Abbott signs "anti-critical race theory" bill into law

9,199 Views | 292 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by quash
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

bear2be2 said:

quash said:

bear2be2 said:

Rawhide said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

Canon said:

Sounds good. We need to weed Marxists out of our country, particularly in positions where they can propagandize children and young people.

Marxism is the thought that stops thought.
I'm very much a free market guy. I don't believe socialism works in practice. But I'm not the least bit surprised by its growth in popularity among people who have correctly determined that our current economic system, which has allowed lobbiests to circumvent the market and corporations to win without playing by the rules, isn't working for them.
What you fail to realize is socialism, big government or leftist policies allow the ultra rich to thrive.

You don't understand how they use government against the middle class, small and midsize business.
It's not Marxism that has put us in our current situation. It's unchecked greed and a culture that is largely accepting/approving of it.

Marxism is the reaction, not the action. And as misguided as it is IMO, it's completely understandable given the current state of our economy.
Individual Wealth and buying power has nearly increased 5000% since the mid 1800's. It's not living conditions or access to materialism, housing or goods that's the issue. So no, that's not what's understandable.

What's going on today is cultural envy. The wealth gap has grown and the masses want a piece of that pie with absolutely no regard to personal responsibility.

People today have more opportunity than ever before and they're simply refusing to capitalize on it. The ultra rich are taking advantage of their perverted view on our government and economy.

You're just enabling the corporate oligarchy you decry here with this pseudo defense of the status quo.

It's not cultural envy. There has always been a wealth gap in this country, and we've navigated it to this point without many significant hiccups. What makes this period different is that the gap is wider than it's ever been and was "achieved" nefariously.

The American dream narrative works when most of your population feels they're being given a fair opportunity to achieve it. We've proven for generations that we can accept income inequality (an inevitability of capitalist -- and really any -- society) if we feel everyone is playing by the same rules.

The problem now is that that is not the case. Winners and losers are being picked before the game even starts, and rather than call out the cheating players, we waste time on forums like this defending the game.

The game is fine when played by the rules. But when you rig it in a way that is clear as day to the others at the table, they're going to leave and find something else to play.
How has Jeff Bezos achieved his wealth nefariously? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs/Apple, Walton Family? As far as I can tell, they created a business or product that people wanted and profited from it.

What's your definition of "the wealthy"... what does the wealthy look like to you?
Go look at Jeff Bezos' taxes and tell me he's played by the same rules you and I have.

He has. His $82k annual salary gets taxed like everybody else who makes $82k a year.

Any tax code that allows the richest man on earth and owner of a corporation that hauled in $382 billion in revenue last year to claim $82k in income is broken beyond repair. And if you disagree, you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue.

But if, like many libertarians, you view taxes of any kind as theft, that's likely a given.

I can put aside my feelings about taxation as theft and consider fixes to the tax code. %A0I assume you can do the same and not claim that Bezos stole $382 billion but merely persuaded people to part with money for things they desired more than the cash itself.

But what is bothering you here is not income, but wealth. Those are two very different things. %A0When you get into wealth taxes you are deep, deep into theft. %A0Where will the theft line be drawn? I can keep my couch but I have to forfeit some portion of my stock portfolio? You want my second fridge? %A0Third gun? Van?

So, putting aside your feelings about curriculum design as book-burning...what do you actually think about teaching Marxism in public schools?

Support your bull**** question.

Whoa, no need to take offense. You said you had no opinion on what schools teach, except they should be allowed to teach whatever they want. Anything less is book-banning in your view. I'm saying, if you can set aside the libertarian purist argument on taxes and speak pragmatically about policy, why not do the same here? Granted that there are government schools, and the state is ultimately responsible for what they teach, do you think they should teach CRT or not?

If you want support for CRT as Marxist, I think I covered that. I can elaborate if necessary.

Then don't start by calling me a book burner in a thread where I am taking the exact opposite position.

I know that. I must not have been clear.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll see your "cancel culture" and raise you.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

I'll see your "cancel culture" and raise you.
...a dollar?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




Slant eyed General

I can see Chyna money oozing from his pocketbook
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


His argument is that he read Mao and other communist leaders/thinkers to understand communism.

Ok then why is he reading Ibram X. Kendi and other anti-white nationalists to understand white nationalism?

That is completely faulty logic.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

So, am I gonna get an answer? Do you support public schools being able to teach and promote ideas of white supremacy, or not?

C'mon man, you were the one who came on here like the high and mighty, principled libertarian and was against banning ideas in public schools. So don't run off like a coward when challenged. Man up, and stick to your guns. If you are against banning ideas in public schools, then you support schools being able to teach white supremacy without state interference. Is that correct?

I don't know why this is so hard for you: I oppose banning ideas. I support the freedom of schools to choose what to teach. Why don't you?
Who is having a hard time with this - me, or you, the guy who couldn't read and comprehend?

I just wanted you to spell out the logical conclusion to your thinking in concrete terms for everyone reading this, by having you confirm that yes, you are ok with public schools being free to teach and promote white supremacy - and not just that but also by extension, violent islamic terrorism and man-boy love. You have.

This exposes your thinking as idiotic and nuts, and should fully discredit your opinion here. If you can't by introspection see the fatal problem here and say "hey, maybe I need to rethink this", then truly, you are the one having the hard time.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

So, am I gonna get an answer? Do you support public schools being able to teach and promote ideas of white supremacy, or not?

C'mon man, you were the one who came on here like the high and mighty, principled libertarian and was against banning ideas in public schools. So don't run off like a coward when challenged. Man up, and stick to your guns. If you are against banning ideas in public schools, then you support schools being able to teach white supremacy without state interference. Is that correct?

I don't know why this is so hard for you: I oppose banning ideas. I support the freedom of schools to choose what to teach. Why don't you?
Who is having a hard time with this - me, or you, the guy who couldn't read and comprehend?

I just wanted you to spell out the logical conclusion to your thinking in concrete terms for everyone reading this, by having you confirm that yes, you are ok with public schools being free to teach and promote white supremacy - and not just that but also by extension, violent islamic terrorism and man-boy love. You have.

This exposes your thinking as idiotic and nuts, and should fully discredit your opinion here. If you can't by introspection see the fatal problem here and say "hey, maybe I need to rethink this", then truly, you are the one having the hard time.


The question is really where the decisions about what will be taught and how it will be taught should be made.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

So, am I gonna get an answer? Do you support public schools being able to teach and promote ideas of white supremacy, or not?

C'mon man, you were the one who came on here like the high and mighty, principled libertarian and was against banning ideas in public schools. So don't run off like a coward when challenged. Man up, and stick to your guns. If you are against banning ideas in public schools, then you support schools being able to teach white supremacy without state interference. Is that correct?

I don't know why this is so hard for you: I oppose banning ideas. I support the freedom of schools to choose what to teach. Why don't you?
Who is having a hard time with this - me, or you, the guy who couldn't read and comprehend?

I just wanted you to spell out the logical conclusion to your thinking in concrete terms for everyone reading this, by having you confirm that yes, you are ok with public schools being free to teach and promote white supremacy - and not just that but also by extension, violent islamic terrorism and man-boy love. You have.

This exposes your thinking as idiotic and nuts, and should fully discredit your opinion here. If you can't by introspection see the fatal problem here and say "hey, maybe I need to rethink this", then truly, you are the one having the hard time.


The question is really where the decisions about what will be taught and how it will be taught should be made.

Shhh, he's on a roll.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

bear2be2 said:

quash said:

bear2be2 said:

quash said:

bear2be2 said:

Rawhide said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

Canon said:

Sounds good. We need to weed Marxists out of our country, particularly in positions where they can propagandize children and young people.

Marxism is the thought that stops thought.
I'm very much a free market guy. I don't believe socialism works in practice. But I'm not the least bit surprised by its growth in popularity among people who have correctly determined that our current economic system, which has allowed lobbiests to circumvent the market and corporations to win without playing by the rules, isn't working for them.
What you fail to realize is socialism, big government or leftist policies allow the ultra rich to thrive.

You don't understand how they use government against the middle class, small and midsize business.
It's not Marxism that has put us in our current situation. It's unchecked greed and a culture that is largely accepting/approving of it.

Marxism is the reaction, not the action. And as misguided as it is IMO, it's completely understandable given the current state of our economy.
Individual Wealth and buying power has nearly increased 5000% since the mid 1800's. It's not living conditions or access to materialism, housing or goods that's the issue. So no, that's not what's understandable.

What's going on today is cultural envy. The wealth gap has grown and the masses want a piece of that pie with absolutely no regard to personal responsibility.

People today have more opportunity than ever before and they're simply refusing to capitalize on it. The ultra rich are taking advantage of their perverted view on our government and economy.

You're just enabling the corporate oligarchy you decry here with this pseudo defense of the status quo.

It's not cultural envy. There has always been a wealth gap in this country, and we've navigated it to this point without many significant hiccups. What makes this period different is that the gap is wider than it's ever been and was "achieved" nefariously.

The American dream narrative works when most of your population feels they're being given a fair opportunity to achieve it. We've proven for generations that we can accept income inequality (an inevitability of capitalist -- and really any -- society) if we feel everyone is playing by the same rules.

The problem now is that that is not the case. Winners and losers are being picked before the game even starts, and rather than call out the cheating players, we waste time on forums like this defending the game.

The game is fine when played by the rules. But when you rig it in a way that is clear as day to the others at the table, they're going to leave and find something else to play.
How has Jeff Bezos achieved his wealth nefariously? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs/Apple, Walton Family? As far as I can tell, they created a business or product that people wanted and profited from it.

What's your definition of "the wealthy"... what does the wealthy look like to you?
Go look at Jeff Bezos' taxes and tell me he's played by the same rules you and I have.

He has. His $82k annual salary gets taxed like everybody else who makes $82k a year.

Any tax code that allows the richest man on earth and owner of a corporation that hauled in $382 billion in revenue last year to claim $82k in income is broken beyond repair. And if you disagree, you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue.

But if, like many libertarians, you view taxes of any kind as theft, that's likely a given.

I can put aside my feelings about taxation as theft and consider fixes to the tax code. I assume you can do the same and not claim that Bezos stole $382 billion but merely persuaded people to part with money for things they desired more than the cash itself.

But what is bothering you here is not income, but wealth. Those are two very different things. When you get into wealth taxes you are deep, deep into theft. Where will the theft line be drawn? I can keep my couch but I have to forfeit some portion of my stock portfolio? You want my second fridge? Third gun? Van?

Odds are slim to none that I've given even the slightest thought or had the slightest concern over your level of wealth.

Unless you're hoarding billions of untaxed dollars, and in so doing putting an unnecessary and unsustainable strain on our economy and society, I don't particularly care what you make or have.

So your theft line is somewhere in the billions?

And exactly how does the earning and keeping of billions constitute hoarding? Why is that a strain on the economy? Or society?
We're not going to agree on this or change each other's mind. It's a pointless discussion.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.


You are quite the wimp aren't you

Manly men bother girly men like you

Move to Chyna
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

D. C. Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

So, am I gonna get an answer? Do you support public schools being able to teach and promote ideas of white supremacy, or not?

C'mon man, you were the one who came on here like the high and mighty, principled libertarian and was against banning ideas in public schools. So don't run off like a coward when challenged. Man up, and stick to your guns. If you are against banning ideas in public schools, then you support schools being able to teach white supremacy without state interference. Is that correct?

I don't know why this is so hard for you: I oppose banning ideas. I support the freedom of schools to choose what to teach. Why don't you?
Who is having a hard time with this - me, or you, the guy who couldn't read and comprehend?

I just wanted you to spell out the logical conclusion to your thinking in concrete terms for everyone reading this, by having you confirm that yes, you are ok with public schools being free to teach and promote white supremacy - and not just that but also by extension, violent islamic terrorism and man-boy love. You have.

This exposes your thinking as idiotic and nuts, and should fully discredit your opinion here. If you can't by introspection see the fatal problem here and say "hey, maybe I need to rethink this", then truly, you are the one having the hard time.


The question is really where the decisions about what will be taught and how it will be taught should be made.

Shhh, he's on a roll.

Oh, right, shhh because somehow his comment is the secret genius point of yours that went over my head, and I look silly by rambling on unaware. Good grief, anything for the save.

We ARE dealing with the question in his comment. That's what this has been about, YOUR bad answer to it - that public schools should have carte blanche over what it teaches, without ANY oversight. Any normally thinking person can see the fatal flaw in that thinking, as has already been illustrated.

Certainly you don't STILL think there is merit to your thinking, after you admitted you support public schools being able to teach and promote white supremacy, do you?
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.


You are quite the wimp aren't you

Manly men bother girly men like you

Move to Chyna
Which guy here represents the manliness for you? The general or Matt freakin' Gaetz?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.


You are quite the wimp aren't you

Manly men bother girly men like you

Move to Chyna


Even at 63 former green beret General Miley would whip Gaetz's pretty boy sex trafficking ass.

There are Republicans that I really respect, but how anyone would fall inline with that creep is beyond me.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.


You are quite the wimp aren't you

Manly men bother girly men like you

Move to Chyna
Which guy here represents the manliness for you? The general or Matt freakin' Gaetz?


Oh by all means, Gen Critical Race Theory is sooooo dam manly

Gaetz would fight a brick wall and he dam sure fights Chinese backed General like that piece of chyte!
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:

Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.


You are quite the wimp aren't you

Manly men bother girly men like you

Move to Chyna


Even at 63 former green beret General Miley would whip Gaetz's pretty boy sex trafficking ass.

There are Republicans that I really respect, but how anyone would fall inline with that creep is beyond me.


Sex trafficking Gaetz??? Are you serious? Anyone on Capitol Hill that speaks with authority like Gaetz dam sure ain't involved in sex trafficking. Those republicans that tread lightly are suspect(IE Pence!)
Proud 1992 Alum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

boognish_bear said:

Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.


You are quite the wimp aren't you

Manly men bother girly men like you

Move to Chyna


Even at 63 former green beret General Miley would whip Gaetz's pretty boy sex trafficking ass.

There are Republicans that I really respect, but how anyone would fall inline with that creep is beyond me.


Sex trafficking Gaetz??? Are you serious? Anyone on Capitol Hill that speaks with authority like Gaetz dam sure ain't involved in sex trafficking. Those republicans that tread lightly are suspect(IE Pence!)


So you slander a decent man like Mike Pence in defense of a loser like Matt Gaetz? You are a damn fool and an embarrassment to conservatives like myself.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Proud 1992 Alum said:

Florda_mike said:

boognish_bear said:

Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.


You are quite the wimp aren't you

Manly men bother girly men like you

Move to Chyna


Even at 63 former green beret General Miley would whip Gaetz's pretty boy sex trafficking ass.

There are Republicans that I really respect, but how anyone would fall inline with that creep is beyond me.


Sex trafficking Gaetz??? Are you serious? Anyone on Capitol Hill that speaks with authority like Gaetz dam sure ain't involved in sex trafficking. Those republicans that tread lightly are suspect(IE Pence!)


So you slander a decent man like Mike Pence in defense of a loser like Matt Gaetz? You are a damn fool and an embarrassment to conservatives like myself.


Pence, decent??? Let's see how your statement ages

Pence is a very bad person
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

boognish_bear said:


His argument is that he read Mao and other communist leaders/thinkers to understand communism.

Ok then why is he reading Ibram X. Kendi and other anti-white nationalists to understand white nationalism?

That is completely faulty logic.
Yeah, he just validated Gaetz' point without even realizing it. Great play by the general there.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
I'm curious what democrats you support?
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
I'm curious what democrats you support?
Depends on the election. Same for Republicans.

I'll typically vote for the most decent pragmatic candidate.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

D. C. Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

So, am I gonna get an answer? Do you support public schools being able to teach and promote ideas of white supremacy, or not?

C'mon man, you were the one who came on here like the high and mighty, principled libertarian and was against banning ideas in public schools. So don't run off like a coward when challenged. Man up, and stick to your guns. If you are against banning ideas in public schools, then you support schools being able to teach white supremacy without state interference. Is that correct?

I don't know why this is so hard for you: I oppose banning ideas. I support the freedom of schools to choose what to teach. Why don't you?
Who is having a hard time with this - me, or you, the guy who couldn't read and comprehend?

I just wanted you to spell out the logical conclusion to your thinking in concrete terms for everyone reading this, by having you confirm that yes, you are ok with public schools being free to teach and promote white supremacy - and not just that but also by extension, violent islamic terrorism and man-boy love. You have.

This exposes your thinking as idiotic and nuts, and should fully discredit your opinion here. If you can't by introspection see the fatal problem here and say "hey, maybe I need to rethink this", then truly, you are the one having the hard time.


The question is really where the decisions about what will be taught and how it will be taught should be made.

Shhh, he's on a roll.

Oh, right, shhh because somehow his comment is the secret genius point of yours that went over my head, and I look silly by rambling on unaware. Good grief, anything for the save.

We ARE dealing with the question in his comment. That's what this has been about, YOUR bad answer to it - that public schools should have carte blanche over what it teaches, without ANY oversight. Any normally thinking person can see the fatal flaw in that thinking, as has already been illustrated.

Certainly you don't STILL think there is merit to your thinking, after you admitted you support public schools being able to teach and promote white supremacy, do you?

Man, you are killing a point I never made. You beast.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
I'm curious what democrats you support?
Depends on the election. Same for Republicans.

I'll typically vote for the most decent pragmatic candidate.
Is that hard to do when they're pressured to support tax hikes which end up mostly effecting the middle class?
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
I'm curious what democrats you support?
Depends on the election. Same for Republicans.

I'll typically vote for the most decent pragmatic candidate.
Is that hard to do when they're pressured to support tax hikes which end up mostly effecting the middle class?
Before the Republicans went off their rockers, it might have been. But that party's hard pull to the right -- politically during the Tea Party movement and culturally with Trump -- has made it much easier.

I still won't vote for progressive candidates who aren't incrementalists, though. Political pragmatism and compromise are important to me.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

D. C. Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

So, am I gonna get an answer? Do you support public schools being able to teach and promote ideas of white supremacy, or not?

C'mon man, you were the one who came on here like the high and mighty, principled libertarian and was against banning ideas in public schools. So don't run off like a coward when challenged. Man up, and stick to your guns. If you are against banning ideas in public schools, then you support schools being able to teach white supremacy without state interference. Is that correct?

I don't know why this is so hard for you: I oppose banning ideas. I support the freedom of schools to choose what to teach. Why don't you?
Who is having a hard time with this - me, or you, the guy who couldn't read and comprehend?

I just wanted you to spell out the logical conclusion to your thinking in concrete terms for everyone reading this, by having you confirm that yes, you are ok with public schools being free to teach and promote white supremacy - and not just that but also by extension, violent islamic terrorism and man-boy love. You have.

This exposes your thinking as idiotic and nuts, and should fully discredit your opinion here. If you can't by introspection see the fatal problem here and say "hey, maybe I need to rethink this", then truly, you are the one having the hard time.


The question is really where the decisions about what will be taught and how it will be taught should be made.

Shhh, he's on a roll.

Oh, right, shhh because somehow his comment is the secret genius point of yours that went over my head, and I look silly by rambling on unaware. Good grief, anything for the save.

We ARE dealing with the question in his comment. That's what this has been about, YOUR bad answer to it - that public schools should have carte blanche over what it teaches, without ANY oversight. Any normally thinking person can see the fatal flaw in that thinking, as has already been illustrated.

Certainly you don't STILL think there is merit to your thinking, after you admitted you support public schools being able to teach and promote white supremacy, do you?

Man, you are killing a point I never made. You beast.
Anyone who can read knows you confirmed that point yourself.

I'm sorry, I think you are too dishonest for me to continue with you.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
I'm curious what democrats you support?
Depends on the election. Same for Republicans.

I'll typically vote for the most decent pragmatic candidate.
Is that hard to do when they're pressured to support tax hikes which end up mostly effecting the middle class?
Before the Republicans went off their rockers, it might have been. But that party's hard pull to the right -- politically during the Tea Party movement and culturally with Trump -- has made it much easier.

I still won't vote for progressive candidates who aren't incrementalists, though. Political pragmatism and compromise are important to me.
What would be a "sane" Republican party look like to you?

Tax cuts for the rich? More mass immigration from Oaxaca peasants and the cousins of Somali pirates? More foreign wars abroad? Zero push back against Liberal cultural revolution?

If you like that then the GOP is still the party for you.....those are still the policies it pushes for...you just don't like that lower class Republican voters are demanding the party leadership change course.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
I'm curious what democrats you support?
Depends on the election. Same for Republicans.

I'll typically vote for the most decent pragmatic candidate.


100% bullcheet ^^^

Dodging his dimcrat love like they all do

Or he's a Chinese tool
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
I'm curious what democrats you support?
Depends on the election. Same for Republicans.

I'll typically vote for the most decent pragmatic candidate.


100% bullcheet ^^^

Dodging his dimcrat love like they all do

Or he's a Chinese tool
Actually, I'm one of the lizard people who eats babies. You were so close.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
I'm curious what democrats you support?
Depends on the election. Same for Republicans.

I'll typically vote for the most decent pragmatic candidate.


100% bullcheet ^^^

Dodging his dimcrat love like they all do

Or he's a Chinese tool
Actually, I'm one of the lizard people who eats babies. You were so close.


Funny you mention this atrocity in such a casually comic way? Pretty sick
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
I'm curious what democrats you support?
Depends on the election. Same for Republicans.

I'll typically vote for the most decent pragmatic candidate.


100% bullcheet ^^^

Dodging his dimcrat love like they all do

Or he's a Chinese tool
Actually, I'm one of the lizard people who eats babies. You were so close.
Funny you mention this atrocity in such a casually comic way? Pretty sick
An "atrocity" that only happens in the addled brains of Q nuts like yourself?

Given your utter inability to detect the truth from bat**** crazy nonsense, I'm frankly impressed you were able to tell that was a joke.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

Florda_mike said:

bear2be2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


I saw that today. Anyone who puts Matt Gaetz's sorry ass in his place is a winner in my book.
I'm curious what democrats you support?
Depends on the election. Same for Republicans.

I'll typically vote for the most decent pragmatic candidate.


100% bullcheet ^^^

Dodging his dimcrat love like they all do

Or he's a Chinese tool
Actually, I'm one of the lizard people who eats babies. You were so close.
Funny you mention this atrocity in such a casually comic way? Pretty sick
An "atrocity" that only happens in the addled brains of Q nuts like yourself?

Given your utter inability to detect the truth from bat**** crazy nonsense, I'm frankly impressed you were able to tell that was a joke.


Irony from a psychotic ^^^
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tucker has the stones to say Milley, a green beret, is not brave. He of course did say it to him directly.

Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:

Tucker has the stones to say Milley, a green beret, is not brave. He of course did say it to him directly.


He's a high paid bureaucrat engaged in the systemic creation of war for profit and he knows it.

Don't start believing an alternate reality because it's politically convenient.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

boognish_bear said:

Tucker has the stones to say Milley, a green beret, is not brave. He of course did say it to him directly.


He's a high paid bureaucrat engaged in the systemic creation of war for profit and he knows it.

Don't start believing an alternate reality because it's politically convenient.


Yes, an unelected unfirable pos destroying our country from within
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.