Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I agree with Joe and think redirecting money away from law enforcement to other public institutions could help, but also agree with the MAGA folk that fully defunding the police is the wrong way to go about it. (I think Joe agrees with that, too)

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

:lol: This is my favorite meltdown spiral ever. Not one trolls but two falling into the eddy of despair. 

 

The only thing that makes it better is the commentary from the wannabe mod who promised his sheep that he would ignore "the trolls".

Edited by wAcKy ZeBrA
Posted

“ And I would’ve got away with it too, if it wasn’t for you darn polls!!!!”

 

 

If Joe would have just come out with an honest intent on his running platform of, “I’m not sure what I’m for or against yet, until the polls tell me what to be for or against”, we could all have so much more harmony amongst us!

 

Boaters gonna boat, though!

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, dubs said:

What a stupid thread topic. Pure secondhand embarrassment for the OP. 

 

Even worse when you consider he made it just hours after declaring he was leaving the board :lol: The best part though was the feeding frenzy of the EXACT posters you'd expect that swarmed to this thread when it was pointed out. 

 

When your only allies are the bottom of the barrel trolls, there's a chance you're PPP'ing incorrectly. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

I agree with Joe and think redirecting money away from law enforcement to other public institutions could help, but also agree with the MAGA folk that fully defunding the police is the wrong way to go about it. (I think Joe agrees with that, too)

 

The only thing that makes it better is the commentary from the wannabe mod who promised his sheep that he would ignore "the trolls".

 

Same here.  What it means to “defund” is key.  Are we talking about diverting some monies now dedicated to policing costs to proactive, proven, community outreach measures?  If so, and if the extent of the diversion is reasonable, sign me up.  Makes perfect sense.  If we’re talking about stripping police of all funding and abolishing police forces, I’m out.  And I don’t know anyone who is “in” on the latter topic.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, DFT said:

“ And I would’ve got away with it too, if it wasn’t for you darn polls!!!!”

 

 

If Joe would have just come out with an honest intent on his running platform of, “I’m not sure what I’m for or against yet, until the polls tell me what to be for or against”, we could all have so much more harmony amongst us!

 

Boaters gonna boat, though!

 

Still waiting for your Rule #2 response, sir. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. 

Posted
Just now, dubs said:

What a stupid thread topic. Pure secondhand embarrassment for the OP. 

Hey!!!!  But the boaters distract from the voters!!!!    

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Same here.  What it means to “defund” is key.  Are we talking about diverting some monies now dedicated to policing costs to proactive, proven, community outreach measures?  If so, and if the extent of the diversion is reasonable, sign me up.  Makes perfect sense.  If we’re talking about stripping police of all funding and abolishing police forces, I’m out.  And I don’t know anyone who is “in” on the latter topic.  

 

There was a PPP topic on this same idea that came to diverting some monies as the consensus for what "defund the police" means, yet when "defund" is now mentioned, those same posters claim it means the entire police budget.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Even worse when you consider he made it just hours after declaring he was leaving the board :lol: The best part though was the feeding frenzy of the EXACT posters you'd expect that swarmed to this thread when it was pointed out. 

 

When your only allies are the bottom of the barrel trolls, there's a chance you're PPP'ing incorrectly. 


I've been extremely busy and been largely off the board for the last couple weeks and this was the first thread I saw when I came back. Just an all around embarrassment. 
 

it’s clear the intention is to clutter the board with nonsense to the point where it’s so frustrating people disengage on the board. 

Edited by dubs
  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
Just now, dubs said:


I've Extremely busy and been largely off the board for the last couple weeks and this was the first thread I saw when I came back. Just an all around embarrassment. 
 

it’s clear the intention is to clutter the board with nonsense to the point where it’s so frustrating people disengage on the board. 

 

Hoax.  Boat safety is important.  Particularly to Coast Guard and local water rescue teams.  I support this thread, and I see it as an important reminder not to have a parade of boats in crowded, choppy waters. 

Posted

I see this thread, and I see an opportunity.  Lake Travis is mostly ~60' deep.  I think you could raise that boat with two larger boats, winches, and a hired diver.  Would it be worth $4,000 it to save a $30,000 boat?  I think so.

Posted
1 minute ago, dubs said:


I've been extremely busy and been largely off the board for the last couple weeks and this was the first thread I saw when I came back. Just an all around embarrassment. 
 

it’s clear the intention is to clutter the board with nonsense to the point where it’s so frustrating people disengage on the board. 

 

The intention is to discuss Trump boat parades, specifically the Battle of Lake Travis. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

The intention is to discuss Trump boat parades, specifically the Battle of Lake Travis. 

 

And instead it turned into a thread showing your own dishonesty and inability to stay on the very topic you created. Funny how that worked out :lol: 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, BeerLeagueHockey said:

I see this thread, and I see an opportunity.  Lake Travis is mostly ~60' deep.  I think you could raise that boat with two larger boats, winches, and a hired diver.  Would it be worth $4,000 it to save a $30,000 boat?  I think so.

Probably depends on the insurance situation.  But on balance it’s probably a reasonable theory. 

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, BeerLeagueHockey said:

I see this thread, and I see an opportunity.  Lake Travis is mostly ~60' deep.  I think you could raise that boat with two larger boats, winches, and a hired diver.  Would it be worth $4,000 it to save a $30,000 boat?  I think so.

 

How much is that $30K boat worth, though, after being underwater for a couple weeks? Maybe $10-15K after spending hours of labor to repair. 

 

Also, if someone else's boat sinks, it doesn't automatically become the property of whoever raises it. There would have to be a barter to begin with to exchange the title. 

Edited by wAcKy ZeBrA
Posted
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And instead it turned into a thread showing your own dishonesty and inability to stay on the very topic you created. Funny how that worked out :lol: 

 

So let’s get things flowing in the right direction again.  Bottom line here is that previously calm waters rose up and defeated Trumpers.  How do we prevent this from happening in the future?  And how do we thank the first responders who were needlessly imperiled by this stupidity? 

×
×
  • Create New...