gunslingerdick said:

You failed to address @UNC '92 ’s point; the same point I’ve often made with you. It’s that you are quick to admonish the right/Trump and chastise that side’s supporters but it is rare when your takes do the same for the left.

We’d just like to see you be consistent. But I imagine I’m about to get a response from you that just muddies the waters where you lecture us on how nobody is “right or left all the time” and you still won’t acknowledge that you rarely, if ever, hold the left/Dems to the same standards you hold the right/Trump/GOP.

Click to expand...

Ohhhh, I'm sorry. "We" would like that? That's good news!

I think I've been pretty critical of the "other side" on here, when it mattered. I've gone right at those who try to impose some kind of moral superiority on here... like when they head for the office and try to get people banned or the thread terminated.

Forgive me for interrupting the post-election revelry, and do-si-do.

UNC '92 said:

So you didnt speak on it when your team did it, let's not pretend your values are any better. If you're trying to convince anyone you aren't for or against anything then I call "Bullshit. You're perfectly fine with it as long as your side gets away with it just like the other side gets away with it. Church-it-up to make the bitter pill taste better, if you want."

Click to expand...

My value AREN'T any better, or worse, than anyone else's. You got me!

strummingram said:

So, when you do it, it's okay. When someone else does it, it's wrong. But, they did it, so why can't I get away with it? I love it when double standards prove people to be blatant hypocrites. But, they throw it off with some lame-ass euphemism and carry on. Perfect.

Click to expand...

sometimes your need to moralize just makes you look completely stupid. To begin with, he said he didn't care for it in any case. That means he does NOT think it's OK when 'we' do it, and there is no double standard for you to preach to us about. However, he does say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, JUST SO DOLTISH HYPOCRITES won't make retarded posts like you just made anyway.

I don't think I've ever known someone more in need of getting over himself than you.

strummingram said:

Rah-rah-rah

I'm not for or against regimes. It was funny to me how dingus decided to try and justify it with that "if they do it why can't we?" bullshit. By all means, attach your identity to political parties.

Click to expand...

You failed to address @UNC '92 ’s point; the same point I’ve often made with you. It’s that you are quick to admonish the right/Trump and chastise that side’s supporters but it is rare when your takes do the same for the left.

We’d just like to see you be consistent. But I imagine I’m about to get a response from you that just muddies the waters where you lecture us on how nobody is “right or left all the time” and you still won’t acknowledge that you rarely, if ever, hold the left/Dems to the same standards you hold the right/Trump/GOP.

Your response to @UNC '92 's request is to implicitly admit that you didn't complain about the other side?

strummingram said:

Rah-rah-rah

I'm not for or against regimes. It was funny to me how dingus decided to try and justify it with that "if they do it why can't we?" bullshit. By all means, attach your identity to political parties.

Click to expand...

The point you're entirely ignoring though is that rules and proper actions don't just apply to one side or the other. By NOT complaining and making this very same point when the "other" side engaged in it so freely, you are choosing that side and endorsing it through your silence. So, it's either bad for both or it's not. And, if you don't bitch about it from both and chose to ignore it, you ARE endorsing a side. That's what I mean when I say your game of acting like Switzerland when it's not the case gets old.

strummingram said:

Rah-rah-rah

I'm not for or against regimes. It was funny to me how dingus decided to try and justify it with that "if they do it why can't we?" bullshit. By all means, attach your identity to political parties.

Click to expand...

So you didnt speak on it when your team did it, let's not pretend your values are any better. If you're trying to convince anyone you aren't for or against anything then I call "Bullshit. You're perfectly fine with it as long as your side gets away with it just like the other side gets away with it. Church-it-up to make the bitter pill taste better, if you want."

Ok, you guys forced me to do some searching and FOUND HIM.

I was talking about a guy named Terry Gates. Not much out there as he wasn't a star (particularly on a team with guys like Sampson and Jeff Lamp), but did find this UPI article. Enjoy.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/0...-Aggressive-Yes-Hatchet-Man-No/8131354344400/

UNC '92 said:

Direct us to your posts speaking out against this happening with previous dem regimes.

Click to expand...

Rah-rah-rah

I'm not for or against regimes. It was funny to me how dingus decided to try and justify it with that "if they do it why can't we?" bullshit. By all means, attach your identity to political parties.

strummingram said:

My reading is just fine. You don't care for it? Bullshit. You're perfectly fine with it as long as your side gets away with it just like the other side gets away with it. Church-it-up to make the bitter pill taste better, if you want.

Click to expand...

Direct us to your posts speaking out against this happening with previous dem regimes.

nctransplant said:

Psychiatrist, philosopher, stealer of internet, and now, mind reader. You're a regular jack of all trades. And master of none. And you're damn right, fight fire with fire. The left has played dirty for years, so fvck'em.

Click to expand...

Forever 9 years old! Don't slag my reading comprehension when you're just pretending to have values.

gunslingerdick said:

I'm perfectly fine with it as long as my side gets away with it. No churchin' it up needed for me.

Click to expand...

That goose/gander bullshit is a cover.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

strummingram said:

My reading is just fine. You don't care for it? Bullshit. You're perfectly fine with it as long as your side gets away with it just like the other side gets away with it. Church-it-up to make the bitter pill taste better, if you want.

Click to expand...

Psychiatrist, philosopher, stealer of internet, and now, mind reader. You're a regular jack of all trades. And master of none. And you're damn right, fight fire with fire. The left has played dirty for years, so fvck'em.

strummingram said:

Teri Hatcher?

Click to expand...

Nice one. I'd definitely get whistled for a foul or two.

pooponduke said:

One more thing about this, the bigger question is why wouldn't Gaetz or any other appointment go through? To date, all I've seen is a bunch of claims and unnamed sources vs. any actual proof. As to the rest of the normal attacks, like he isn't qualified or something, I would just ask how is he any less qualified than Mayor Pete? What on earth did he know about our transportation system? He had one qualification that has nothing to do with anything other than checking a box. At least Gaetz is an attorney, served in Florida and knows DC having served 8 years. Of course, he pissed off the body politic by leading the ouster of McCarthy, but he has been loyal to Trump which not many of those types can claim and he has regularly tried to go after the DOJ and their antics.

He is likely a scumbag because most of them are. And, if the drug use and sex stuff is true, he should be toast. But, of course, I've said the same thing about Swallowswell and his association with SuckSuck or whatever her name was. And he's still there. I need more about Gaetz than just bald allegations.

Click to expand...

I think if there were any there,there, this dem DOJ would have certainly pursued charges.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

strummingram said:

My reading is just fine. You don't care for it? Bullshit. You're perfectly fine with it as long as your side gets away with it just like the other side gets away with it. Church-it-up to make the bitter pill taste better, if you want.

Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine with it as long as my side gets away with it. No churchin' it up needed for me.

tarheel0910 said:

And how exactly do you feel about recess appointments? Everyone should be against them, but somehow I'm guessing a certain group of people aren't.

Click to expand...

One more thing about this, the bigger question is why wouldn't Gaetz or any other appointment go through? To date, all I've seen is a bunch of claims and unnamed sources vs. any actual proof. As to the rest of the normal attacks, like he isn't qualified or something, I would just ask how is he any less qualified than Mayor Pete? What on earth did he know about our transportation system? He had one qualification that has nothing to do with anything other than checking a box. At least Gaetz is an attorney, served in Florida and knows DC having served 8 years. Of course, he pissed off the body politic by leading the ouster of McCarthy, but he has been loyal to Trump which not many of those types can claim and he has regularly tried to go after the DOJ and their antics.

He is likely a scumbag because most of them are. And, if the drug use and sex stuff is true, he should be toast. But, of course, I've said the same thing about Swallowswell and his association with SuckSuck or whatever her name was. And he's still there. I need more about Gaetz than just bald allegations.

strummingram said:

Teri Hatcher?

Click to expand...

beat me to it...

UNC '92 said:

Click to expand...

Massachusetts a solid Blue in every county.

tarheel0910 said:

And how exactly do you feel about recess appointments? Everyone should be against them, but somehow I'm guessing a certain group of people aren't.

Click to expand...

To be exact, I think they are bs and shouldn't be done. I guess there are some very limited circumstances where they have to be made, but it seems like they could change/craft the rules to address it just for those circumstances.

However, it's the existing system and it's just silly to say one side can take full advantage of it and the other shouldn't be allowed to do so due to some notion of moral high ground. It's the system. I'm all for consistency and if something is wrong or acceptable, that's a two-way street for everyone. It's a bit like prosecuting someone for having secret documents under the claim that they shouldn't and they just happen to be your worst political enemy and a nightmare for you. You know, the same exact thing you've been doing, but worse since you did it in political position(s) where you absolutely had no right to do any of it? Can you imagine if they went after every congress person, senator, cabinet member, staff member, military member, or vp who still had documents that they weren't authorized to have? They'd probably have to build an entirely new courthouse and jail for all the cases. It doesn't make it right or acceptable, but it is the way it is and the rules don't just apply to one side depending on who is temporarily in power.

blazers said:

Says the peon from the party of small gov.

Click to expand...

there's nothing wrong with being a peon, as long as you're also a winner. Some peons are losers. Know what I mean Vern?

I hope you don't mind that we're all laughing at you for suggesting that it should be possible to immediately whittle down the monster that you and your ilk created over years and years of trying to give everybody everything.

'But but but all the republican spending', you'll say. I say learn the proper role of government, if you're capable of doing so. Try to remember what happened when Clinton balanced the budget in part by cutting back on security and defense. Hint; 9/11 is what happened. Moral of the story...don't cut back on security and defense.

Teri Hatcher?