Jump to content
Robert says " The objective is to scare people into voting for a mentally impaired Con-Man who can't be trusted with the keys to the Nuclear Arsenal." And then Robert says "but only one will kill us all". Who is actually trying to scare whom? Hey Ryhs - I hope I got the the who and whom correct. Also, I hope you are out and about in that fine German piece of machinery enjoying these beautiful fall days.
In what universe does asking this "Dan S. So I don't want to be accused of taking your quote out of context. Are saying that all Trump supporters are bigots and racists? Also are you saying that only PhDs that espouse your ideology have merit." equal this "attempt to mislead and misrepresent my position". I asked for clarification and you were willing to clarify not withstanding your whining about being demeaned and insulted.
Here is a question. What is the possibility that having Amendment 69 on the ballot brings out a greater then expected non liberal progressive vote to make sure this doesn't get passed. What are the odds those folks vote for Trump. Wouldn't that fall under the law of unintended consequences if Colorado went for Trump.
Dan S. To quote a previous president "there you go again" with your typical petty little rant. Insulting and name calling any and all who dare disagree with your liberal progressive ideology.
Typically compromises can only be reached when there is give and take between both parties. That usually requires communication between all parties involved. Based on what I have read in this thread it appears one side had no interest in communication much less compromise.
Martha suggests a compromise. Erin, Nancy, Neil, Dan S. What say you. Is there any room for compromise. Or is this pipeline DOA like Keystone. My recollection, although fuzzy, was the environmentalists told Obama no compromise.
Dan S. So I don't want to be accused of taking your quote out of context. Are saying that all Trump supporters are bigots and racists? Also are you saying that only PhDs that espouse your ideology have merit. Is it possible that there are Trump supporters that are actually fine upstanding citizens that love their family, work hard, give to charities, volunteer. I do not think HRC is fit to be president but I have no need to insult those that choose to vote for her. And yes, your comment about going with the PhDs was a clear disparagement of any and all who dare disagree with you. It would have been ok to say you support amendment 69, but adding the PhDs was so juicy for you. No surprise as that's the way you roll. It's actually kind of sad.
"going with the phds". Good old liberal progressive code for - if you don't agree with us you are not very smart, or better yet you are a "deplorable". Scott is of course exactly right. There are quite intelligent folks, some may even have those phds, that are against this bill.
Is it possible that the cost savings are an unknown or hypothetical and the tax is known, a fact.
Remember how we were all going to save due to Obamacare. Once burned twice shy or fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I agree with Ken M. Let's vote and let the chips fall where they may.
True dat Rhys, true dat
Last login: Thursday, September 22, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |