What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Democrats move to eliminate the Electoral College (1 Viewer)

I didn't start the free transportation discussion..One of the other posters did and I replied to it and then you guys went and did what you all like to do..Lose your minds
The only person that seems to be losing their mind is you at the suggestion that we spend money on getting people out to vote, but I do stand corrected.  You didn't bring up transportation...you just lost your #### over the idea of it....apologies on that.  Can we get back to the hypocrisy of trillions of dollars of deficit spending being ok, but a few hundred million being the end of the world?  TIA.

 
The only person that seems to be losing their mind is you at the suggestion that we spend money on getting people out to vote, but I do stand corrected.  You didn't bring up transportation...you just lost your #### over the idea of it....apologies on that.  Can we get back to the hypocrisy of trillions of dollars of deficit spending being ok, but a few hundred million being the end of the world?  TIA.
Who said that?

 
Me neither.  We save a few buck, billionaires pay way less, and we still spend like drunken sailors.  Our kids and their kids are going to have to pay for all this ####.  
What our parents said..Didn't happen.

Our kids will do what we did.  Keep borrowing.  

 
Then what's your problem with spending on helping people vote?  Why are you concerned with "who's gonna pay for it"?
You're making no sense whatsoever.  Quit it.  

We borrow..it's what we do.  In no place did I say i want us to do that, nor did I say I like it, nor did I say I don't care about it.

I know you are trying REALLY hard to one up me and if I could pat you on the head and tell you did a really good job would it make you feel better?  

 
Then what's your problem with spending on helping people vote?  Why are you concerned with "who's gonna pay for it"?
You're making no sense whatsoever.  Quit it.  

We borrow..it's what we do.  In no place did I say i want us to do that, nor did I say I like it, nor did I say I don't care about it.

I know you are trying REALLY hard to one up me and if I could pat you on the head and tell you did a really good job would it make you feel better?  
He was pointing out a fundamental flaw in your argument. He was making quite a bit of sense.

Instead of attacking him, you should try to defend your position and explain why your positions are not contradictory.

 
[scooter] said:
He was pointing out a fundamental flaw in your argument. He was making quite a bit of sense.

Instead of attacking him, you should try to defend your position and explain why your positions are not contradictory.
I wonder sometimes if you guys are just dumb, or deliberately  arguing just to argue.

Let me explain it again...I pointed out that we borrow.  It's what we do. i DIDNT say I liked it.  So, therefore, stay with me here, I can say we borrow AND not want to spend money on free transportation to voting stations.

See how that works?   

You guys tire me out sometimes. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80 said:
You're making no sense whatsoever.  Quit it.  

We borrow..it's what we do.  In no place did I say i want us to do that, nor did I say I like it, nor did I say I don't care about it.

I know you are trying REALLY hard to one up me and if I could pat you on the head and tell you did a really good job would it make you feel better?  
If by "one up you" you mean trying to piece together all the inconsistencies in what seems to be every single post in this thread, sure....you got me.  It's rather obvious that you are dismissing certain types of spending by throwing your hands up in the air and saying "that's what we do" (which is a clear position of acceptance) for some things...the things you like.  Then you're attempting to climb up on some sort of spending soapbox for things you don't.  I WAS trying to understand the line you've drawn since you protested my initial assertion that it was :thumbup:  for things you like :thumbdown: for things you don't.....turns out that seems to be your approach exactly.  I think we're probably done here unless you want to claim some other rationale for the inconsistencies in your positions/comments.

ETA:  And you still haven't answered my simple question of why you are so concerned about who's going to pay for it which seems like it should be rather easy to explain, but....maybe not?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If by "one up you" you mean trying to piece together all the inconsistencies in what seems to be every single post in this thread, sure....you got me.  It's rather obvious that you are dismissing certain types of spending by throwing your hands up in the air and saying "that's what we do" (which is a clear position of acceptance) for some things...the things you like.  Then you're attempting to climb up on some sort of spending soapbox for things you don't.  I WAS trying to understand the line you've drawn since you protested my initial assertion that it was :thumbup:  for things you like :thumbdown: for things you don't.....turns out that seems to be your approach exactly.  I think we're probably done here unless you want to claim some other rationale for the inconsistencies in your positions/comments.

ETA:  And you still haven't answered my simple question of why you are so concerned about who's going to pay for it which seems like it should be rather easy to explain, but....maybe not?
For the trillionth time, you are making assumptions in my posts.   We spend WAY too much, our deficit spending is off the charts.  It isn't good. so I would like to NOT waste money by paying for people to get rides to vote, among other things I feel are wasteful.    

Is that better?

 
I am ok with fewer people voting.  What benefit is it to society by simply having more people vote?  

 
I am ok with fewer people voting.  What benefit is it to society by simply having more people vote?  
Having elected officials that reflect the wishes of the people they represent. 

I have no idea how to get there, but I think it would be more valuable to have more than two viable parties so that we don’t get stuck with the “X candidate sucked less than Y candidate”. 

 
Having elected officials that reflect the wishes of the people they represent. 

I have no idea how to get there, but I think it would be more valuable to have more than two viable parties so that we don’t get stuck with the “X candidate sucked less than Y candidate”. 
I am good with elected officials who do the right thing.    Not a big fan if majority rules especially if the majority does not respect the right of individuals.  

 
For the trillionth time, you are making assumptions in my posts.   We spend WAY too much, our deficit spending is off the charts.  It isn't good. so I would like to NOT waste money by paying for people to get rides to vote, among other things I feel are wasteful.    

Is that better?
You just keep saying the same things over and over.  Assumptions are all I have when there is no clarification.  For instance, I ASSUME here in this post you are completely proving my point/guess (made a half dozen times now) that hypocrisy is the source of the disconnect and that deficit spending is a concern only when it's on things you feel are wasteful.  As the other piece of evidence I offer up the fact you didn't label the tax cuts as wasteful spending, rather you enjoyed them.  That's all my point's ever been.  I am pretty confident you get that whether you will admit it here or not.  You aren't alone...many of us are hypocrites on topics.  What I find the most interesting is what you approve of vs what you think is a waste.

 
I am ok with fewer people voting.  What benefit is it to society by simply having more people vote?  
Unbridled individual liberty can only go so far in a functional society. It can't be all about you or me. It has to be about us.  And sometimes that means putting our own personal freedom on the backburner for a minute. It's called being a citizen.

 
Unbridled individual liberty can only go so far in a functional society. It can't be all about you or me. It has to be about us.  And sometimes that means putting our own personal freedom on the backburner for a minute. It's called being a citizen.
But what if the masses just vote to benefit themselves?  I have more trust in what freedom brings than what the will of the masses might dictate.  

 
Unbridled individual liberty can only go so far in a functional society. It can't be all about you or me. It has to be about us.  And sometimes that means putting our own personal freedom on the backburner for a minute. It's called being a citizen.
No. Nononono. Our personal freedom NEVER goes on the back burner. Now perhaps our own personal interests, such as paying higher taxes, or our personal convenience,  such as being forced to use less of a diminished resource. Making choices that are for the common good instead of just our own self interest.  But personal freedoms... Bridge too far.

And I realize that these ideals will be in opposition at times, I just wanted to pound home the point that giving up freedom should not be ok. Once you do, it likely never comes back.

 
But what if the masses just vote to benefit themselves?  I have more trust in what freedom brings than what the will of the masses might dictate.  
What am I missing here?  Isn’t this exactly what the masses should do?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously, it's only bad if the LIBERAL masses vote for things to benefit themselves.

But when CONSERVATIVE masses vote for things to benefit themselves, then it's A-O-K.

 
You just keep saying the same things over and over.  Assumptions are all I have when there is no clarification.  For instance, I ASSUME here in this post you are completely proving my point/guess (made a half dozen times now) that hypocrisy is the source of the disconnect and that deficit spending is a concern only when it's on things you feel are wasteful.  As the other piece of evidence I offer up the fact you didn't label the tax cuts as wasteful spending, rather you enjoyed them.  That's all my point's ever been.  I am pretty confident you get that whether you will admit it here or not.  You aren't alone...many of us are hypocrites on topics.  What I find the most interesting is what you approve of vs what you think is a waste.
Perhaps supermike is concerned that the poor people free transportation to polling stations would benefit would want different things than himself

 
Perhaps supermike is concerned that the poor people free transportation to polling stations would benefit would want different things than himself
Nope.  Incorrect.  I am very open to other peoples thinking and support freedom of opinion completely.  So no that;s an incorrect assumption.

 
Obviously, it's only bad if the LIBERAL masses vote for things to benefit themselves.

But when CONSERVATIVE masses vote for things to benefit themselves, then it's A-O-K.
YOU said that.  I did not.  Obviously you are free to make up whatever crap you wish.  

 
Nice name calling :thumbup:

I only asked you 4-5 times to clarify what you were saying and you refused.  All we have to go on are the words you type on the page.  That's not me telling you how you think.  It's the exact opposite :shrug:  
I clarified it so many times it got old.  You aren't reading. You are hovering over that send button....your anger causes you to miss things.  Calm down

 
I clarified it so many times it got old.  You aren't reading. You are hovering over that send button....your anger causes you to miss things.  Calm down
Sorry my google must be broken.  I kept getting the same thing back in reply each time.  I missed the clarification posts.  It should also be noted, that very few things anger me as most here will tell you...people ranting at me certainly isn't one of them.  I'm good....hope you can say the same :thumbup:  

 
Sorry my google must be broken.  I kept getting the same thing back in reply each time.  I missed the clarification posts.  It should also be noted, that very few things anger me as most here will tell you...people ranting at me certainly isn't one of them.  I'm good....hope you can say the same :thumbup:  
You're a very very angry person in my opinion.   If you're not that way great, but you have come off like that here over and over again.   I honestly don't get it.

Ok let's give it one more try. Please read my reply ok?

What would you like me to clarify for you?

 
Is there something specific outside of my trying to reconcile the inconsistencies?  Like name calling or screaming in all caps etc?
You are constantly arguing, not reading..you even admitted earlier you completely missed who started the free transportation discussion.   

We all know the quote about how nowadays people are more interested in responding rather than listening.

This sir is you

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top