Randall Flagg wrote:

mitchejw wrote:

We should kick all sick people who used insurance off it so buzz’s premiums can go down.

You go from a well argued response to this shit.  C'Mon Mitch.

It wasn't well argued at all, it was more Mitch ignoring what he doesn't want to acknowledge and cherry picking a couple things where he's not completely wrong.  It's like trying to discuss issues with a two year old...he only hears what he wants to here and ignores the rest.  Once he's backed into a corner, you're a racist.  Fuck him.

Flagg, what’s with the “ removing his fingerprint?” I had yet to hear that.

As a former journalist, of course i’m sad about this. I always had an exit plan in mind in case this happened in our newsroom.

Randall Flagg wrote:

mitchejw wrote:

SG originally used the term...it’s a term used by his most ardent supporter.

You need to smoke a J and go to an Asian masseuse.

I’m a naturally anxious person and weed makes me even more anxious.

Why does it have to be Asian?

Randall Flagg wrote:

mitchejw wrote:

That’s the problem...we don’t have a say in anything but trump still blames us for everything.

That's a fair point to an extent. Certainly with his claims Democrats forced his hand to separate children from their parents when caught illegally in the US.  But Democrats (like Republicans were under Obama) are united in opposition.  We know there are nut job republicans who are extreme just as we know there are/were nutjob democrats when they had the majority and voted against the ACA because it wasn't liberal enough.  For the millionth time, consistency.  If you were ok with calling Republicans obstructionist in 2010, you have to call Democrats that now.  If you were opposed to Republicans being united in opposition under Obama, you should be opposed to Democrats now.

GOP moderates can't find common ground with Dem moderates.  I know you're okay with this, you've made that clear repeatedly.  But some of us want a legislature that is able to find compromise and only resorts to filibustering in incredibly rare circumstances.  Hyper-partisanship is bad, regardless of who is in charge.

What about reap what you sow?

You damn well that as many as 3 justices could be replaced in the next 3 years. Will you still be harping about the court being too left leaning? The only left leaning judge left will be sotomeyer.

You want consistentency? Then why were you alright with you obstructing in 2010 but not now?