I certainly remember the 100s of news articles stating that Trump was in violation, etc... etc...
It would be nice if all the media outlets were honest enough to provide an "update" to let us all know that in fact, he was in compliance from the very beginning and everything is fine. Only reason I found this is because I'm addicted to "The Real Deal." Side note: this website is awesome. I read every single damned article... it's one of the best real-estate specific websites I've ever seen, and it deals specifically with the South Florida real-estate scene.
You know, for those who are interested in that stuff. After I'm done saving the world, I hope to become a land / real-estate baron, hahaha...
Need more? It is very concerning to say the least, when an official whom serves at your behest, claims you're not in violation of the rules.
Three of your links have nothing to do with what I'm talking about (they're all old, and 100% accusatory), and of the two that do have anything to do with it, only one is matter-of-fact that he's A-OK (the Bloomberg report). All the others are basically hiding the fact that it checks out OK with 3/4ths of the article talking about accusations and scandal.
I get it, Trump has a lot of money, and Democrats are mad that they lost and hate him because he's going to try to undo everything they've tried to do over the past 8 years. I get this, just be honest about it in the reporting rather than make up fake scandals.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Three of your links have nothing to do with what I'm talking about (they're all old, and 100% accusatory), and of the two that do have anything to do with it, only one is matter-of-fact that he's A-OK (the Bloomberg report). All the others are basically hiding the fact that it checks out OK with 3/4ths of the article talking about accusations and scandal.
I get it, Trump has a lot of money, and Democrats are mad that they lost and hate him because he's going to try to undo everything they've tried to do over the past 8 years. I get this, just be honest about it in the reporting rather than make up fake scandals.
The reporting is honest. That you read it with your Trumper bias doesn't change that. There is a real concern about corruption here. I get it, you think he can't possibly be corrupt, or just don't care if he is, because he's your guy, and you hate Obama. It's very clear.
The reporting is honest. That you read it with your Trumper bias doesn't change that. There is a real concern about corruption here. I get it, you think he can't possibly be corrupt, or just don't care if he is, because he's your guy, and you hate Obama. It's very clear.
Dobey, the FACTS are that the GSA says he is in full compliance, and there are no issues.
It doesn't matter that you think he's corrupt, or how mad Democrats are. I don't see how, why, or what that has to do with anything.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Dobey, the FACTS are that the GSA says he is in full compliance, and there are no issues.
It doesn't matter that you think he's corrupt, or how mad Democrats are. I don't see how, why, or what that has to do with anything.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Why do you have to be so condescending? You stated your OPINION, and I am stating MINE. Guess what? They don't agree.
Nobody is saying the GSA didn't say that. You're just whining about the media reporting on the FACTS, ant not doing in a way that presents a bias in agreement with your own.
The FACT is that The Trump Organization is an LLC, and there has been no evidence given to show that Donald Trump has actually divested from the business. He seems to still be listed as the Chariman and President of the company.
This suggests he has in fact not divested, and as in violation of the lease agreement, despite the statement from GSA. Trump said he would place his assets in blind trust, and seemingly has failed to do so. It's hardly a blind trust if you're getting updated on the business from the trust.
Roger, why do you have to be so condescending? I'm very delicate and this hurts me.
You're not acknowledging my feelings.
I understand, and see, that the GSA said it's over. But I'm unhappy with this decision and feel like your facts go against my opinions, and that makes me very upset.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Roger, why do you have to be so condescending? I'm very delicate and this hurts me.
You're not acknowledging my feelings.
I understand, and see, that the GSA said it's over. But I'm unhappy with this decision and feel like your facts go against my opinions, and that makes me very upset.
That about sums it up. I wonder if he feels compelled to post something, ANYTHING, just to try and cloud every issue, no matter how small. Just an overwhelming desire to crap on anything that does not agree with his opinion. It does sound like the Dems playbook for all-things-Trump.
That about sums it up. I wonder if he feels compelled to post something, ANYTHING, just to try and cloud every issue, no matter how small. Just an overwhelming desire to crap on anything that does not agree with his opinion. It does sound like the Dems playbook for all-things-Trump.
Hahah, well... consider the fact that it can take years and years to make a progressive policy successful. Obamacare really needed another Democrat president to bring it to conclusion. This didn't happen, and within the span of two months, more than half of the Democrats progress has been wiped away / erased. This is *devastating* to people who believe that things were finally going in their favor (regardless if they knew what that meant or not).
The media, who wants a more globalist utopia-type agenda, is in total disbelief / panic mode... and they will do anything they can to get them worked up. Even the establishment Republicans who thought they could coast along are upset.
That about sums it up. I wonder if he feels compelled to post something, ANYTHING, just to try and cloud every issue, no matter how small. Just an overwhelming desire to crap on anything that does not agree with his opinion. It does sound like the Dems playbook for all-things-Trump.
If you meant that for me, you must have misunderstood. I was agreeing completely with 82-T/As post. You all know im all for Trump.
Im waiting to see what all the Fanaticrats have to say or do when Obamacare soon comes crashing down. There wont be ANY healthcare that you dont have to pay for out of your pocket. You watch, they will still be bit---ing that Trump didnt do anything. Ill suggest now that they send all their doctor bills on to their democrat congressmen to pay for them...like Pelosi.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 03-30-2017).]
Im waiting to see what all the Fanaticrats have to say or do when Obamacare soon comes crashing down. There wont be ANY healthcare that you dont have to pay for out of your pocket. You watch, they will still be bit---ing that Trump didnt do anything. Ill suggest now that they send all their doctor bills on to their democrat congressmen to pay for them...like Pelosi.
Oh it will be fun when Obama care goes completely bankrupt and the liberal lemmies fighting over what other gimmie that should loose funding to keep the aca up and running.. Problem is many in this country live off credit.. i.e. the bank account in the red. so they don't understand why you can't run things like the aca in the red and it keep going.. I'd love to see this money tree they think is in full blume
Hey, I know, let's go turn every thread into a thread about healthcare, because that's all you regressives seem to want to whine about.
Save those tears to flavor your coffee with, kiddos.
The thing I've learned about Democrats is that... when a term loses it's sparkle and starts getting used in a negative connotation, they'll either create a new term or come out with a completely outlandish term that appears less offensive.
Like... "Pro Choice" rather than "Pro Abortion," or... "Progressive" rather than "Liberal."
There's nothing progressive about destroying the economic engine that brought this country to greatness in the first place.
You see, when you call yourself a progressive, what you're really saying is that you're regressive... but in a less offensive way.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The thing I've learned about Democrats is that... when a term loses it's sparkle and starts getting used in a negative connotation, they'll either create a new term or come out with a completely outlandish term that appears less offensive.
Like... "Pro Choice" rather than "Pro Abortion," or... "Progressive" rather than "Liberal."
There's nothing progressive about destroying the economic engine that brought this country to greatness in the first place.
You see, when you call yourself a progressive, what you're really saying is that you're regressive... but in a less offensive way.
You are not very clever with words are you?
Also, nobody is "pro abortion." That doesn't make a damned bit of sense.
You see, when you say you are "Pro Life" and "against socialized healthcare, education, housing, and all the basic requirements of survival in the modern world" what you're really saying is that you don't give a damn about life, you just want to force women to have babies, because that's all you think they are good for. You don't think women should have any control over their own bodies, and you want to force them to have babies and then you refuse to provide the care that is required to keep anyone alive. You're saying you are against women's rights to freedom and equality. You're saying abortion is too nice a way to prevent unwanted children from having to live in this world, and we should wait until their born, so you can make them suffer and then die from the ills you wish to force upon them by not providing any of the necessary support they need to survive. You want to destroy the economy by making the rich richer, and the poor poorer.
Please, tell us all again how giving tax cuts to billionaires, and massive increases to health care costs for the poor, is going to save the precious economy.
Praise be unto capitalism, hallowed be thy dollar.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The thing I've learned about Democrats is that... when a term loses it's sparkle and starts getting used in a negative connotation, they'll either create a new term or come out with a completely outlandish term that appears less offensive.
Like... "Pro Choice" rather than "Pro Abortion," or... "Progressive" rather than "Liberal."
There's nothing progressive about destroying the economic engine that brought this country to greatness in the first place.
You see, when you call yourself a progressive, what you're really saying is that you're regressive... but in a less offensive way.
Yep.
They also like to accuse the other side of the things they are doing.
That's just it, I'm not trying to be clever at all. I am actually stating what I've perceived over time with Democrats and the Democrat party. Why do you think they call themselves "Progressive?" Has that ever occurred to you? It's because it was well known by many that they were NOT, so they created the term in an effort to change opinion and shed a more positive light on the party.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The rest of what you wrote is basically nonsense.
Everything you've written is indeed nonsense. You are just pulling the "nyah nyah my dad can beat up your dad" argument of a mindless child.
You don't care to discuss anything. You simply want people to agree with you. And when they don't, you have to make such nonsensical posts about what you think about "liberals" and try to proclaim yourself to be morally superior, without any actual knowledge of anything.
Come back when you can have an actual discussion, instead of just proclaiming yourself morally superior with ad hominem attacks to the opposition, which you so clearly detest. Your hatred is putrid. I can smell it from here.
Everything you've written is indeed nonsense. You are just pulling the "nyah nyah my dad can beat up your dad" argument of a mindless child.
You don't care to discuss anything. You simply want people to agree with you. And when they don't, you have to make such nonsensical posts about what you think about "liberals" and try to proclaim yourself to be morally superior, without any actual knowledge of anything.
Come back when you can have an actual discussion, instead of just proclaiming yourself morally superior with ad hominem attacks to the opposition, which you so clearly detest. Your hatred is putrid. I can smell it from here.
R u projecting your self in this post.. and just don't know it.. maybe you are hugely bipolar
R u projecting your self in this post.. and just don't know it.. maybe you are hugely bipolar
I hate to be a jerk about it, but I feel sorry for the guy. I don't know if he needs or wants anyone to care... but I'm not really sure I understand where he's coming from, where he is in his life, or why he feels the way he does.
Since dobey brought up the abortion thing in his rant......
IMHO....
A woman is free to do as she chooses with her body, until she becomes pregnant. Her body is no longer hers to do with as she wants at that point. It is the vessel of a new life, and it is her responsibility to nurture that life. Parallel to that, when a man becomes the other half of that new life, carried by the woman, he has the responsibility to provide nurture and protection to the woman and the new life she carries.
Old school, I know. It's worked well for centuries, it's only recently that it's gotten fubared up.
preg·nant ˈpreɡnənt/ adjective 1. (of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus. "a pregnant woman" synonyms: expecting a baby, expectant, carrying a child
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 03-30-2017).]
You see, when you say you are "Pro Life" and "against socialized healthcare, education, housing, and all the basic requirements of survival in the modern world" what you're really saying is that you don't give a damn about life,
No discussion that is so large or so difficult that it cannot be instantly "won" with one or more of that endless supply of Karl Marx or He's a Commie stickers.
That paragraph (from dobey) started with:
quote
[When] you say you are "Pro Life" and "against socialized healthcare, education, housing, and all the basic requirements of survival in the modern world" what you're really saying is that you don't give a damn about life . . .
OK. That has to register as "overboard" to most of the Pennock's clientele.
But Trump himself has said things like "I have a big heart". "I am not going to let people starve, or die prematurely because they can't get healthcare." Those are not verbatim quotations, but my recollection is that he has said things along those lines. He has said things that I interpret as veiled references to some level of the already familiar social safety nets like Social Security, welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing and the not yet emergent "Trump Care" that is on the back burner as the replacement for Obama Care.
There is a big difference between where President Trump is--at least in terms of the sentiments that he has sometimes expressed--and where "dobey" is, but it's not a perfect dichotomy of All Encompassing Free Market Green vs All Out Communist Red.
I think that almost everyone in this country has at least a "small side" of Welfare State in their expectations. Many think about it in terms of what they consider as the less advantaged people in society, more than expecting to need some social safety net directly for themselves. Expectations have changed since the Presidencies of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.
Karl Marx indeed.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-31-2017).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: A woman is free to do as she chooses with her body, until she becomes pregnant. Her body is no longer hers to do with as she wants at that point. It is the vessel of a new life, and it is her responsibility to nurture that life. Parallel to that, when a man becomes the other half of that new life, carried by the woman, he has the responsibility to provide nurture and protection to the woman and the new life she carries.
Old school, I know. It's worked well for centuries, it's only recently that it's gotten fubared up.
I'm sorry, but no. This is not "old school." This is actually fairly recent ideology, and the extreme view of "religious" men, wishing to force their beliefs on others, as a means of self-empowerment.
The only thing modern about abortion is that now we have medically safe procedures for it. There's also a reason for term limits on when an abortion can be legally done. The old school way of getting rid of babies that were unwanted, was to just dump them in the ditch behind the brothel, after they were born. Granted, because of the insane standpoint which many take, and which you have expressed here, we still have this behavior today, and abandon unwanted children. If there were safe ways to abort babies 2000 years ago, it would have been widely accepted and used.
But then again, most practitioners of Christianity/Judaism are also totally fine with genital mutilation.
Nor was I ranting. I was making a point, which none of the so-called "conservatives" on here seem to have the gumption to even understand the irony of their continued hatred of the left as they try to project their own horrible actions onto others.
That paragraph (from dobey) <snip> OK. That has to register as "overboard" to most of the Pennock's clientele.
But Trump himself has said things like "I have a big heart". "I am not going to let people starve, or die prematurely because they can't get healthcare." Those are not verbatim quotations, but my recollection is that he has said things along those lines. He has said things that I interpret as veiled references to some level of the already familiar social safety nets like Social Security, welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing and the not yet emergent "Trump Care" that is on the back burner as the replacement for Obama Care.
There is a big difference between where President Trump is--at least in terms of the sentiments that he has sometimes expressed--and where "dobey" is, but it's not a perfect dichotomy of All Encompassing Free Market Green vs All Out Communist Red.
Again, I have no idea where dobey is coming from... I really haven't the slightest clue. There's all kinds of assumptions I can and would make based on his comments, but honestly... he's not rational... at least he hasn't been for a couple of months, so there's no point.
I would be surprised if there's anyone on here that actually wants people to die of hunger / lack of medical care, etc. The fundamental concept... I'm actually going to put this on it's own line so it stands out...
The FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT that we as conservatives believe in, is self-reliance. That does NOT mean we don't want to help people. I don't mind saying it, the overwhelming majority of private charity to the poor, hungry, and for medical care... almost exclusively comes from Conservatives when you take out the top 2 billionaires. So the idea that we all hate people is propaganda... nothing more, nothing less. What we TRULY believe is that the MORE you take away a person's self-responsibility, the less responsible the populace becomes... and therefore the more susceptible to political sway and compromise they become. Essentially... we as Conservatives believe that the Democrat party is purposely trying to build a "dependent" class so that the few elite can finally once and for all, wrest control from one of the most powerful nations in the world.
I would bet a paycheck that almost every self-labelled "conservative" on here would agree with that paragraph above.
With that however, I am in agreement to some things which I KNOW cannot be helped through self-determination... and that's with children. So... that includes food for poor kids at school, that includes free education through grade 12 (IE: when you become an adult at 18), healthcare for children, and that includes basic shelter for kids... IE: foster care, or if absolutely need be... money given to the parents to take care of the children.
No one has a RIGHT, as an adult, to "FREE" services... especially those that are paid for by others. We, as a compassionate society agree that those who are INCAPABLE of taking care of themselves, deserve to be taken care of. That includes people who are mentally incapacitated or significantly challenged, or those who suffer from serious physical disabilities that they are totally unable to get a job in today's society.
There is NO EXCUSE, in my mind... that a healthy adult... either male or female, between the ages of 18 to 60 should be given a free-ride with welfare... at any point in time, aside from the most basic safety nets, food banks, free clinics, and homeless shelters.
I stand by this comment... the Democrat party succeeds when people believe they are victims, therefore it is against their best interests as party-leaders to actually solve real problems, rather than create more dependency. And I think there are many people who are emotionally well-intentioned, that are taken advantage of by Democrat political leaders to fall in lock-step with this ideology. These are things that we (conservatives) have largely always believed... you could say that many Democrat voters are too trusting. It wasn't (honestly) until the John Podesta e-mails that we actually had validation of our views and thoughts on what the Democrat leaders are really thinking. Podesta, in communication with George Soros talked about the necessity for a dependent and compliant citizenry. That sounds like the talk of a monarchy or a despot leader... something we fought hard to get away from in this country.
I quote directly from Soros:
quote
"As I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong, but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging."
With all due respect Rinsel... this confirms everything I had always come to believe about Soros (and most Democrat leaders). It's not really about helping people... it's about control and power.
...and quite frankly, not too many Republican leaders are that far off.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-31-2017).]
I'm sorry, but no. This is not "old school." This is actually fairly recent ideology, and the extreme view of "religious" men, wishing to force their beliefs on others, as a means of self-empowerment.
The only thing modern about abortion is that now we have medically safe procedures for it. There's also a reason for term limits on when an abortion can be legally done. The old school way of getting rid of babies that were unwanted, was to just dump them in the ditch behind the brothel, after they were born. Granted, because of the insane standpoint which many take, and which you have expressed here, we still have this behavior today, and abandon unwanted children. If there were safe ways to abort babies 2000 years ago, it would have been widely accepted and used.
But then again, most practitioners of Christianity/Judaism are also totally fine with genital mutilation.
Nor was I ranting. I was making a point, which none of the so-called "conservatives" on here seem to have the gumption to even understand the irony of their continued hatred of the left as they try to project their own horrible actions onto others.
Your opinion is not based on fact.
Responsible human society has been family centric throughout history. More people participated in family than lived in the amoral fringe. Modern society has been moving away from historical and moral norms.
You're entitled to your opinions, but not made up facts.
I have no hatred toward the Left, or to others with different opinions than I have.
Nor do I consider the actions of conservatives as horrible.
Responsible human society has been family centric throughout history. More people participated in family than lived in the amoral fringe. Modern society has been moving away from historical and moral norms.
You're entitled to your opinions, but not made up facts.
I have no hatred toward the Left, or to others with different opinions than I have.
Nor do I consider the actions of conservatives as horrible.
Sex work is not new. Rape is not new. Unwanted children are not new. Contraception is not 100% effective. To declare that children must be born in cases where they are not wanted, is to ignore the facts, and is telling other people how they should live their lives.
If you don't want others and the government to tell you how to live, what makes you think it's OK to do so in this regard? Those are your beliefs, and not the beliefs of all of society, not now, and not throughout history.
Family units are also socialist, and many are quite happy to ignore that, with their rampant hatred of socialist concepts applied outside the family.
The one thing that separates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Socialism in the family, as in taking care of children and the infirm, is historically well founded. Once a child is able to care for themselves financially, they should be expected to do so, including (and very importantly) repaying loans provided by family members if borrowed after the child achieved adulthood and financial responsibility.
As always, I appreciate your opinion in these conversations.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 03-31-2017).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: You conveniently ignore morality.
The one thing that separates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Socialism in the family, as in taking care of children and the infirm, is historically well founded. Once a child is able to care for themselves financially, they should be expected to do so, including (and very importantly) repaying loans provided by family members if borrowed after the child achieved adulthood and financial responsibility.
As always, I appreciate your opinion in these conversations.
You conveniently try to define morality as what you believe and what you were taught. Morality is not an objective item. Morality does not separate humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. What humans consider "moral action" is very often observed in wild animals. Many other animals are also self aware. So not even that is something that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.
What does separate humanity, is actively harming ourselves and environment, and doing it knowingly so, while denying that we are.
Big difference between pro choice and pro abortion. Choice means mother can choose (keep or abort) what she wants to do, abortion means she can pick abortion.
And its liberals that have been harping and whining every day for 6 months about their frikkin Obamacare. Im conservative and want you all to shut the hell up about it. Its quickly headed to a self destructive end and nothing you can do about it. Theres no way to sustain it unless you all want to give up ALL your welfare benefits to finance it.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 03-31-2017).]
You conveniently try to define morality as what you believe and what you were taught. Morality is not an objective item. Morality does not separate humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. What humans consider "moral action" is very often observed in wild animals. Many other animals are also self aware. So not even that is something that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.
What does separate humanity, is actively harming ourselves and environment, and doing it knowingly so, while denying that we are.
Interesting.
Could you cite some references to animals making choices that are 'moral', versus instinctive, protective or in best interest of their well-being?
Originally posted by olejoedad: Since dobey brought up the abortion thing in his rant......
IMHO....
I have an honest opinion too.
If it is a woman's body, with her to be free about what to do about a pregnancy, then it is her baby to raise or abort. If she want's to be a momma dressing up babies like when she played with dolls, it is her choice. Just like it is only her choice if she decides to get an abortion.
If a man can be forced to pay for 18 years + of child support, he should have a choice of whether or not he wants "his" child to be aborted. I volunteered to pay 18 years plus of child care, insurance, bonding interaction with my daughter. She lives with me today with two children from two different daddys.
My story ?
A sexually attractive woman seduced me six months after a divorce of a ten year marriage. I had blue balls. She got pregnant on purpose, cause I immediately married my first wife when she got pregnant (we had three children). The ho knew that and wanted to marry me. She lied to me about safe sex protection.
So, I pretended to be in love with the ho until after an abortion would be legal. But I always cared for the Mom's pregnacy, and my daughter throughout the years.Click to show
Funny, ... the Dumbs always want to save the planet, ruck the children of the future, one of who could have become the next Albert Einstein. Heh, ... speaking of the dum dums, they want illegal immigration to increase to bolster population votes yet the use of Global Warming fuels increases with each inhabitant of the Earth.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-31-2017).]
Ill suggest now that they send all their doctor bills on to their democrat congressmen to pay for them...like Pelosi.
