Roger Stone is an Asswipe

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

abrams aint nothing but a loser smudge!

We'll win both seats! No matter what kinda shit the dims will predictably try and throw!

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Why do you add a "B" to my name? HUH? Answer that lil shooter.
Every post you make is derogatory and hate filled. Along with baseless accusations and scatologies!

Why did you call Stacy Abrams a “smudge?”

Answer that question, WDBully!

You still have time to change your post again!

HAHAHAHSHSHSHSHAAHAHSHAHAHAH!

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Why did you call Stacy Abrams a “smudge?”

Answer that question, WDBully!

You still have time to change your post again!

HAHAHAHSHSHSHSHAAHAHSHAHAHAH!

Ohh snow flake. Your imagination is scary and diluted!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Why do you add a "B" to my name? HUH? Answer that lil shooter.
Every post you make is derogatory and hate filled. Along with baseless accusations and scatologies!

he's calling you a douche bag. WDB "winn douche bag"

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

You're scaring me. Both of your points make a lot of sense. I bet there will be Democratic attack ads based on that, probably just selectively picking trades the candidates made money on and ignoring the losers.

And in the past Republicans were more likely to show up for runoffs. That may not be the case this year, because of Abrams and her team.

It's a dilemma for some people I guess. My preferred candidate who mostly believes what I believe and will work to achieve those goals, benefited from selling stock before that stock took a tumble. Did they have inside information that only a handful of people had and traded on that information illegally or were they ( their financial advisers ) just on the top of their game and saw a new health threat on the other side of the world and guessed that it might be a problem for stocks related to such a matter and took advantage of paying attention and guessing right.



https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/se...wzdel4lkCUdAO/


Loeffler was investigated by both the Senate Ethics Committee and DOJ and both dropped the investigations. Now I guess a really cynical person could conclude they are all crooks so why should I believe them or take them at their word that nothing illegal happened though it has the "appearance" of impropriety.


An intelligent, perhaps not so cynical but practical person might weigh this "appearance of impropriety" against what her opponent stands for. Is what she is alleged to have done and was cleared, so bad that you would stand by and watch her opponent win a Senate seat and literally vote for everything you would never support? Perhaps to the detriment of your business, your family, your future?



Really? That's something that requires even a second of thought? I think they call that "cutting off your nose to spite your face".


Do not act against your own self interest unless you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person and policies you support were proven to have acted on inappropriately.


I find this notion that "they made money while others went hungry" to be preposterous. That attitude would prevent you from ever doing business with Amazon, ever again because nobody has made more money from this pandemic than Jeff Bezos. He could have said that he would donate his increased wealth acquired after the pandemic started so as not to benefit from the pandemic but he didn't. Nor, I assume did anybody else whose wealth has increased not decreased since the pandemic.


So the answer is simple and shouldn't be given a moment of thought. Is Loeffler's opponent, someone you want voting in the Senate against everything you hold to be true and right and weigh that against what Loeffler may have done but not proven even with two investigative bodies looking at the charges.


Don't make things more complicated than they need be.


The difference between the two candidates is so stark, perhaps as stark ( or more ) than any two candidates in the history of politics, should make the decision that much easier if you just don't over think it.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

i've no idea whats wrong with those people. don't know what they are thinking. they should be supporting in the best way possible. this ain't it... I think trump told them they need to pick their battles carefully... guess they didn't listen.

oh also, they really should be telling republicans and independents that they should go out and vote inspite of the charges.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

he's calling you a douche bag. WDB "winn douche bag"

You said that, I didn’t, BP.

Paranoid losers just lose.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAUAUus!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

abrams aint nothing but a loser smudge!

We'll win both seats! No matter what kinda shit the dims will predictably try and throw!

How can you win those seats if the Democrats can find as many votes as they need? Or do they only cheat when they win?

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by WTF

How can you win those seats if the Democrats can find as many votes as they need? Or do they only cheat when they win?

The security on this election will be a lot tighter and closely watched!
You do not get a participation trophy however!

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You said that, I didn’t, BP.

Paranoid losers just lose.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAUAUus!

Scared? Dont hide behind letters! Post what you mean like a Man! chicken little/rtm pigeon

[Yssup Rider]

Rage whining, WDBugger

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Rage whining, WDBugger

Juvenile

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

It's a dilemma for some people I guess. My preferred candidate who mostly believes what I believe and will work to achieve those goals, benefited from selling stock before that stock took a tumble. Did they have inside information that only a handful of people had and traded on that information illegally or were they ( their financial advisers ) just on the top of their game and saw a new health threat on the other side of the world and guessed that it might be a problem for stocks related to such a matter and took advantage of paying attention and guessing right.



https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/se...wzdel4lkCUdAO/


Loeffler was investigated by both the Senate Ethics Committee and DOJ and both dropped the investigations. Now I guess a really cynical person could conclude they are all crooks so why should I believe them or take them at their word that nothing illegal happened though it has the "appearance" of impropriety.


An intelligent, perhaps not so cynical but practical person might weigh this "appearance of impropriety" against what her opponent stands for. Is what she is alleged to have done and was cleared, so bad that you would stand by and watch her opponent win a Senate seat and literally vote for everything you would never support? Perhaps to the detriment of your business, your family, your future?



Really? That's something that requires even a second of thought? I think they call that "cutting off your nose to spite your face".


Do not act against your own self interest unless you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person and policies you support were proven to have acted on inappropriately.


I find this notion that "they made money while others went hungry" to be preposterous. That attitude would prevent you from ever doing business with Amazon, ever again because nobody has made more money from this pandemic than Jeff Bezos. He could have said that he would donate his increased wealth acquired after the pandemic started so as not to benefit from the pandemic but he didn't. Nor, I assume did anybody else whose wealth has increased not decreased since the pandemic.


So the answer is simple and shouldn't be given a moment of thought. Is Loeffler's opponent, someone you want voting in the Senate against everything you hold to be true and right and weigh that against what Loeffler may have done but not proven even with two investigative bodies looking at the charges.


Don't make things more complicated than they need be.


The difference between the two candidates is so stark, perhaps as stark ( or more ) than any two candidates in the history of politics, should make the decision that much easier if you just don't over think it.

I agree with you. The problem is that there is some portion of the population that gets pissed off when they see other people doing well. Psychologists say given a choice between (a) being better off but your neighbors are doing even better, or (b) being worse off but your neighbors are in even poorer shape, a lot of people prefer "b".

Obama expressed this in an interview with Charles Gibson. Gibson threw out a hypothetical, would you raise capital gains tax rates, even if it meant that tax revenues would go down. This could happen for example, if people just decided not to sell anything because the tax is too high. Obama's reply was let's go for it, it would make the system fairer. Well, it also makes everyone worse off. The "wealthy" paying the capital gains tax don't do as well because they hang onto assets they should sell. And everyone else is marginally worse off because the government isn't raising as much tax revenue.

And Yssup is right, a political campaign based on this principal could be very effective. Tie in a hint of not playing fair and living high on the hog while others are unemployed and you've got a winner.

[dilbert firestorm]

Tiny, you're giving BP points to YR?

[Tiny]

BP Points?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Tiny

BP Points?

ask YR, he knows what that is. lol.