Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Wow...if true...YIKES!!  He has shown over and over that he is a terrible governor and would have been an even worse VP.

Curious, does anyone on here actually like Walz and think he is doing a good job??

Posted

He pushed a fuel mandate on Minnesota that would make Minnesota have a fuel standard unique to Minnesota and would require refineries to produce a Minnesota only fuel and make it more expensive. He then gave an exemption to allow for gas suppliers to not have to meet the standard. Then after Trump took office he repealed the exemption thus raising Minnesota fuel costs. He did this to make it look like Trump was raising prices. Totally preplanned. Punish your state to make it look like it's the other guy. Of course the Minnesota media gave him a pass.

Posted
1 hour ago, headshuck said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where is the call for violence? All he does is acknowledge the rumor of bad health, acknowledge he would be happy if Trump died, and then acknowledged that one day, Trump will die.

Tasteless? Sure! Not how I would like a legislator to act (though Trump is the last one who gets to complain about decorum). But he doesn't call for anybody to harm the President.

I think we could all benefit from being a little less sensitive and reactionary. This is exactly the kind of hysteria that conservative rightfully criticize from liberals. You might call it WDS.

  • Clown 1
Posted

And then there’s bashing the Tesla stock, excited that the stock price was dropping. Meanwhile, the state pension fund includes Tesla stock. And then soon after one of his own employees is arrested for vandalizing Teslas..

Posted
1 minute ago, headshuck said:

And on a podcast earlier this year, he was recorded saying he could probably beat up any of the Trump supporters.

I'm not even a "trump supporter", and I feel fighting, especially at my age, to be extremely stupid, but I'd take that action from Walz any time any day.

  • Bob 1
  • Fire 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Where is the call for violence? All he does is acknowledge the rumor of bad health, acknowledge he would be happy if Trump died, and then acknowledged that one day, Trump will die.

Tasteless? Sure! Not how I would like a legislator to act (though Trump is the last one who gets to complain about decorum). But he doesn't call for anybody to harm the President.

I think we could all benefit from being a little less sensitive and reactionary. This is exactly the kind of hysteria that conservative rightfully criticize from liberals. You might call it WDS.

Saying a homeless drug addict is a bane to our society has been considered violent speech by the loony lefties.  Saying a woman is not a man and a man is  not a woman has been characterized as violent speech by the loony lefties.   Saying that you want someone dead and/or are wishing for that is considered as violent speech by the loony lefties if it was applied to Kamala or Biden or Newsome, or Pritzker or Walz (you can keep naming names).   But when applied to Trump, it is not violent speech.   The rules are the rules and they must apply all the time.  One cannot just say this was not violent when one calls all other speech violent when aimed their way.  

I agree it was in bad taste and not the way we want our leaders to speak.   But we have had to live by the loony left rules and that it was violence against the president.   As we have heard many times, their violent speech demands a physically violent reaction.   That is how the colleges play it, that is how the left plays it and it is eggregious behavior to try to change the rules in the middle of the game because it is aimed at someone you hate.   Situational rules are stupid and idiotic.   Imagine any other thing in society with situational rules.   We can see the results in big city real violence and quote "crime reduction efforts."   Situational rules are not rules.   They allow one group to do what another group cannot.  

mspart

 

  • Bob 1
  • Brain 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I'm not even a "trump supporter", and I feel fighting, especially at my age, to be extremely stupid, but I'd take that action from Walz any time any day.

Oh he'll cheat.   No weapons means he gets weapons.   Hand fighting means he gets brass knuckles and a baseball bat.   But if on equal terms, most people could take him.   

mspart

  • Bob 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, mspart said:

Saying a homeless drug addict is a bane to our society has been considered violent speech by the loony lefties.  Saying a woman is not a man and a man is  not a woman has been characterized as violent speech by the loony lefties.   Saying that you want someone dead and/or are wishing for that is considered as violent speech by the loony lefties if it was applied to Kamala or Biden or Newsome, or Pritzker or Walz (you can keep naming names).   But when applied to Trump, it is not violent speech.   The rules are the rules and they must apply all the time.  One cannot just say this was not violent when one calls all other speech violent when aimed their way.  

I agree it was in bad taste and not the way we want our leaders to speak.   But we have had to live by the loony left rules and that it was violence against the president.   As we have heard many times, their violent speech demands a physically violent reaction.   That is how the colleges play it, that is how the left plays it and it is eggregious behavior to try to change the rules in the middle of the game because it is aimed at someone you hate.   Situational rules are stupid and idiotic.   Imagine any other thing in society with situational rules.   We can see the results in big city real violence and quote "crime reduction efforts."   Situational rules are not rules.   They allow one group to do what another group cannot.  

mspart

 

But you're not being consistent, by your own admission. If you don't think those Trump statements are inciting violence, then you shouldn't believe this is either.

Posted

I don't believe speech is violence so I am consistent.   That is the lefts calculus on the matter.   If speech incites violence, then we have an action to prosecute.   The difference is we have freedom of speech but not freedom of action.   The left essentially is saying these days that we should not have freedom of speech but freedom of action.   How do I know?  Because they hide their head in the sand with regards to crime in their cities and do not want assistance when the crime is high.   DC is a good example.   They did not want help.   Now they are grateful for the help.   They see the difference and see that there is another approach that will resolve the issue that involves doing more than nothing.   

mspart

  • Bob 1
Posted
2 hours ago, mspart said:

Oh he'll cheat.   No weapons means he gets weapons.   Hand fighting means he gets brass knuckles and a baseball bat.   But if on equal terms, most people could take him.   

mspart

I bet you are right.  But heck, give him a bat and/or brass knuckles and I'd still take that action.  Even with those things you still have to be able to throw a punch or swing a bat and I'm confident that looney jazz hand "guy" can't do either.  LOL

  • Fire 1
Posted

Watching that video of her, she does look crazed in the eyes.   Yikes!   It makes sense now that she loves the smell of burning tires.   

mspart

  • Bob 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...