of individualism who doesn't need governmental help or loans like those whiny liberals. It's a false narrative, especially as compared to Google and high tech, for example, which are fields full of the liberals who aren't as lazy as your post implies.
For those who didn't click through, here's the reasoning and argument points from the decidedly UNliberal Cato Institute regarding ending farm subsidies:
1. Unfair Redistribution. Farm programs take from average taxpayers and give to higher‐income farm households, which is a reverse Robin Hood scheme. In 2011 average incomes of farm households was $87,289, or 25 percent higher than the $69,677 average of all U.S. households.
2. Economic Distortions. Farm subsidies can induce excess production, an overuse of marginal farmland, and land price inflation. Subsidies can cause less efficient planting, induce excess borrowing by farmers, and cause insufficient attention to cost control. Farm businesses have less incentive to innovate and control their costs because they know that the government will always bail them out.
3. Environmental Damage. Farm subsidies tend to draw marginal farmland into production, lands that might otherwise be used for forests or wetlands. Subsidies can also induce excess use of fertilizers and pesticides in farm production.
4. Farming Not Unique. Why is farming so coddled by the government? It’s a risky business, but not uniquely so. Industries such as high technology, newspapers, and restaurants are very risky, yet they don’t rely on government handouts. Farming faces certain risks such as adverse weather. But high‐tech companies are vulnerable to rapid innovations by competitors, and restaurants are vulnerable to changing consumer tastes and intense competition.
Farmers are supposed to be rugged individualists, so is it strange that they don’t feel more guilt and embarrassment about sponging off taxpayers decade after decade. Instead, farm organizations intensely lobby to keep and expand their welfare handouts from the government.
5. Farming Would Thrive Without Subsidies. If farm subsidies were ended, farming would go through a transition period, which would be tough on some farmers. But farmers would adjust by changing their mix of crops, altering their land use, cutting costs, innovating with new crops and new technologies. Some farms would go bankrupt. But a stronger and more innovative agriculture industry would emerge that would be more productive and more resilient in the long run.
Consider New Zealand’s reforms in the 1980s. That country eliminated nearly all its agriculture subsidies, which created challenges for the nation’s farmers. But New Zealand farmers turned out to be great entrepreneurs, and they made impressive changes to survive and thrive in the new free market environment. Today, New Zealand farmers generally don’t want subsidies, and they argue that we would be all better off without them.
Not to hijack your post but watch Clarkson's farm. Great, fascinating show. Highlights how perfectly everything has to go on a small farm to turn even a modest profit
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I've watched a few episodes, I believe on your recommendation last year. It is fascinating.
Nice post. However, you forgot a couple of biggies.....how about taking out ISIS, otherwise known by O'Bummer & Bulk as "The Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant"?...lololol.. When O'Bummer calmly warned all of us that it would take several years to do so? Also, vaporizing Iran's terrorist chief as he was boarding a plane.
Wrong and wrong. Not a surprise though. Use your liberal googling contraption to look up subsidies for tech companies. You will find Google tops the list for tech companies.
The fact you don't understand why subsidies exist for farming is not surprising. You are a liberal and liberals want handouts. You think everyone wants a handout. Most understand farming subsidies are used first and foremost to protect the food supply. Most agree that's a worthy cause. And the overwhelming percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10% of farms. Many never take a subsidy. But again, you can't understand that because you are liberal and believe the number one goal in life is to get a handout.
I don't need to continue this further. Feel free to enlighten us with your wealth of knowledge. But don't disrespect farmers. It may be by the end of this year you will wish we had more and you may beg for the opportunity to pay them whatever it takes to keep people from starving. Let's hope not.
