Jump to content

Oh Yeah -- I'd Own The Galveston Bank Of America!!


Reagan

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Reagan said:

Who?  Anyway, you make a statement that you can't explain?  Very interesting!!

I can definitely explain it.  but it's already been explained to you a half dozen times over the course of this thread.  I doubt your comprehension has gotten any better, smitty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Realville said:

Why wasn’t I asked to put on a mask? There were signs posted ? 😂😂 Uh.....

A different bank at a different location. Why do some restaurants have a dress code and others do not?

Surely this concept is not that hard to understand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

A different bank at a different location. Why do some restaurants have a dress code and others do not?

Surely this concept is not that hard to understand. 

Keep on trying to apply logic to the clown rules , it’s actually pretty comical. The virus is either dangerous or it’s not, why is that concept hard to understand? Signs were posted for mask wearing. Why wasn’t I asked to put one on? Because everyone at the bank except you knows it’s all BS that’s why I wasn’t asked to wear a mask. Even some of the employees would wonder around the bank not wearing mask periodically. Maybe one day you’ll figure it out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Realville said:

Keep on trying to apply logic to the clown rules , it’s actually pretty comical. The virus is either dangerous or it’s not, why is that concept hard to understand? Signs were posted for mask wearing. Why wasn’t I asked to put one on? Because everyone at the bank except you knows it’s all BS that’s why I wasn’t asked to wear a mask. Even some of the employees would wonder around the bank not wearing mask periodically. Maybe one day you’ll figure it out. 

 

It’s no different than asking drivers to wear a seat belt. We know it saves lives but you still have those who refuse to obey these clown rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easiest solution is not do business with those places.  Money talks.  The problem is that we ve become a nation of sheep. We give in because we are used to our conveniences.....weak minded, undisciplined, spoiled individuals. 
people don’t want to go without so eventually they cave.

hunt, grow a garden, process your own food. Dont use anything excessively. Stop buying useless crap to feed your emotions. 

people have allowed things to make them feel happy.  Sad state of affairs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Law Man said:

It’s no different than asking drivers to wear a seat belt. We know it saves lives but you still have those who refuse to obey these clown rules. 

And yet you can ride a motorcycle with no helmet, wouldn’t a helmet save lives? Inconsistent, dumb rules.

But folks get ridiculed when they dare question them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Realville said:

Keep on trying to apply logic to the clown rules , it’s actually pretty comical. The virus is either dangerous or it’s not, why is that concept hard to understand? Signs were posted for mask wearing. Why wasn’t I asked to put one on? Because everyone at the bank except you knows it’s all BS that’s why I wasn’t asked to wear a mask. Even some of the employees would wonder around the bank not wearing mask periodically. Maybe one day you’ll figure it out. 

 

 "the virus must not be dangerous because the bank I did a job in didn't make me wear a mask".  Guess it's settled, then.  The virus is not dangerous.  Also, the bank who didn't allow the woman stay who refused to wear a mask is in the wrong.  The bank Realville did a job at has spoken on the matter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Reagan said:

So, Realville, let me understand this again:  This woman was "violently" arrested for not wearing a mask?!  I see! So, hence the title of this!  

I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to convey, but I’ll make a side bet. IF this chick tries to sue the bank for a “violent arrest” (please...she’s never seen real violence if that’s her standard), she won’t get enough to buy a new mask. Lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

 "the virus must not be dangerous because the bank I did a job in didn't make me wear a mask".  Guess it's settled, then.  The virus is not dangerous.  Also, the bank who didn't allow the woman stay who refused to wear a mask is in the wrong.  The bank Realville did a job at has spoken on the matter.  

It’s not and never has been as dangerous as they make it out to be. Nice job of twisting my words baby bullet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, A BUC 77 said:

It's not dangerous, only 2.7 million cases and 48,000 deaths in Texas.

I said it’s not as dangerous as they make it out to be. I never said it wasn’t dangerous. If you’re elderly, unhealthy or obese, then take cover. Otherwise it’s relatively navigable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

And yet you can ride a motorcycle with no helmet, wouldn’t a helmet save lives? Inconsistent, dumb rules.

But folks get ridiculed when they dare question them.

Also, seats belts should not be law.  This should be an individual option of freedom if a person wants to wear one.  As it is now, if you don't you are a criminal.  I'm not one to want more laws to "save me from myself!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...