On Air Force flights from the US to Kuwait delivering supplies, a C17 was required to stop at an airport located near a Trump golf course in Scotland. There the flight purchased 1,000 gallons of aviation fuel at a price much higher than available at a US Air Force base. The crew was put up at Trump's hotel paying the Trump Organization commercial rates for lodging. Normally the crew stays at a military barracks when stopovers are required.

The usual stopover bases are US Air Force stations in the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy.

This Trump golf course is outside of Glasgow and has been losing money for a few years. So Trump diverted the flights to gain revenue for his failing business charging the costs to the American taxpayer.

Apparently, these supply flights are common and are a way for Trump to use his office for personal profit. These emoluments are illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional. Politico broke the story.

It will be difficult to refer this to the Attorney General since the AG is himself a grifter. He's spending $35,000+ to have a Christmas party for the staff at the Trump Hotel. (And keep Trump happy so AG Barr doesn't get fired like his predecessors).

Athos: This isn't going anywhere. Trump doesn't ever accept a salary as POTUS. He is decoupled from his businesses since taking office. There is nothing here.

Diverting a military flight to a podunk airport is NOTHING? Charging top dollar to refuel and give accomodations to the crew is NOTHING? Yeah a guy who scams consumers and contractors funneling money to his businesses is NOTHING! If it's NOTHING why was it done in secrecy, and the Pentagon is stalling the appriations documents from the congress that requests it?

Talaniman: Just telling you: This isn't going to bring down Trump.....keep looking, this is a waste of time!

Athos: This isn't going anywhere. Trump doesn't ever accept a salary as POTUS. He is decoupled from his businesses since taking office. There is nothing here.
Decoupled for now maybe, but not after 2020. The profit will be on the books and back in his pocket.

Talaniman: Just telling you: This isn't going to bring down Trump.....keep looking, this is a waste of time!

My dime, my time, REMEMBER, trust but verify, so we do need to verify where OUR money goes and WHY, and by whose authority. If you don't want to know then that's cool with me.

I'm waiting fort more details than a Politico story . IF the story is true ,then it is an abuse of power.


He only partly "decoupled " . His interest is in a trust fund that he can tap into any time he wants to do so.

One obvious question .. the article says that Trump's Turnberry resort lost $4. million in 2017 but in 2018 revenue went up $3million. How could a couple of stay overs by Air National Guard crews make any difference to that bottom line ?

Raise the rent, and the price of fuel, you got a profit. Real estate capitalism 101. Hey he did that at his other properties when he won. I heard a flight crew member blew the whistle, but haven't verified that part, but I think this has been going on for a couple of years since 2017.

Military aid to the Ukraine that's being held up has a shelf life that expires on the 30th of this month. Wonder what the hold up is? Is Rudy involved? 8D

Wondergirl: After 2024! Have you seen the Democrat lineup? I will say this politely: No winners there....you have Beto the U.S. version of Macron....and the Gaffamatic Biden: all will lose....and I think everyone knows it: Trump will eat one or all of them alive.

Talaniman: I care....its just that none of it will matter come election time.....And, have you ever been to Ireland: The beds are too small and suck! I bet the Trump Hotel was the best hotel around...can not blame them for wanting the best!

Talaniman: Do you like chasing things down rabbit holes? That's what this is.....its going NOWHERE, believe me....And, if you are depending upon the Human Penguin, Nadler, to get anything accomplished, you will pushing up daisies long before that ever happens: Nadler is dumb as a box of rocks! Democrats needs to go chase something else and STORMY isn't going to get it either.....Its not looking good for Democrats come 2020.

Wondergirl: After 2024! Have you seen the Democrat lineup? I will say this politely: No winners there....you have Beto the U.S. version of Macron....and the Gaffamatic Biden: all will lose....and I think everyone knows it: Trump will eat one or all of them alive.
My Republican primary vote goes to Bill Weld.

My Republican primary vote goes to Bill Weld.

According to today's news, Trump is pushing to eliminate Republican primaries. He's won in 4 states so far with more on the edge. Trump doesn't like voices other than his own. One of the marks of a dictator.

Here's more with Trump and his money - He's deliberately withholding military aid from Ukraine to extort them into intervening into the 2020 election by opening an investigation into Joe Biden. Washington Post.

Talaniman: Do you like chasing things down rabbit holes? That's what this is.....its going NOWHERE, believe me....And, if you are depending upon the Human Penguin, Nadler, to get anything accomplished, you will pushing up daisies long before that ever happens: Nadler is dumb as a box of rocks! Democrats needs to go chase something else and STORMY isn't going to get it either.....Its not looking good for Democrats come 2020.

We'll see. It didn't look good for the dufus in 2016 either, but here we are. 3 more dems in the senate would still be a game changer. More likely if more repubs retire and many of the rats are abandoning ship.



According to today's news, Trump is pushing to eliminate Republican primaries. He's won in 4 states so far with more on the edge. Trump doesn't like voices other than his own. One of the marks of a dictator.

He has taken over the repub party, and that may not be a bad thing.



Here's more with Trump and his money - He's deliberately withholding military aid from Ukraine to extort them into intervening into the 2020 election by opening an investigation into Joe Biden. Washington Post.

Par for the course for someone who welcomed Russian help and how grateful he's been to them.

Raise the rent and the price of fuel, you got a profit. Real estate capitalism 101.
any proof ? I know that according to Politico we pay more for fuel when landing at Prestwick Airport which may or may not be helping the airport above water . And that indirectly helps Trump's

Turnberry resort .

But again ,how could a couple of stay overs by ANG crews help turn the place profitable ? Why would raising rents help a business that can't attract customers and is losing money ? Your economics fails there . To attract more customers rents should be reduced . AND you have zero proof of that claim . I searched on and off all day . All I see is articles referring to the original Politico reporting .


there is this from the Air Force ….


Following publication of this story, the Air Force said in a statement Saturday that the C-17 stopover was “not unusual” but acknowledged the service is still investigating the Air Force operations and spending in Scotland.
“Every two and half minutes an Air Force transport aircraft takes off or lands somewhere around the globe. As our aircrews serve on these international airlift missions, they follow strict guidelines on contracting for hotel accommodations and all expenditures of taxpayer dollars,” Brig. Gen. Ed Thomas said in the statement. “In this case, they made reservations through the Defense Travel System and used the closest available and least expensive accommodations to the airfield within the crews’ allowable hotel rates. While we are still reviewing the trip records, we have found nothing that falls outside the guidelines associated with selecting stopover airports on travel routes and hotel accommodations for crew rest.”
The Air Force confirmed that seven crew members stayed at Turnberry en route to Kuwait, but said “it did not appear” that they stayed at the hotel on the way back. There are more than two dozen hotels in and around Prestwick, but the Air Force said Trump Turnberry was the cheapest option available at the time and below the per diem allowance. POLITICO could not independently verify the room rates cited by the Air Force.




https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/air-force-trump-scottish-retreat-1484337

I'm a little leery that there are more than two dozen hotels near Prestwick that are cheaper than Trump Turnberry, but I'll wait and see what Politico turns up.

Athos: POLITICO is not the last word on anything! They are a leftist outfit bent of fulfilling a narrative: Highly biased.

Trump is no dictator, and you know it: Even if you weren't sure, you could test that he isn't by your capacity to still speak slanderous (as in unfounded) things about him and continue to do so for month after month and year after year.....A dictator would have stopped you....therefore, DICTATOR TEST FOR TRUMP: NEGATIVE!

He looks like a wannabe dictator to me in the same mold as his ruler girlfriends and sweethearts across the world. Same tactic, surround yourself with supporters, loyalists and sycophants. Repubs may never recover from this political take over. Geez Vac7 Do you have to cheerlead for the dufus all the time?

Talaniman: I don't cheerlead for him ALL THE TIME, only when I see I think there are other avenues about his policies that others may be missing or if I think he has been wrongly labeled......He is the President: You don't have to like him but you must RESPECT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. There is a certain decorum that we should honor when talking about The POTUS.

And, of course, I do have a sense of fair-play: When I see everyone jumping on The POTUS, I tend to want to defend him.....I just don't like the ganging-up on anyone....it evokes a reaction in me.

Obama wasn't my favorite POTUS but on a particular business trip I took overseas, while he was in office, I do remember becoming quite pissed-off when I heard foreign elements making fun of him and asking me why we elected him....Its one thing for my own ilk to say derogatory things about a POTUS but it is quite another for someone "outside the family" to do it.

We can squabble about what Trump is or isn't but I think we all want him to succeed: Does anyone think we, as a nation, can afford failure right now? The situation is tenuous here and abroad......For the U.S.: Failure is not an option.

We can squabble about what Trump is or isn't but I think we all want him to succeed: Does anyone think we, as a nation, can afford failure right now? The situation is tenuous here and abroad......For the U.S.: Failure is not an option.
We wanted him, the business professional who wasn't the typical politician, to succeed, starting in January 2017 when he was sworn in. We're still waiting.

Wondergirl: Well, he is an imperfect man...at least give him some credit.....It appears that he has succeeded in reducing Unemployment #s and it looks like the economy is humming along.

All I really want to say is that all of this constant attack cannot be value-added behavior.....there comes a time where we should get behind some cause that unites us.....there has to be at least one!

Wondergirl: Well, he is an imperfect man...at least give him some credit.....It appears that he has succeeded in reducing Unemployment #s and it looks like the economy is humming along.
Yes,I give him a lot of credit for being imperfect. I can't think of anyone lately who has done such a great job of being imperfect.

All I really want to say is that all of this constant attack cannot be value-added behavior.....there comes a time where we should get behind some cause that unites us.....there has to be at least one!
My hope is to elect a moral, honest, empathetic person as our next president. Certainly we can all get behind that idea.

great ideal

I think everybody hoped this rich business man outside the political system would bring good things to American governance. Instead we got the biggest drama and scandal ridden show on Earth. Must see TV, starring a lying cheating dufus. That's what we are paying for?

I think everybody hoped this rich business man outside the political system would bring good things to American governance.

Not everybody! Those of us who knew him when he first emerged as a playboy in the 1970s gossip pages pegged him then for a fraud. His real estate "deals" had the touch of shadiness about them and he became known as a con-man from the outer boroughs. Nothing has changed.

Not everybody! Those of us who knew him when he first emerged as a playboy in the 1970s gossip pages pegged him then for a fraud. His real estate "deals" had the touch of shadiness about them and he became known as a con-man from the outer boroughs. Nothing has changed.
I knew of him only from "The Apprentice," which I watched now and then. In the beginning of his presidential campaign, I had hopes, but then he regularly insulted others (in the language of a three-year-old) for being poor or disabled or non-white or even female. The stench became white male supremacy.

The stench became white male supremacy


He's about Trump supremacy. The "white" and the "male" is incidental.

If he could be supreme by himself he would have done it. He needs co signers.

Trump is extremely lucky.....and you can not put a value on that....You've known the type during your lifetime: The type of guy who falls into a sewer and comes up with a diamond ring.....The kind of person that is easy to dislike.....But don't underestimate him, he orchestrates a lot of confusion and gets his way, anyway. I am not promoting him, I'm saying watch out because he has a history of winning.

big fish in little pond, little fish in big pond, seems to me Trump doesn't know the difference

Wondergirl: Does there exists a candidate for the office of The POTUS who exhibits the qualities you desire: I know of no one even running on the Republican side and I certainly see no one on the Democrat side that measures up....in fact they are all extremely weak, slow, and weird on the Democrat side.....a group of nothings that Trump will chew up in the 2020 Election.

This is the reason why the MONOPOLY of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM that we have must be broken......It is a monopoly and you all know it: Don't like the Republican, then vote the Democrat in.....Don't like the Democrat, then vote the Republican in! WOW! WHAT CHOICES! So glad we have so much to choose from, don't we? The way this works is that any time a 3rd Party attempts to enter into the fray, the two devote enemies, Democrats and Republics, find common ground in alliance again whoever is the 3rd Party.....the Democrats and Republicans unite long enough to destroy the 3rd Party candidate. This is entirely disgusting! Why is this O.K.? Why aren't people raising unholy hell?

I am not promoting him, I'm saying watch out because he has a history of winning.


Are you serious? He has a history of LOSING! Every business he's started (except The Apprentice TV show) has failed. Steak Vodka, Airline, "University", Casino three times, etc. He is so bad no bank in America would provide him with more capital, so he goes to his Russian pals via Deutsche Bank. He gets money out of these failed enterprises by shrewdly playing the bankruptcy game (his own words). His investors take the fall.

For someone who claims he's not promoting Trump, you sure could have fooled me.

My hope is to elect a moral, honest, empathetic person as our next president. Certainly we can all get behind that idea.

Who'd you have in mind? HC or BC was certainly not that person. Obama was not that person. Who are you proposing?

Who'd you have in mind? HC or BC was certainly not that person. Obama was not that person. Who are you proposing?
I'm waiting and watching. I hope you are being as mindful.

Athos: No, not promoting Trump but saying that he is probably going to win....and win big.....He is the M&M Man: He's got the money and he's got the momentum....The POTUS is a lot of things to a lot of people but he is rich....and I don't know how he got all of it but he isn't accepting a paycheck for being POTUS: Nobody in Presidential Office has never accepted a paycheck.

Who'd you have in mind? HC or BC was certainly not that person. Obama was not that person. Who are you proposing?

HC lost but BC and Obama won TWICE, and they were all more honest, empathetic than the guy we have now, and so is the current crop of hopefuls. The dufus is solid within his party, and the incumbent, but even you guys know he is a lying, cheating dufus, but it's not like you have any other options except do the right MORAL thing and get rid of him.

No dem is as good? What a joke!

Athos: No, not promoting Trump but saying that he is probably going to win....and win big.....He is the M&M Man: He's got the money and he's got the momentum....The POTUS is a lot of things to a lot of people but he is rich....and I don't know how he got all of it but he isn't accepting a paycheck for being POTUS: Nobody in Presidential Office has never accepted a paycheck.
You're saying Trump will win because he's rich?(from cheating and stealing)

HC lost but BC and Obama won TWICE, and they were all more honest, empathetic than the guy we have now, and so is the current crop of hopefuls.

So winning twice is somehow a mark of high character? Nixon won twice. If Trump wins again, then do you give him your stamp of approval?

You forget that they are all in favor of the continuation of the killing of hundreds of thousands of unborn children in the womb. Empathetic? Honest? Only if you are one whose life was spared.

Read it again, my statement and opinion was those dems have better characters than the dufus, and last I checked our opinions count equally, no matter how you parse it. I get your crusade for the unborn, and can respect it somewhat, if you would put your money where your mouth is after they were born. You don't and have not, so safe to say you are comfortable walking away when that unborn child needs you the most like any dead beat dad, but you have your own moral sense, and others have theirs, and the dufus has done more dirt than BC by my account.

In my opinion Obama was the better of all 3 mentioned presidents. The dufus dead last so far. They are all humans though, and dems are mostly pro choice with healthcare for poor women, which included prenatal care despite your narrow rhetorical view of the dem platform.

You are certainly correct that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. As to my supposed non-support of children once they are born, I'll put my record up against yours or anyone else's on this board. I spent 34 years in education, most of it in public schools working with young children. What have you done? Are we back to the basic liberal position which says, "I'm a good guy because I support making other people pay for welfare programs?" I do know that I will not be in the position of supporting those who support abortion. It will never happen.

As to who had the better character, Trump or Obama, neither one is anything to brag about. Obama let four Americans die in Benghazi and then lied like a dog about it afterwards, so I don't see his character in the same way you do. I don't mind it when dems attack Trump's character issues, which are many, but then want to act like they are the party of the good guys. Really? BC? HC? Obama? Pocohantas? Spartacus? Socialist Sanders? Tell me who these good guys are?

As for possible alternatives to Trump, I'm looking hard at Mark Sanford. I don't know a lot about him so far, but he is the only one who is talking about the deficit and the need to control spending, so that gets my attention right away.

I'm a little leery that there are more than two dozen hotels near Prestwick that are cheaper than Trump Turnberry, but I'll wait and see what Politico turns up. This is from the NY Times ;
The crew, which consisted of active duty and national guard members from Alaska, was charged $136 per room, which was less expensive than a Marriott property’s rate of $161. And both were under the per diem rate of $166.

Air Force landings @ Prestwick rose from 180 in 2017 to 257 last year and 259 so far this year. But Lt. Gen. Jon T. Thomas, the deputy commander of the Air Force Air Mobility Command, said in an interview on Monday that the rising number of military stopovers at Prestwick was entirely based on operational demands, as the airport is in a convenient location, has 24-hour operations and offers ample aircraft parking, among other advantages. He added that the Air Force has been using Prestwick for stopovers since at least the late 1990s.


​https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/trump-hotel-turnberry.html

From the same article - there's always more to the story when Trump is involved. The Air Force is still checking.


But documents obtained from Scottish government agencies show that the Trump Organization, and Mr. Trump himself, played a direct role in setting up an arrangement between the Turnberry resort and officials at Glasgow Prestwick Airport.

The government records, released through Scottish Freedom of Information law, show that the Trump organization, starting in 2014, entered a partnership with the airport to try to increase private and commercial air traffic to the region.

As part of that arrangement, the Trump Organization worked to get Trump Turnberry added to a list of hotels that the airport would routinely send aircrews to, even though the Turnberry resort is 20 miles from the airport, farther away than many other hotels, and has higher advertised prices.

The article said all of this (the business arrangements) happened from 2014 to 2016 before Trump was president. Why is it an issue?

yeah I mentioned in earlier comments that the airport doing well was important to Trump's resort . But his involvement was in 2014 and Air Force landings there began years before Trump became President . I think this is just one more fishing expedition by Cummings . Got no issue with the Air Force reviewing protocol.

If the traffic has increased since the dufus became president, Cummings would be quite derelict in his duty if he didn't look into this. Definitely review the Air Force protocols on such matters. I mean shouldn't you look into the appearance of hanky panky to make sure it's not full blown corruption?

I must say: Cummings and Nadler are the WORST FISHERMEN I have ever seen! How long have they been fishing for that Trump Fish now? They haven't so much as had a nibble much less a bite. They just can't seen to catch anything! And The Penguin (Nadler) is near comical in his vain attempts to be serious and scowling all the time.....guy needs to lighten-up some.

Meanwhile, Teflon Don, just dropped Bolton on his head: Another example: Dissention WILL NOT be tolerated. Honestly, that is the way it should be at that level, you are either IN or OUT and you are either with us or against us.

Two rules on the Trump Administration: Rule #1: Trump will take his own decisions and Rule #2: You can't do anything about Rule #1.

Two rules on the Trump Administration: Rule #1: Trump will take his own decisions and Rule #2: You can't do anything about Rule #1.

A little scary.

Rule is the way of dictators, monardhs and despots. I would much prefer he governed with consensus. yeah, that's more that a little scary.

jlisenbe: No, not scary: This used to be Standard Operating Practice amongst men....and history has many examples of this, amongst them were the taken decisions of President Truman when: 1) He decided to drop the A-Bombs during WWII despite many around him advising otherwise and 2) He decided to fire General MacArthur during the Korean conflict despite many around him advising otherwise. You also saw it in President Reagan when he listened to advisors and walked out and fired all of the on-strike Air Traffic Controllers.

Today, being decisive is widely frowned upon.....today, it is more acceptable to have "Analysis Paralysis" because most men are TOO AFRAID OF MAKING MISTAKES.....to make a mistake, today, is just something that crushes people and they cannot take it, it wrecks their psyches. Trump doesn't have that problem....he doesn't have that fear and, so, he is able to take decisions and live with them, rightly or wrongly.

Now, whether you like or do not like Trump is not nearly as important as is knowing that Trump is pretty fearless.....and, I think, most of us, deep down, want a leader who is fearless.

Fearless and ruling by fear are vastly different. I don't think it serves the country well nor respects the checks and balances that you need to collectively govern. Seems more like intentional chaos than effective good orderly direction.

To each his own I suppose.

...Trump is pretty fearless

You're confusing fearless with feckless.

I agree with Bolton's foreign policy positions much more than Trump with his belief that he can change the world through the sheer force of his personality . I think he weakens the US position when there is no extensive prep work before head to head meeting . I am hearing now that now Trump is trying to have head to head meetings with the head 12er Rouhani . Rouhani is not to be trusted .

I don't trust the dufus, but agree totally with the prep work. I can't stand this hurry up and take a picture crap! How phony is that?

Dissention WILL NOT be tolerated. Honestly, that is the way it should be at that level, you are either IN or OUT and you are either with us or against us.


You have it backwards. As another president said, "I'm paying you a salary not to agree with me but to tell me what you think".

Bolton's foreign policy is now a mote point. Only one view prevailed, Trump is not the hawk Bolton is, perhaps he has learned something while in office. Is the world a safer place with Trump in office? perhaps. No new wars have been initiated which is more than can be said for the american presidents of the last thirty years before him.

Athos: I've heard all the stuff about being able to disagree and various viewpoints are welcome....yep, heard that in meetings I've been in.....then was pulled to the side and scolded profoundly for not agreeing with "the boss", whom, I was told, was RIGHT even when he was WRONG! Heard that all my career......been beat down by it, not submitted yet, but beat down!

Paraclete: There is something to be said about all the crazy SOBs around the world going to sleep at night worrying about what the crazy SOB President of The U.S. was going to do next....instead of the other way around! kind of keeps the crazies guessing!

Talaniman: Government is disfunctional right now.....it is upside down....there is no communication....particularly between Congress and Senate....and Executive, really, is the only entity that has real leadership.....in other words: You look at the Whitehouse and YOU KNOW who is in charge.....you might not agree with him but you know Trump is in charge....people tend to gravitate toward what they feel is strong. Trump won't be challenged in public but I think you can challenge him in private without fear of retributions.

Paraclete: There is something to be said about all the crazy SOBs around the world going to sleep at night worrying about what the crazy SOB President of The U.S. was going to do next....instead of the other way around! kind of keeps the crazies guessing!

Clearly, this strategy is not working. I personally would prefer that the US President is not the crazy SOB he appears to be

Athos: I've heard all the stuff about being able to disagree and various viewpoints are welcome....yep, heard that in meetings I've been in.....then was pulled to the side and scolded profoundly for not agreeing with "the boss", whom, I was told, was RIGHT even when he was WRONG! Heard that all my career......been beat down by it, not submitted yet, but beat down!

So why do you think it's the right thing to do for the dufus to beat down his subordinates to keep them in line?



Paraclete: There is something to be said about all the crazy SOBs around the world going to sleep at night worrying about what the crazy SOB President of The U.S. was going to do next....instead of the other way around! kind of keeps the crazies guessing!

Those crazy sobs around the world aren't guessing, they have and always have had an agenda for power control and getting more wealth for themselves, That's just what they do so just as the dufus does to with the same instruments of fear and hate and surronded by enough sycophants to acheive that end.



Talaniman: Government is disfunctional right now.....it is upside down....there is no communication....particularly between Congress and Senate....and Executive, really, is the only entity that has real leadership.....in other words: You look at the Whitehouse and YOU KNOW who is in charge.....you might not agree with him but you know Trump is in charge....people tend to gravitate toward what they feel is strong. Trump won't be challenged in public but I think you can challenge him in private without fear of retributions.

Granted our government has been dysfunctional for a long time, divided effectively by tribal differences and agendas a lot higher up than main street who has borne the brunt of that dysfunction, which is INTENTIONAL. Oldest tactic in the book divide and conquer is, and obviously it works rather well.

No you will not challenge the dufus in private for long because his sycophants and yes men below him won't tolerate it if you are a threat to their power and position. Yeah it seems right now the dufus is a real force compared to the antics of Moscow Mitch and repubs united in doing absolutely nothing to rock the boat.

That's not their job. It is the job of the American voters though to correct that dysfunction.

Talaniman: You rascal! You make some really good points, as usual......I will think these through!

Granted our government has been dysfunctional for a long time, divided effectively by tribal differences and agendas a lot higher up than main street who has borne the brunt of that dysfunction, which is INTENTIONAL. Oldest tactic in the book divide and conquer is, and obviously it works rather well.

True. Both parties practice it because they see in it the ability to weaken the opposition. Hopefully there must be some "cause" above our tribal affiliations that will join us together rather than pull us apart. It takes true leadership to take us in that direction. The last pres I can think of who did this, even in some degree, was Reagan. Probably Roosevelt did this as well even though I don't like much of what he did.

jlisenbe: I am not much of a FDR fan either: Talk about a POTUS who coerced, threatened, compromised, and ran roughshod over people who opposed him, he was the quintessential one! Just look how he threatened to STACK the Supreme Court and how he changed the law so he run and be elected more than two terms. FDR bordered on being boorish and was certainly thuggish in many respects.

But I will give FDR credit, too: Some of the employment entities he created are still in business and going strong, like the one my company works with a lot: TVA.

We have to be careful how we look back on history and judge the actors of that time period through the prism of our current times: Facts are, TIMES WERE DIFFERENT BACK THEN! Perhaps FDR was who we needed at a time when we needed him. Its just hard for me to stomach his socialist policies.

As I read it the congress always twarted his lagresses, but what socialists policies are you talking about that so aggrieves you?

Talaniman: From a domestic standpoint, I was speaking to certain acts he undertook as part of the New Deal, many of which are still with us today.....the one that was particularly bad was the payment to farmers to leave land Farrell (unplanted)….this one has also stayed with us, too.

From and international respect, the irritant for me was that FDR hated General Francisco Franco, the Spanish Head Of State, for no good reason other than he was Fascist.....Franco did nothing but save his country from a Marxist coup d'état that was in the works well before he showed up to defend the people of Spain....Franco did accept Italian and German assistance during the Spanish Civil War but he did not join the Axis during WWII.....it didn't matter to FDR, he still hated Franco. My opinions may be a bit jaded or colored on this because of relatives on my Mother's side who were Franco supporters from Spain....but this is what they have told me.

FDR a popular giant of his time was hard pressed to deal with some very dire circumstances of that era. I don't put him on the same pedestal, as he did a lot of good, and somethings not so good, given the politics of the time. There was more than just facism about Franco that FDR hated. I mean the guy was a brutal dictator above all else, from what I read, and lead a bloody divisive regime at the time. Like the dufus supporters, if you are on his side you would see things differently than those that are not, but history is not kind to Franco if the facts are true. The dufus's history is still being written.

I ain't a supporter of the dufus, and have yet to see any good he has done and that includes his only accomplishment of tax cuts for the rich that every repub does when the dems have stabilized the economy in my lifetime, except Bush I, faced with a looming recession, and deficits, after promising not to raise taxes though Reagan to his credit did several times in his eight years, modestly though, and lowered them just as modestly. The aggregate was lower taxes, but Bush got booted for that common sense tactic at the time so we get Clinton, who RAISED taxes on his way to balancing the budget, by cutting military spending in "peace" time, and reforming domestic programs while expanding local economies. Boy was I making money in the 90's, but people are raising hell over some of those policies NOW, and rightfully so as like FDR, a lot of people were left out of the party times big time.

My record though is perfect, because I survived all those presidents and their policies, and God willing, I'll survive this dufus!

Talaniman: Excellent capture of the historical account!

I have a feeling that you will be just fine with this POTUS.....whenever he leaves office.

I think you must always strive to survive and thrive in any circumstance Vac.

I ain't a supporter of the dufus, and have yet to see any good he has done and that includes his only accomplishment of tax cuts for the rich that every repub does when the dems have stabilized the economy in my lifetime,

That one made me laugh. If you want to say that Obama "stabilized" the economy, then fine, but he did so by doubling the national debt. It is only under Mr. Trump that the economy has gone beyond "stable" and is setting records for low unemployment. And yet you can't see that?


so we get Clinton, who RAISED taxes on his way to balancing the budget, by cutting military spending in "peace" time, and reforming domestic programs while expanding local economies.

The only way Clinton got to balanced budgets was because he worked with a republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich. This was back before the federal government was paralyzed by mutual hatred. A key ingredient was welfare reform, insisted on by the republicans, which controlled spending in that area, and an economy that was doing really well. And, of course, Clinton's problem with abusing women wasn't mentioned as well. But like you, I do give him credit for creating the last of the budget surpluses. I liked some things about Bush, but he should have his rear end kicked for his immediate return to deficit spending.

That one made me laugh. If you want to say that Obama "stabilized" the economy, then fine, but he did so by doubling the national debt. It is only under Mr. Trump that the economy has gone beyond "stable" and is setting records for low unemployment. And yet you can't see that?

The unemployment numbers have been trending down for years as well as modest economic growth, and deficit spending under the dufus has grown steadily thanks to his ill timed deficit funded tax cuts that have failed to produce more growth, or juice the economy. LOL, maybe in your world the economy is beyond stable, but many Americans ain't feeling what you're feeling at this time. Of course, maybe you can't see that, but economic health is a lot more that unemployment numbers, or Wall Street projections. Some sectors are doing worse than others and whole towns are struggling once you get out in the countryside in many states.


The only way Clinton got to balanced budgets was because he worked with a republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich. This was back before the federal government was paralyzed by mutual hatred. A key ingredient was welfare reform, insisted on by the republicans, which controlled spending in that area, and an economy that was doing really well. And, of course, Clinton's problem with abusing women wasn't mentioned as well. But like you, I do give him credit for creating the last of the budget surpluses. I liked some things about Bush, but he should have his rear end kicked for his immediate return to deficit spending.

I predict the dufus will be raising the debt and deficit in a few short weeks and join the other presidents before him in even MORE deficit spending. The feelings cut both ways about the dufus as they did Obama either you were for them, or against them. and we both know that working together gets it done, and NOT working together get's nothing done, so maybe when the dufus has to work with a dem congress he may do better if he doesn't get booted out, impeached, or carted off to jail.

maybe in your world the economy is beyond stable, but many Americans ain't feeling what you're feeling at this time. Of course, maybe you can't see that, but economic health is a lot more that unemployment numbers, or Wall Street projections. Some sectors are doing worse than others and whole towns are struggling once you get out in the countryside in many states.

The glass is 9/10 full and yet you complain. Some sectors are doing worse than others? You know of a period of time in American history when that was not true?


I predict the dufus will be raising the debt and deficit in a few short weeks and join the other presidents before him in even MORE deficit spending. The feelings cut both ways about the dufus as they did Obama either you were for them, or against them. and we both know that working together gets it done, and NOT working together get's nothing done, so maybe when the dufus has to work with a dem congress he may do better if he doesn't get booted out, impeached, or carted off to jail.

It always gets my attention when a person is so critical of Trump for doing exactly what Obama did, and yet never can be critical of Obama. If Trump is wrong to engage in deficit spending, and in my view he is terribly wrong to do so, then wasn't Obama wrong as well? Maybe you can make excuses for the first year or two, but for all eight years???

The glass is 9/10 full and yet you complain. Some sectors are doing worse than others? You know of a period of time in American history when that was not true?

I argue with your 9/10ths full glass figure, as the elderly, the young and the displaced, as well as the traumatized may not agree, nor the millions of females and minorities slipping through the ever widening cracks of the dufus policies, both foreign and domestic which from your comfortable perch you easily dismiss as unimportant. Just like the dufus. That's sad.


It always gets my attention when a person is so critical of Trump for doing exactly what Obama did, and yet never can be critical of Obama. If Trump is wrong to engage in deficit spending, and in my view he is terribly wrong to do so, then wasn't Obama wrong as well? Maybe you can make excuses for the first year or two, but for all eight years???

Obama was cleaning up a global mess, and government is the last resort in such economically negative times, yet the dufus and you think you can take full credit for his efforts (Even you concede Obama stabilized things from chaos), yet cannot grasp that the dufus inheriting a STABLE economy is spending like a drunk sailor on that credit card that needs paying.

A very real difference my friend as raising that debt limit even higher looms large. The last 6 years repubs went along with that deficit spending you blame on just Obama, but you can't seem to acknowledge that. However forget the past for now, it's more important to deal with the present and the problems in our face. LOL, I have long acknowledged the good both Nixon, Reagan, and Bush have done despite blasting them too, so let leave Obama alone as obviously I'm to busy blasting the dufus to revisit the Obama flaws and mistakes you so easily keep front and center.

I'm go into have my fun my friend no matter how it aggravates you, or your fellow conservatives to have a stick poked up the dufus's arse every chance I get. You'll survive.

I argue with your 9/10ths full glass figure, as the elderly, the young and the displaced, as well as the traumatized may not agree, nor the millions of females and minorities slipping through the ever widening cracks of the dufus policies, both foreign and domestic which from your comfortable perch you easily dismiss as unimportant. Just like the dufus. That's sad.

What is sad is that you're just making it up as you go along. The "traumatized"??? You have no evidence for any of those groups.

As to the deficit, there is no end of the excuses you make for eight years of Obama's fantastic overspending. The repubs tried to stop it, but every time they were accused of shutting down the government and, with the national media always obedient to their master, Mr. Obama, they had no chance to win that battle.

There is a difference between the two of us. I hate deficit spending no matter who does it. You support everything Obama and nothing Trump. It would be nice of you to develop some consistency in supporting policies rather than politicians.

update time from the Washington Post .
1.
Approximately six percent of those crews stayed at the Trump Turnberry
“As a practice, we generally send aircrews to the closest, most suitable accommodations within the government hotel rate. The review also indicated that about 75 percent of the crews stayed in the immediate vicinity of the airfield and 18 percent stayed in Glasgow.”

2.
The stays result from two separate agreements that both predate Trump’s presidency. Before Trump ran for president, the airport agreed to send visiting crews to Trump’s course. And while President Barack Obama was still in office, the Air Force agreed to send refueling aircraft to the airport.

3. there is no evidence that Trump changed the terms of the deal since he became President .


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/air-force-says-only-6-percent-of-crews-that-stopped-in-scotland-stayed-at-trump-turnberry-resort/2019/09/12/d840747a-d5aa-11e9-9610-fb56c5522e1c_story.html

From the NY Times .
4.
the deal involved the Air Force paying a discounted rate of as little as $130 a night, compared with a typical rate of more than $300 a night.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/us/politics/trump-turnberry-military.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

5 . Rep Adam Kinzinger (retired pilot ANG ) has this to say.....
For everyone still spinning up over this story, I have a spoiler alert: not everyone in an aircrew will be happy with every accommodation, whether it’s a Trump hotel or a cheap motel down the road.I preferred the nicer places during my time in the Air Force, but some I flew with preferred to pocket the extra money.It’s a choice, and it’s that of our service members to make – not the firing squads on Twitter. And this choice is in the regulation written by our Department of Defense.

Well, that settles it. He needs to be impeached.

Well, that settles it. He needs to be impeached.
Yes, definitely! Trump is using the office of the President to enrich himself.

Uhm...sarcasm.

Now if you can show us where he has used his office to enrich himself, it would be something to see. No one else seems to have been able to do that.

Uhm...sarcasm.

Now if you can show us where he has used his office to enrich himself, it would be something to see. No one else seems to have been able to do that.
Sarcasm again! You are so silly! He's a BUSINESSMAN!

You know how it works JL, the investigation(S) continue.

He's a BUSINESSMAN!

So he's automatically guilty??? Really??


You know how it works JL, the investigation(S) continue.


Yes it does. Endlessly. Nauseating politics.

So he's automatically guilty??? Really??
Feel free to google this with a variety of keywords. The information is out there on a number of websites.

Feel free to google this with a variety of keywords. The information is out there on a number of websites.

You want me to google this "with a variety of keywords"? So you want ME to look up the evidence to verify YOUR allegation? Think I'll pass on that. I won't ask you to back up my statements if you won't ask me to back up yours.

Honestly, it would just seem logical that you have no evidence to present. If you did, you wouldn't punt the ball back to me. I don't mean that to be ugly. It's just foreign to me to ask someone else to look for my evidence. Don't understand it.

You want me to google this "with a variety of keywords"? So you want ME to look up the evidence to verify YOUR allegation? Think I'll pass on that. I won't ask you to back up my statements if you won't ask me to back up yours.
You never accept OUR links as having any truth in them, so I figured you would see by means of your own searching that, yes, he is enriching himself as president.

feel free to google this with a variety of keywords. The information is out there on a number of websites. I linked to the compost and the slimes . Those are supposed to be the legacy media who's reporting is non-impeachable .

Just everyone remember: Trump DOES NOT ACCEPT A SALARY AS PRESIDENT......no other POTUS ever did that.....something to be said for that, even if you don't like him.

I linked to the compost and the slimes . Those are supposed to be the legacy media who's reporting is non-impeachable .

Check National Review too.


Just everyone remember: Trump DOES NOT ACCEPT A SALARY AS PRESIDENT......no other POTUS ever did that.....something to be said for that, even if you don't like him.
He doesn't have to. His being president and using his influence more than makes up for his "lost" income.

No links. No evidence. Just vague references to "Check National Review." Oh well. Has he been convicted of a crime? No. Has he been formally charged with a crime? No. Has MSNBC charged him with criminal activity? Who cares?

TDS

No links. No evidence. Just vague references to "Check National Review." Oh well. Has he been convicted of a crime? No. Has he been formally charged with a crime? No. Has MSNBC charged him with criminal activity? Who cares?

TDS
I made you look! I made you look! Now can we get serious?

Why did Pence stay at Doonbeg (across the country) instead of in Dublin where his meetings were? Who profited?

Sorry. I didn't look. Like I said, I won't do your research for you. I've been serious the whole time.

Sorry. I didn't look. Like I said, I won't do your research for you. I've been serious the whole time.
It's all over the Internet. Lots of cases, situations. You refuse to believe me so do your own research. It's there!

Earlier I wrote: Why did Pence stay at Doonbeg (across the country) instead of in Dublin where his meetings were? Who profited?

Just everyone remember: Trump DOES NOT ACCEPT A SALARY AS PRESIDENT......no other POTUS ever did that.....something to be said for that, even if you don't like him.

He donates his after tax checks (Quarterly) to government projects. Wonder if it's deductible on his tax returns? Probably. Bloomberg in New York has the same setup as well as Mitt Romney. It's a common thing among rich people. Ask Zuckerberg or Oprah about rich people tax havens.

Per your article Tom


The bookings for United States military personnel staying at the Trump resort are made by employees of the Glasgow Prestwick Airport, which has an incentive to curry favor with Mr. Trump. The airport has become economically reliant on the military refueling flights, creating at least the appearance of a motive to steer business to the American commander in chief.

An investigation would clear him if everything is on the up and up, and the AF explains why the traffic to this airport have increased* You know AF protocol review, the JOB of the oversight committee.

*Linked in another post.

It's all over the Internet. Lots of cases, situations. You refuse to believe me so do your own research. It's there!

It's so "all over the internet" that you don't seem to be able to find a single example. I don't believe you since you have presented nothing to believe other than a baseless allegation. And then, to top it all off, you want to suggest that I do the research that you are completely unwilling to do. And now you are serious? Well, I'd hate to see you when you are non-serious.

It's so "all over the internet" that you don't seem to be able to find a single example. I don't believe you since you have presented nothing to believe other than a baseless allegation. And then, to top it all off, you want to suggest that I do the research that you are completely unwilling to do. And now you are serious? Well, I'd hate to see you when you are non-serious.
You are sooooo funneeeee! Typical JL!

Earlier I wrote: Why did Pence stay at Doonbeg (across the country) instead of in Dublin where his meetings were? Who profited?

It's all over the Internet. Lots of cases, situations. You refuse to believe me so do your own research. It's there!

Earlier I wrote: Why did Pence stay at Doonbeg (across the country) instead of in Dublin where his meetings were? Who profited?

Follow the money!

Earlier I wrote: Why did Pence stay at Doonbeg (across the country) instead of in Dublin where his meetings were? Who profited?

That's the best you have? We've spent all of this time waiting for this?

Here is his explanation. Sounds reasonable. If you are upset about this, then I'll bet you were practically apoplectic about the disaster in Benghazi and the subsequent campaign of lying and disinformation that went on afterwards. True?? Or even the Obama family vacation in Hawaii that went on for two weeks.

That's my big complaint in this situation, of wanting to make a big deal of Pence spending two nights at a Trump-owned facility, but being unconcerned about the deaths of four Americans due to Obama's and Clinton's inaction.

https://www.mywabashvalley.com/news/world/pence-defends-decision-to-stay-at-trump-property-in-ireland/

That's the best you have? We've spent all of this time waiting for this?
I see you can't answer. And I have so many more. No recess for you next week!

I see you can't answer. And I have so many more. No recess for you next week!

I linked the answer. I pasted the text below if that will prove helpful to you.

Next week? So it's going to take that long for you to come up with another spurious example? Oh well. At least you are back in the game. That's encouraging!

"DUBLIN (AP) — U.S. Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday defended his decision to stay at one of President Donald Trump’s properties while in Ireland in the face of criticism by Democrats and good government groups that he’s enriching Trump at taxpayers’ expense. He called the Trump property a “logical” choice.

Speaking to reporters in Dublin, where he spent the day, Pence spoke about his personal connection to the village of Doonbeg — the site of both the Trump International Golf Links & Hotel as well as family history.

“It’s deeply humbling for me to be able to come back to Ireland and have the opportunity to go to the very hometown of my mother’s grandmother,” said Pence.

Pence added that he understood “political attacks by Democrats,” but said the State Department had signed off on the decision. He said Doonbeg is a “fairly small place” and the opportunity to stay at the property, “to accommodate the unique footprint that comes with our security detail and other personnel, made it logical.”

Trump, who owns hotels and golf clubs across the U.S. and in Europe, has come under intense criticism for frequenting properties he owns and profits from — giving them taxpayer-funded publicity and running up millions of dollars in taxpayer costs. Foreign governments and groups looking to curry favor with the president have also spent large sums at his properties, raising ethical alarms about potential pay-to-play dynamics and other conflicts.

Marc Short, Pence’s chief of staff, told reporters aboard Air Force Two earlier that the decision to stay at the Trump property was made at the president’s “suggestion” and that Pence and his entourage were not staying for free. Short said Pence’s office followed official protocol and the club is the “one facility” in the Doonbeg area able to accommodate a group of their size.

Pence, who is traveling with his wife, mother and sister, had originally planned to visit the village at the end of a trip to Europe, spending a single night in the village after visits to Iceland, London and Dublin. But then Trump canceled his planned visit to Poland because of Hurricane Dorian, and asked Pence to take his place. That forced last-minute reshuffling of travel plans.

Instead of making two separate trips to Europe or canceling Pence’s trip, his staff switched around the stops, so that he traveled from Poland to Ireland to Iceland to London. Under the new schedule, Pence is staying stay two nights in Doonbeg, but flew the hour-or-so into Dublin on Tuesday for official meetings, including coffee with Irish President Michael Higgins and lunch with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar and his partner.

Short said advance teams and Secret Service had already done weeks of planning work to secure the site, one reason they decided to keep the Doonbeg plan in place.

The decision drew criticism back home.

Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California accused Pence of “Funneling taxpayer money to @POTUS by staying at this Trump resort,” calling the move “sooooooo corrupt.”

“Your tax dollars: making the Trump family richer,” the Democratic National Committee added by tweet, noting Trump’s own visits to his Virginia golf club over the long weekend.

The Air Force puts the flight-cost of a C-32, the modified Boeing 757 jet known as Air Force Two when Pence is on board, at about $13,000 per hour. The vice president is personally covering all costs for his mother and sister, Short said.

Pence said he was pleased to have the opportunity to return to the village where he worked for several weeks during his first visit to Ireland when he was 22. He was greeted by a cheering crowd of several dozen outside Morrissey’s, the restaurant and pub where he worked, which is still run by a distant relative.

His mother, Nancy, who is along for the ride, seemed to enjoy the scene. Asked what the vice president would order for dinner, she jokingly responded, “a Guinness.” Pence does not drink."

That "logical choice" was across the country, 180 miles away from his meeting place.

Um, you didn't cite your source. I was going to use that same source to prove exactly the opposite of what you did. Yes, Pence covered the charges at Trump's estate -- but only for his mother and sister. Pence's and wife's housing and traveling expenses came out of the taxpayers' pockets and jumped into Trump's.

Clear you have nothing better to do than engage in witch hunts

No doubt this was missed in the US in the excitement of finding the VP stayed at a Trump property.

Oil facilities in Saudi Arabia were raided and set on fire in what will cause serious repercussions to world oil supplies and thus oil prices. It may become so serious that once again the US will have to review the romance with the SUV. Action will have to be taken to stabilise Yemen before this spreads to the Gulf

Clear you have nothing better to do than engage in witch hunts

No doubt this was missed in the US in the excitement of finding the VP stayed at a Trump property.

Oil facilities in Saudi Arabia were raided and set on fire in what will cause serious repercussions to world oil supplies and thus oil prices. It may become so serious that once again the US will have to review the romance with the SUV. Action will have to be taken to stabilise Yemen before this spreads to the Gulf
Yep. Always the diversion. The Pence story was a distraction from that story and several others.

Um, you didn't cite your source. I was going to use that same source to prove exactly the opposite of what you did. Yes, Pence covered the charges at Trump's estate -- but only for his mother and sister. Pence's and wife's housing and traveling expenses came out of the taxpayers' pockets and jumped into Trump's.

Cite my source? I gave a link and the text. What more do you want?

It's a nothing story. Were you this upset when the Obamas vacationed in Hawaii for two weeks?

Pence wasn't on vacation. He turned it into one so his boss would financially benefit.

Yes, the Iranians attached Saudi Arabian oil processing facilities and that will be used as an excuse to jack up gas prices all around.....However, just this week, GUESS WHO JUST SURPASSED SAUDIA ARABIA AS THE WORLDS LARGEST OIL EXPORTER? Yep, you guessed it: THE UNITED STATES! So, Saudi Arabia and the whole sandstorm of hell called the Middle East just doesn't hold the same level of threat to us as it used to hold.....And I, for one, look forward to the day when we can tell Saudi Arabia, our ally who really hates our guts, to go pound, or better yet, go eat their damned sand.

Pence wasn't on vacation. He turned it into one so his boss would financially benefit.

I have no idea why it would be OK to waste government money on a two week vacation to Hawaii but not OK to supposedly waste government money while on government business. That's a rather strange approach.

As to Pence, if you read the article then you found that he did not make the two night stay in order to benefit Trump. Do you really believe that Trump sat down with Pence and said, "I'm sending you over to Ireland for two nights so you can stay in one of my hotels. That way I can make a couple of grand off the government." Don't you think that's kind of far-fetched? If Trump wanted to make money off the government, why wouldn't he simply keep his presidential salary?

this is so comical . Trump lost money being President . I used to travel down the Hudson River Parkway to downtown NYC . Luxury Apartments with the Trump name lined the route . Now all of them have removed Trump's name . Retail stores stopped selling Trump brand merchandize . He lost NBC 's airing of Miss USA . Rates at Trump hotels dropped since his Presidency .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-year-into-his-presidency-signs-of-price-drops-at-trump-hotels/2018/01/23/87df2532-ff94-11e7-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html

Even at Trump Tower occupancy dropped . The condo owners don't like all the secret service checks .

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/443529-trump-tower-occupancy-rate-drops

There is more evidence of this on the web if you care to check and stop listening to Jerry Nadler's bleating .

Yes, Tom, Trump loses money being President. He always has lost money, no matter what deal he has made. Thus, his sly and not-so-sly greediness now and in the past. He didn't inherit any financial acumen from his father.

this is so comical . Trump lost money being President . I used to travel down the Hudson River Parkway to downtown NYC . Luxury Apartments with the Trump name lined the route . Now all of them have removed Trump's name . Retail stores stopped selling Trump brand merchandize . He lost NBC 's airing of Miss USA . Rates at Trump hotels dropped since his Presidency .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-year-into-his-presidency-signs-of-price-drops-at-trump-hotels/2018/01/23/87df2532-ff94-11e7-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html

Even at Trump Tower occupancy dropped . The condo owners don't like all the secret service checks .

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/443529-trump-tower-occupancy-rate-drops

There is more evidence of this on the web if you care to check and stop listening to Jerry Nadler's bleating .

You make a great and compelling case for a rich guy chasing those dollars, because that's what a rich guy does. The fact he is president is pretty secondary to him, because it's just another way to promote his brand for profits, and lets face it, his brand NEEDS an infusion of cash and taxpayers are as good a cash cow as you can get, bar none!

I have no idea why it would be OK to waste government money on a two week vacation to Hawaii but not OK to supposedly waste government money while on government business. That's a rather strange approach.

Obama's vacations paid by taxpayers didn't put money in his pocket, a difference you ignore since the dufus has spent a third of the time where he can get cash into his businesses. or profit as capitalists call it.


As to Pence, if you read the article then you found that he did not make the two night stay in order to benefit Trump. Do you really believe that Trump sat down with Pence and said, "I'm sending you over to Ireland for two nights so you can stay in one of my hotels. That way I can make a couple of grand off the government." Don't you think that's kind of far-fetched? If Trump wanted to make money off the government, why wouldn't he simply keep his presidential salary?

You could be right here, maybe it was Pence's idea to kiss the dufus a$$! Either way it's a profit for the dufus at taxpayer expense, and brownie points for Pence. Sorry but not far fetched at all given the outcome, MO'MONEY for the dufus.

You could be right here, maybe it was Pence's idea to kiss the dufus a$$! Either way it's a profit for the dufus at taxpayer expense, and brownie points for Pence. Sorry but not far fetched at all given the outcome, MO'MONEY for the dufus.
From JL's link: Marc Short, Pence’s chief of staff, told reporters aboard Air Force Two earlier that the decision to stay at the Trump property was made at the president’s “suggestion”.

Look, hating the rich because they are rich isn't right, either.....not a fan of Class Warfare......The "Lower Class" will never be in a position to grab all the riches of the "Rich".....this is Marxist theory and it has never worked.....look at all the multi-millionaires in communist China......We can not expect to destroy all rich people for the gain of the Middle Class or poor.....this stuff is Biblical and it was here long before us and will remain long after we are gone!

Look, hating the rich because they are rich isn't right, either.....not a fan of Class Warfare......The "Lower Class" will never be in a position to grab all the riches of the "Rich".....this is Marxist theory and it has never worked.....look at all the multi-millionaires in communist China......We can not expect to destroy all rich people for the gain of the Middle Class or poor.....this stuff is Biblical and it was here long before us and will remain long after we are gone!
"Hating the rich"???? How do you know I'm not one of them? What happens to that wealth when they die?

Yes, Tom, Trump loses money being President. He always has lost money, no matter what deal he has made. Thus, his sly and not-so-sly greediness now and in the past. He didn't inherit any financial acumen from his father.

So he built a multi-billion dollar business by LOSING money? Where did you get your MBA?

TDS. You really need to get some help with that.


Obama's vacations paid by taxpayers didn't put money in his pocket, a difference you ignore since the dufus has spent a third of the time where he can get cash into his businesses. or profit as capitalists call it.

Oh. OK, I think I get it now. It's alright to take vacations with taxpayer money and thus waste taxpayer money (especially if you're last name is Obama), but not OK to have a government official spend a night in a hotel and make a profit off of government business. Well yes, that makes perfectly good sense. So glad you explained that.

So he built a multi-billion dollar business by LOSING money? Where did you get your MBA?

TDS. You really need to get some help with that.
My M isn't a BA.

Oh, he's not poor. He's cheated and stolen from and underpaid and not paid many people in order to keep a great part of his money. If he'd carefully invested instead of losing money on all those ill-managed start-ups, he'd be a lot richer than he is now. Oh, well. He'll be history soon.

Oh, he's not poor. He's cheated and stolen from and underpaid and not paid many people in order to keep a great part of his money. If he'd carefully invested instead of losing money on all those ill-managed start-ups, he'd be a lot richer than he is now. Oh, well. He'll be history soon.

I can handle why people don't like Trump. Heck, I don't like him, but it doesn't help your cause when you just start throwing around baseless charges. First you make the charge that he lost money all his life which is plainly absurd. Then you have to backtrack and suggest he stole money, cheated employees, and so forth. Just throwing around accusations in the vain hope that one might actually stick is what's wrong with the dem party now. The truth is that he has made a boatload of money over the past decades by making smart business decisions. Was he dishonest in some ways? I imagine he was, just like we can say the same about Mr. Obama who you loved with great passion. If you want to have some standards, then I would hope you would apply them across the board.


If he'd carefully invested instead of losing money on all those ill-managed start-ups, he'd be a lot richer than he is now.

You have no idea if that is true or not. It is complete conjecture. Wild guesswork.

You have no idea if that is true or not. It is complete conjecture. Wild guesswork.
"Donald Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/20/business/ap-us-gop-2016-trump-cautious-deal-maker-glance.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1). But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion."
https://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

Here's a list of ten of his businesses that failed:
https://www.toptenz.net/10-of-donald-trumps-business-that-completely-failed.php

He stiffed contractors and underpays employees. (Why do you think he hires illegal immigrants -- so he doesn't have to pay them much.) --
https://fortune.com/2016/10/08/donald-trump-taxes-contractors/

"You know, the truth is I have a lot of illegals working for me in Miami,” he told them, using the term for undocumented immigrants those in the meeting found offensive. “You know in Miami, my golf course is tended by all these Hispanics — if it wasn’t for them my lawn wouldn’t be the lawn it is; it’s the best lawn,” Pacheco recalled Trump saying.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/1_11_2016_6_16.html#ixzz5zcz0FC69

[QUOTE]"Donald Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion."
https://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donal...p-index-funds/

Here's a list of ten of his businesses that failed:
https://www.toptenz.net/10-of-donald...ely-failed.php

He stiffed contractors and underpays employees. (Why do you think he hires illegal immigrants -- so he doesn't have to pay them much.) --
https://fortune.com/2016/10/08/donal...s-contractors/


Well done! You have started dealing with facts.

To the first point, HC claimed DT started with 14 mil in 1975. If he was worth 4 bil in 2015, then that's a growth of about 28,500%, which is pretty doggone good I would think. He, of course, claims he is worth much more than 4 bil.

I'm sure he had businesses that failed. That seems to be part of the process. When I've shown a net worth increase over 20,000%, I'll get with him and let him know how foolish that is.

Sorry, but your third article is just second hand conjecture. Nothing of substance is in the article. If Trump had ever publicly acknowledged the hiring of illegal aliens, he would have been prosecuted. It is illegal.

He's lied, cheated, and stolen to make some of that profit. So Christian of him.... Oh yeah, he's a baby Christian

Did you read about the businesses that failed? Stoopid. Greasy steak sold in black gift boxes through The Sharper Image??? The quest for urine samples to create vitamins??? You just can't make this stuff up!

As for the third link, there are more like that.

He's lied, cheated, and stolen to make some of that profit. So Christian of him.... Oh yeah, he's a baby Christian

Are you as equally offended by Mr. Obama's lying? I'd really like to hear you answer that one. Are you?

I've never suggested Mr. Trump was a Christian.


Did you read about the businesses that failed? Stoopid. Greasy steak sold in black gift boxes through The Sharper Image??? The quest for urine samples to create vitamins??? You just can't make this stuff up!


How many businesses have you started? Probably about as many as I have.


As for the third link, there are more like that.

You mean second-hand gossip column material like that one?

He's lied, cheated, and stolen to make some of that profit. So Christian of him.... Oh yeah, he's a baby Christian

Did you read about the businesses that failed? Stoopid. Greasy steak sold in black gift boxes through The Sharper Image??? The quest for urine samples to create vitamins??? You just can't make this stuff up!

As for the third link, there are more like that.

Firstly, noone should get judgemental about someone's professed beliefs since we all love to call others hypocrites.
Secondly, there is one born every minute, have you been to see the egress yet?
Thirdly, some businesses are less kosher than others. In the Trump family this appears to be particularly so.


I can go to the supermarket and buy greasy steak or I can order it online, it really depends on how big a fool I am today. It is true that Trump has more failed business ventures than I have, but then noone gave me a start of a million dollars but I was instilled to tell the truth and thus I may not succeed often

Are you as equally offended by Mr. Obama's lying? I'd really like to hear you answer that one. Are you?
Trump's up to at least 6000 since taking office.


I've never suggested Mr. Trump was a Christian.
Many conservatives believe he is one.


How many businesses have you started? Probably about as many as I have.
Three.

Trump's up to at least 6000 since taking office.

Evasive as always. You dodged the question. Disappointing. Courage is required here.


Many conservatives believe he is one.


Just like many liberals believe Mr. Obama was a Christian. What's your point?

As to businesses, I started two. Neither was successful.

it doesn't matter

Evasive as always. You dodged the question. Disappointing. Courage is required here.

As to businesses, I started two. Neither was successful.
Why are you obsessed with Obama? At least you don't mention Hillary in every post now, thank goodness.

Mine were successful in that I served the needs of many. And no, I didn't make tons of money. My businesses were in the business of helping children succeed and helping adults get back on their feet.

Why are you obsessed with Obama? At least you don't mention Hillary in every post now, thank goodness.

Very disappointing that you won't answer such a simple question. My obsession, if you want to call it that, is with applying moral standards consistently, and I had hoped you would. Still, everyone gets to make their own choices, so that's fine.

Hope everyone has a good evening.

Very disappointing that you won't answer such a simple question. My obsession, if you want to call it that, is with applying moral standards consistently, and I had hoped you would. Still, everyone gets to make their own choices, so that's fine.

Hope everyone has a good evening.
I'm obsessed with Obama? I've rarely mentioned him and only in response to you. You must have me confused with someone else.

Oh, yeah. It's bedtime in your neck of the woods. Sleep tight!

I'm obsessed with Obama? I've rarely mentioned him and only in response to you.

I don't know if you are obsessed with him or not. I asked a simple question which you consistently refuse to answer. I think I know why.

I don't know if you are obsessed with him or not. I asked a simple question which you consistently refuse to answer. I think I know why.
I thought you went to bed.

You know why I REFUSE to answer? Pray tell why. And I have never extolled his virtues here.

Go, Bill Weld, go!!!!

Donald Trump, as a businessman, tended to perform his tasks as a businessman, not an investor! He chose to gamble more boldly than those that play with damn Index Funds! As a businessman, a builder, a developer, he put people to work....a lot of people! And, you know what, he has continued putting people to work as POTUS: In fact, he has put one hell of a lot of people. Now, Trump is no saint....and I, myself, am not a saint, either.

But to those that choose to go boldly into the world as Trump has, to those that don't play it safe, to those that show some moxie to go out there and put it all on the line, to those that WORK WITHOUT A NET, I must admire those people: When Obama falsely said "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT". I say: Oh yeah, look at Trump! He built it and he was shrewd enough to grow it.

What is it with the left and their continual TEARING DOWN of men of accomplishment? Are all rich men evil? Or only select rich men? What makes a man inherently evil because he made money in his profession? I am not into condemning people who succeed. And I am TOTALLY AGAINST condemning SELECT people who succeed. Why isn't the left condemning ALL people who succeed or who are rich? Why isn't the left condemning the Cooks, Gates, Buffets, Bloombergs, and damned SOROS? Its because they have a narrative to fill and a "SELECT" group of rich are chosen, those from the RIGHT, to fill the narrative!

I'm a registered Republican, V7.

You know why I REFUSE to answer? Pray tell why. And I have never extolled his virtues here.


At least you are acknowledging that you refuse to answer. I guess that's progress of some sort.

Donald Trump, as a businessman, tended to perform his tasks as a businessman, not an investor! He chose to gamble more boldly than those that play with damn Index Funds! As a businessman, a builder, a developer, he put people to work....a lot of people! And, you know what, he has continued putting people to work as POTUS: In fact, he has put one hell of a lot of people. Now, Trump is no saint....and I, myself, am not a saint, either.

But to those that choose to go boldly into the world as Trump has, to those that don't play it safe, to those that show some moxie to go out there and put it all on the line, to those that WORK WITHOUT A NET, I must admire those people: When Obama falsely said "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT". I say: Oh yeah, look at Trump! He built it and he was shrewd enough to grow it.

What is it with the left and their continual TEARING DOWN of men of accomplishment? Are all rich men evil? Or only select rich men? What makes a man inherently evil because he made money in his profession? I am not into condemning people who succeed. And I am TOTALLY AGAINST condemning SELECT people who succeed. Why isn't the left condemning ALL people who succeed or who are rich? Why isn't the left condemning the Cooks, Gates, Buffets, Bloombergs, and damned SOROS? Its because they have a narrative to fill and a "SELECT" group of rich are chosen, those from the RIGHT, to fill the narrative!

The left has nothing against rich guys, we just know a lot more about HOW they got rich and stayed that way so we don't just lavish praise and wild eyed adulations on them for simply being aggressive and ruthlessly focused on pursuits of wealth. None of them are saints so why sit them atop a pedestal and worship at the alter?

One need only go back to the start of the industrial age and see how it was actually built to know the REAL toll on humans who did the work that made those profits. You could probably relate from your own experience with the worker/boss relationship to glean an understanding how big Biz works. I don't see how that reality can be put aside to whole endorse some of those tactics and strategies that puts workers so far down the respect scale and markets those rich guys as gods to be worshipped and obeyed.

As auto workers are on strike at least acknowledge the struggles the ordinary people face still. Or at least look around at your fellow workers who have been beat down after years of toil, who make you engineer types look good, and the boss rich. Obviously I wasn't ALWAYS an engineer type, nor EVER lost my appreciation for those day in day out REAL workers.

You know, the ones who fought for years to be able to take a shower AFTER work.

The left has nothing against rich guys, we just know a lot more about HOW they got rich and stayed that way

I don't think most liberals have any idea of how people become rich. Most of them do it through long days, hard work, and working smart.


As auto workers are on strike at least acknowledge the struggles the ordinary people face still. Or at least look around at your fellow workers who have been beat down after years of toil, who make you engineer types look good, and the boss rich. Obviously I wasn't ALWAYS an engineer type, nor EVER lost my appreciation for those day in day out REAL workers.

It is interesting to me how most liberals seem to think that they are the only ones who ever had to struggle. My wife and I pinched pennies for many years. She was a part-time bookkeeper and full-time mom. I was a school teacher and worked part-time at Walmart. We knew quite well what it was like to struggle. Most conservatives I know would say the same thing.

You talk about "beaten down fellow workers" in the same paragraph as auto workers? You mean the ones who retire at 60 with nice pensions?

I don't think most liberals have any idea of how people become rich. Most of them do it through long days, hard work, and working smart.

Obviously YOU don't know either, and as always my conservative right wing friend, fall back on those old divisive talking points. I don't expect you to know the laws and loopholes made for the rich guys, but sad you don't find those answers for yourself being the hard working person you are, before you claim what liberals don't know.

I have already given you a clue posts ago in another thread about tax breaks to allow companies to mitigate the costs of closing American plants and build new ones in other counties. If you followed that up you could be rather surprised how much you DON'T know.


It is interesting to me how most liberals seem to think that they are the only ones who ever had to struggle. My wife and I pinched pennies for many years. She was a part-time bookkeeper and full-time mom. I was a school teacher and worked part-time at Walmart. We knew quite well what it was like to struggle. Most conservatives I know would say the same thing.

You talk about "beaten down fellow workers" in the same paragraph as auto workers? You mean the ones who retire at 60 with nice pensions?

There you go again with that liberals meme again when ALL of us know about hard work and struggle pinching pennies, and working more than one job for most our adult lives and why begrudges those auto workers their hard work and EARNED benefits? Did they not take pay cuts and reduced benefits when the company was struggling? May be you should look that up before you put them down.

I continue to wonder how such a smart hard working fellow like you could be so ill informed, but so radically critical.

There you go again with that liberals meme again when ALL of us know about hard work and struggle pinching pennies, and working more than one job for most our adult lives and why begrudges those auto workers their hard work and EARNED benefits? All of us know? I would agree with that. I thought that was what I was saying. Your original comment was to the effect that only liberals experience that.


Did they not take pay cuts and reduced benefits when the company was struggling? May be you should look that up before you put them down.

I continue to wonder how such a smart hard working fellow like you could be so ill informed, but so radically critical.

If you are trying to get me to feel sorry for UAW members, you'll need to work a lot harder.

As to the discussion of wealthy people, your original comment was, "we don't just lavish praise and wild eyed adulation on them for simply being aggressive and ruthlessly focused on pursuits of wealth." I like to point out that most wealthy people I know are not "ruthlessly focused on the pursuit of wealth". You make it sound like they are all a bunch of immoral crooks. I was objecting to that caricature. If you want to point out tax breaks which should not be there, then fine, but it's the idea that all wealthy people are crooks that is wrong.

Your perception of what I wrote is as usual far short of my actual words in both cases of rich people, and UAW workers. Don't know how to correct that, and it's dificult to debate such complex issues, while having to explain the focus and the nuances you don't seem to grasps at first read. I'll try to clear that up in the future, but must add that I get the impression union workers are held in disdain by you. Am I right?

but must add that I get the impression union workers are held in disdain by you. Am I right?

To quote Tal, "Your perception of what I wrote is as usual far short of my actual words.. Don't know how to correct that, and it's difficult to debate such complex issues, while having to explain the focus and the nuances you don't seem to grasps at first read. I'll try to clear that up in the future." In other words, I didn't say a negative word about the UAW. I simply said I don't feel sorry for them. That is a million miles away from disdaining them.

As to my perceptions of your views supposedly falling far short, I'll just quote your earlier statement yet again. "we don't just lavish praise and wild eyed adulation on them for simply being aggressive and ruthlessly focused on pursuits of wealth."

Now you feel free to explain the "focus and nuances" of that statement, especially the underlined part, that I don't seem to get. If you are saying that, at times, people have indeed been ruthless in their pursuit of wealth, then we can certainly agree on that statement, but you seem to be saying that such a ruthless pursuit of wealth is typical of all wealthy people. Now that would include the Clintons and Obamas who are all quite wealthy, and I know for certain you are not making a negative reference to them, so I can hardly believe that that is what you meant.

...and it's dificult to debate such complex issues, while having to explain the focus and the nuances you don't seem to grasps at first read. I'll try to clear that up in the future,...

You're not the only one with that problem. He seems to see things in a kind of literal surface way. It's tiresome to have to keep explaining.

That is why I asked about what I took as disdain toward union workers because you didn't feel sorry for them just to clarify MY understanding of your words. I didn't want to assume even if I appeared judgemental, or overly provative. Just my way as you already know, but nothing PERSONAL intended. In full disclosure I am a union worker and been through many concessionary contracts with the company when they were hit with hard times and foregone with wage hikes for benefits and conditions.

If I sounded EMPATHETIC to my union brothers it's from a shared understanding of their situation. Yeah rich guys almost have to be ruthless and if you had peeps working during those early days of industry, they would agree with the lousy conditions and tactics they went through, and yes I am from a VERY long line of those kinds of workers.

No I didn't wait until 60 to take those nice retirement benefits because I started pretty darn early in a steel mill. Still pinched pennies and worked extra jobs. Just like the rest of my peeps. I know hard work as well as you do for sure. I have much empathy for hard HONEST workers that never took the penitentiary short cut.

Empathy is not the same as feeling sorry or having pity! Especially if you have been there and done that.

No I didn't wait until 60 to take those nice retirement benefits because I started pretty darn early in a steel mill. Still pinched pennies and worked extra jobs. Just like the rest of my peeps. I know hard work as well as you do for sure. I have much empathy for hard HONEST workers that never took the penitentiary short cut.

I feel the same way. Well said!!

I retired at 64 only because I had basically run out of gas. I no longer had the energy to do my job the way it needed to be done. I don't regret it. God had other things for me so I'm good to go.

I left the mills at 48, burned out to be quite honest, but I have to tell you that my next job was the best one I could hope for, changing diapers and cooking for my grandson, and new baby girl grand daughter while the wife and daughter worked. They are pretty self sufficient now, but call the old guy often, which is a thrill in itself. I count my blessings DAILY, and am grateful as all get out for the success I have had and all those young people who thanked me for the love and effort to show them a good path. Some worked out better than others and lost a few heartbreakers along the way, so forgive me if I'm hardcore and unyielding sometimes as I have seen a lot of the best and worse of us.

I just want a world my kids and theirs can have the chance to survive and thrive. Is that asking too much? Don't answer, the old bones still have some push in them, and the least I can do is do what was done for me by MY peeps. They never quit and never gave up. I don't intend to do less.

I look forward to trading stories and butting heads my friend, and if they dare laugh at two old guffs rolling in the grass, that their problem, not ours.

I just want a world my kids and theirs can have the chance to survive and thrive. Is that asking too much? Don't answer, the old bones still have some push in them, and the least I can do is do what was done for me by MY peeps. They never quit and never gave up. I don't intend to do less.

I think we have that world now, but I understand what you're saying. I have two kids in their early 30's and one step-son who is 42. That's why I hate deficit spending. That's why I hate the prevailing attitude on waiting to fix Social Security until it's hopelessly broken. And like you, I honor my parents, though they are both with the Lord now. My dad's first real job was working 65 hours a week for 12 bucks, so I don't think I have the option of complaining and whining. Truth is, we really have it good. I think you would agree with that.


I look forward to trading stories and butting heads my friend, and if they dare laugh at two old guffs rolling in the grass, that their problem, not ours.

That made me laugh. It has to happen someday!!

BTW, when do you plan on doing something about this blasted hot weather???

Gentlemen, and Wondergirl: Nice see that our differences are mendable.....nothing we say on here is meant to hurt anyone's feelings and I think we are all "passionate" about what we believe and what we say. This wonderful politics stuff is something else: It always brings the best, or worst, out in people.....and its guaranteed to be entertaining. The U.S. is still an experiment and the experiment works pretty well.....I think we are way ahead of the curve compared to anyone else in this old world....but that doesn't mean that we know it all or shouldn't co-op a good idea and implement it as our own if it comes along.

I am not in "awe" of the rich but I do respect their personal drive.....its admirable. I am in "awe" of something, though: The debating skills of the ladies and gentlemen on this site! Do you realize this is better than being in Toastmasters! You guys are incredible! And you defend your positions like nobody's business!

I do feel the sense of urgency about not allowing anyone on the planet "beat us" by whatever description that entails: The U.S. doesn't survive a getting beat"/failure scenario: There are a BUNCH of people and nations out there that don't want us to survive and will go to any lengths to end us.....Winning, for us, ensures survival as a nation....failure is not an option.

Let me make this very clear: I have ALL THE RESPECT IN THIS WORLD FOR BLUE COLLAR WORKERS, Union or no Union. I have admiration for this breed...my Daddy was a professional Welder and he toiled and tasked like there was no tomorrow! Man never took a vacation and inspired me to no end! I consider myself no better than anyone and, in fact, much lesser than quite a few! I have to work with both Union and non-Union and I know hard work, as well, and, I can tell you this: These people work like hell! I maybe have known a couple of legitimate slackers in my going on 31 years in the industry.....and, believe me, the slackers will end up weeding themselves out: Nobody puts up with it, including fellow members.....By and large, I have found the Unions police themselves quite well: If someone/some worker is a bum, the Union is less inclined to back them up or is certainly not enthusiastic about backing them up. By and large, I have found Union workers to be pretty patriotic about buying American, which is another subject near and dear to me. Unions do tend to be bureaucratic as heck, so they need some refining in that arena, if you ask me.

V7, I'm known here as WG!!!! (easier to type)

I never belonged to a union. My husband was a CWA member (Western Electric/AT&T/Lucent) and had good things to say about it back in the day. He dropped out of the U of Illinois, and received great training at Western Electric so that he eventually became a senior 5ESS installer. (Don't ask me what that means.) His pension and my library one keep us fed and housed.

The New York Times, once an honorable newspaper, runs a completely bogus story concerning a supposed sexual incident involving a young Brett Kavanaugh. Several leading democrat presidential contenders, including Warren, Harris, and Beto, immediately issued a call for his impeachment. Sadly amazing. I can't imagine an America with one of those individuals as president. There is still such a thing as justice.

Did you mean this story?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/us/politics/kavanaugh-fbi.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_NN_p_20190917&section=topNews?campaign_id=9&instance_id=12433&segment_id=17077&user_id=4fda7a71dac2f5f1434969268de5c8c3&regi_id=91599845tion=topNews



The
bureau pledged to look into the Ramirez allegations (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/us/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-inquiry.html?module=inline)
, but Justice Kavanaugh’s detractors pointed to the Coons letter as evidence that her claims were given short shrift, and that corroborating witnesses were ignored. The F.B.I. declined to comment on Monday, but pointed to Mr. Wray’s testimony last year before Congress, where he defended the bureau’s handling of the supplemental investigation into Justice Kavanaugh, noting that it had been directed by the White House, which had asked for a narrow inquiry. Under standard protocol, the bureau responds to background investigation requests from the White House, not members of Congress.

More corruption and obstruction by the dufus?

No, but this one. "The New York Times was reeling on Monday after its Opinion section fumbled a high-profile story about an allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, drawing widespread criticism and condemnation of the newspaper."

When CNN says the Times "fumbled" a story, then that is significant. Much worse, however, is the eagerness of the dem candidates to jump on the story and call for an impeachment of Kavanaugh when they had no idea of the veracity of the story. It is nauseating and politics at its ugliest.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/media/new-york-times-kavanaugh/index.html

Politics during silly season, trying to get elected. Anything goes. What's new? I'm more nauseated by the WH interference in the confirmation investigation. which I called a sham when it was current.

Anything goes.

What a statement.

Lewandowski's outrageous behavior today should have been cited for contempt and thrown in jail. At least overnight before Barr DOJ freed him as soon as they knew.

Nadler was ineffective. At least the public could discern that the Democrats were seeking the truth while the Republicans delayed, stalled, and obfuscated every chance they could. It was a disgraceful performance. Now up to 16, the number of Republicans leaving Congress by next election. The shame is getting to them.

What a statement.

Anything does go and Exhibit A is the words, actions and behavior of the dufus to get elected, and after he was elected. If that doesn't nauseate you, I honestly don't see how a badly edited NY times story could.



Lewandowski's outrageous behavior today should have been cited for contempt and thrown in jail. At least overnight before Barr DOJ freed him as soon as they knew.

Nadler was ineffective. At least the public could discern that the Democrats were seeking the truth while the Republicans delayed, stalled, and obfuscated every chance they could. It was a disgraceful performance. Now up to 16, the number of Republicans leaving Congress by next election. The shame is getting to them.

I disagree a bit here as a clear case to obstruct a congressional investigation was quite evident, and the WH, and Lewandowski are co conspirators in that obstruction. The process of law often does not yeild instant results, but putting together a case is why lawyers charge the big bucks. Contempt may be the least of Lewandowski's worries.

Anything does go and Exhibit A is the words, actions and behavior of the dufus to get elected, and after he was elected. If that doesn't nauseate you, I honestly don't see how a badly edited NY times story could.

If, as you said, "anything goes", then why are you upset?

If you can justify six dem candidates for pres calling for the impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court justice on the basis of a pathetic, misleading article, then I guess "anything goes' pretty much describes it.

Copied the following off of Facebook. Pretty well summarizes it.

"Does anyone else find it strange—even comical—that the Democrat questioners are concerned about a meeting that wound up not occurring between Lewandowski and Sessions, yet are are completely OK with an extremely inappropriate meeting that did take place between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch aboard an airplane. ������ Where exactly is the continuity of thought?"

Good question.

I disagree a bit here as a clear case to obstruct a congressional investigation was quite evident, and the WH, and Lewandowski are co conspirators in that obstruction. The process of law often does not yeild instant results, but putting together a case is why lawyers charge the big bucks. Contempt may be the least of Lewandowski's worries.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I think we're saying the same thing. Let's hope that contempt is the least of his worries.

I saw and read about the Congressional Hearing today: The TRUTH was not the objective of this hearing, not at all. This was simply about occupying air space to prevent Trump from occupying it...that is it. The Democrats have nothing on Trump, whatsoever....now, even if Trump is the biggest fetid festering sewer of a man possible, but you have ZERO in terms of evidence to continue the persecution, at some point you just have to stop chasing and ACTING like you are pursuing justice: Clearly you aren't pursuing Justice.

just a good ole Salem witchhunt, problem is they treed a witch

Lewboy ALREADY testified in the Mueller Report under oath to what the dufus did which in layman's terms was an attempt to obstruct the special counsel investigation by the dufus. What we got in the hearing was LEWBOY admitting, also under oath, he could not answer any questions before the congress because the WH told him not to. That was my point of disagreement with you Athos.

Sorry Vac, and JL, not just because you didn't read, or understand what you read, in the report, but you also missed the pertinent point that was before you.

I think I would just have made Lewboy read what he told Mueller though, and still slapped him with contempt, which was why they served him with a subpoena instead of asking him to appear voluntarily. They still can. As well as hold the other two witnesses subpoenaed to appear but didn't show, in contempt.

That's just the parts I saw.

Sorry Vac, and JL, not just because you didn't read, or understand what you read, in the report, but you also missed the pertinent point that was before you.

I think I would just have made Lewboy read what he told Mueller though, and still slapped him with contempt, which was why they served him with a subpoena instead of asking him to appear voluntarily. They still can. As well as hold the other two witnesses subpoenaed to appear but didn't show, in contempt.

When six dem candidates behave despicably, it just goes down to "anything goes". When there is a suspicion of wrong-doing by Trump, then it must be pursued and hunted down, but not with Lynch and Clinton on the tarmac. Why the difference?

The dufus has engaged in possible criminal acts. Lynch recused herself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. and turned the thing over to the FBI. Of course I don't expect you to understand the nuance of law, which sort of explains your hate of HC over Bengahzi, that was investigated to death by repubs with NO findings. You didn't understand that either. It's a false equivalency.

Back to Lewboy

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4817196/house-judiciary-counsel-berke-questions-lewandowski

I can deal with anything goes, why can't you?

The dufus has engaged in possible criminal acts. Lynch recused herself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. and turned the thing over to the FBI. Of course I don't expect you to understand the nuance of law, which sort of explains your hate of HC over Bengahzi, that was investigated to death by repubs with NO findings. You didn't understand that either. It's a false equivalency.

So it's not possible that Lynch and Clinton engaged in a criminal act? That meeting, so far as I know, was never investigated, and it certainly is a great big zero as far as you are concerned. She recused herself after it became known that she met IN PRIVATE for nearly an hour with the husband of a person under active FBI investigation which absolutely stinks to high heavens.

And "nuance of law"? What law school did you attend? That's what bothers me about this mess. The "dufus" has possibly engaged in criminal acts, but all of the democrats are innocent because, after all, those mysterious "nuances of law", that one must evidently be a real genius to understand, gets them off the hook.



I can deal with anything goes, why can't you?


But you are not dealing with it!! You are complaining and griping that Trump must be brought to justice, so plainly your law of "anything goes" only applies to democrats that you agree with, also known as blatant hypocrisy.

You know the rules! You holler the dems are so ruthless, then show the evidence. Now excuse me while we gather our evidence to get your criminal dufus! You had your chances, and you FAILED! What are you going to do? Torture me until I confess my sins or something?

You know the rules! You holler the dems are so ruthless, then show the evidence. Now excuse me while we gather our evidence to get your criminal dufus! You had your chances, and you FAILED! What are you going to do? Torture me until I confess my sins or something?

You could liken these hearings to the Spanish Inquisitions, obviously those holding the hearings have a fixed view and they don't want to hear anything that offers a different truth, even the truth that what they allege didn't happen. This is like employing the rack, ultimately you will have to execute the witness

...obviously those holding the hearings have a fixed view and they don't want to hear anything that offers a different truth, even the truth that what they allege didn't happen.


There is no different truth. The truth alleged has already been established. It's all in the Mueller Report.

The hearings are for the benefit of the public who haven't read the report. Their purpose was served when Lewandowski admitted that Trump asked him to obstruct justice when he (Trump) told him to bring the message to Sessions and fire him if he couldn't get Sessions to listen.

Lewandowski didn't last long when confronted with the skilled questioner in the second half who was not limited to 5 minutes.

You know the rules! You holler the dems are so ruthless, then show the evidence. Now excuse me while we gather our evidence to get your criminal dufus! You had your chances, and you FAILED! What are you going to do? Torture me until I confess my sins or something?

Consistency, my friend. Perhaps what is needed is an insistence on at least some level of moral/legal/ethical behavior by those we pay to make decisions, no matter what party they affiliate with.

Agreed, start at the top, and work our way down.

Agreed, start at the top, and work our way down.


Yes, but were you saying that six years ago? I have noticed on this board that those who claim to be so upset with Trump cannot bring themselves to even acknowledge the many shortcomings of the Obama administration. It's as though there is a worship of those eight years that makes any criticism impossible, and that makes the complaining about Trump sound like the bleating of sheep. If a person has a genuine concern about ethics, then that person will be consistent in its application.

I have no wish to engage in your blast from the past criticisms when you have no evidence just speculation of what maybe happened, when we have current reality to contend with. Heck guy I don't even engage in critisizing past repub presidents let alone dem ones. I see it as pointless given HC and Bill and Obama have been investigated to death and no evidence or finding of wrongdoing is to be had. I mean 7 house investigations by repubs and you got nada. Decades of smears you got NADA. It's been 3 years now and you're so stuck in the past you ignore the facts TODAY. They are GONE, but guess who is here front and center breaking laws, rules, and morals left and right.

I mean Lewandowski admitted the WH was trying to end the Mueller investigation, and prevent testimony given in the Mueller report, to the congress, AND told the FBI to narrow the scope and time of the Kavanaugh investigation and what do you get from repubs? Nada, not a peep. Just old fashion political mudsling to kiss the butt of the guy you don't like, and held your nose to vote for.

We haven't even talked about the cruelty to immigrants you bible thumpers think is just great, or ignoring the mass shootings of women, kids in schools, or anywhere else, and feeding rich farmers money while he fights the easy to win trade wars, or assault on the homeless for being homeless. and you want to go back to the rightwing talking points for the last administration?

Dude you got to give me a break, until you study the Mueller Report, as well as you quote scriptures, and check your own consistency with morality and corruption before you dare jump on mine. You must be a bit cracked if you think I will even consider comparing Obama or HC to this lying cheating dufus so you will just have to be stuck in the past by yourself.

I have no wish to engage in your blast from the past criticisms when you have no evidence just speculation of what maybe happened, when we have current reality to contend with.


Etc., etc., etc. ...............................

This post says it all!!

when you have no evidence


The head of DOJ sat in a private conversation with the famous husband of a woman under active FBI investigation for nearly an hour, and then..surprise!! She gets let off the hook. That sure sounds like evidence to me.

Obama lied about the events leading to the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi. That this happened is beyond controversy.

The only thing we can be sure of is that you cannot bring yourself to say even the slightest whisper of criticism of a democrat.


We haven't even talked about the cruelty to immigrants you bible thumpers think is just great, or ignoring the mass shootings of women, kids in schools, or anywhere else, and feeding rich farmers money while he fights the easy to win trade wars, or assault on the homeless for being homeless. and you want to go back to the rightwing talking points for the last administration?

You are in fantasy land again. All your comments about cruelty to immigrants, mass shootings, rich farmers, etc. must have come from someone else. You haven't heard me cheapen any of those events. And once again you are back to name-calling such as "Bible thumpers". I always think that name calling is the last step for someone who has run out of facts.

You are in fantasy land again.

Do you, or do you not, believe that anyone who does not believe in Jesus will spend eternity in hell suffering punishment for all time? This includes babies and children and people who never heard of Jesus. Your answer, please.

The head of DOJ sat in a private conversation with the famous husband of a woman under active FBI investigation for nearly an hour, and then..surprise!! She gets let off the hook. That sure sounds like evidence to me.

Lynch recused herself and kicked it to the FBI. The right thing to do and nowhere near Barr's no collusion no obstruction. Still haven't read the REPORT with actual accounts in it have you? That's what I thought, talking points as evidence doesn't cut it. Was that meeting as egregious as the WH narrowing the time and scope of the beer swilling, pants dropping drunk frat boy, SCOTUS nominee?


Obama lied about the events leading to the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi. That this happened is beyond controversy.

In your mind, he blamed it on a terrorist attack the following Monday after in the Rose Garden, clearing up the weekend fiasco with the intel. You make no reference to the 25 survivors who fought off the attack, or the many investigations that followed, including 7 repub house investigation that ended in NADA!


The only thing we can be sure of is that you cannot bring yourself to say even the slightest whisper of criticism of a democrat.

That's my prerogative, and I explained that already.

[?QUOTE]You are in fantasy land again. All your comments about cruelty to immigrants, mass shootings, rich farmers, etc. must have come from someone else. You haven't heard me cheapen any of those events. And once again you are back to name-calling such as "Bible thumpers". I always think that name calling is the last step for someone who has run out of facts.[/QUOTE]

It's not name calling if it's TRUE, and I referenced bible thumpers with a "S", meaning more than one. I have plenty of facts you either ignore or fail to acknowledge JL, and the Mueller Report is full of them. Read the thing and refute those facts why don't you but I acknowledge few citizens have read it, and that's a darn shame from that side of the political divide. I suspect the dufus and repubs take much solace from that fact.

Lynch recused herself and kicked it to the FBI. The right thing to do

No, the right thing to do would have been to have not even considered meeting with BC. Doing something completely unethical doesn't get cleaned up by having to let a subordinate make a decision that rightly was hers to make.


Was that meeting as egregious as the WH narrowing the time and scope of the beer swilling, pants dropping drunk frat boy,

Are you talking about Bill Clinton? As to Kavanaugh, there is not a shred of credible evidence he ever sexually assaulted anyone. That was not even alleged by Dr. Ford whose testimony was so full of holes it was pathetic, so your "pants dropping" comment is completely bogus, not that it matters since he is a conservative and therefore subject to being lied about repeatedly by the liberal crowd.


It's not name calling if it's TRUE, and I referenced bible thumpers with a "S", meaning more than one.

So name calling is OK as long as its plural??? What do you consider a "Bible thumper" to be?



I have plenty of facts you either ignore or fail to acknowledge JL, and the Mueller Report is full of them. Read the thing and refute those facts why don't you but I acknowledge few citizens have read it, and that's a darn shame from that side of the political divide. I suspect the dufus and repubs take much solace from that fact.

I know that Mueller said there was no collusion and was basically neutral on obstruction.

As to Benghazi, Obama sent his NSA on five Sunday morning news programs to say what he know to be untrue. Now that doesn't bother you since Obama was a dem and therefore he has license to do whatever. It's the doctrine of "anything goes".

No, the right thing to do would have been to have not even considered meeting with BC. Doing something completely unethical doesn't get cleaned up by having to let a subordinate make a decision that rightly was hers to make.

Did look so good, but was it as bad as Sessions being hounded by the dufus to unrecuse himself? Or sending a WH counsel and a butt boy to tell him to stop the investigations of him, and RUSSIA? You just ignore those FACTS.


Are you talking about Bill Clinton?

Was that humor or ignoring Kavanaugh's drunk behavior, or the dufus putting his fingers all over THAT investigation?



So name calling is OK as long as its plural???

It's NOT name calling if it's true! You might not like his decidedly unchristian behavior but you RELIGION VALUES TYPES support him any way, for right wing activist judges that will overturn the ungodly left wing agenda, and tax cuts that add trillions to the debt you hate, right?

Did look so good, but was it as bad as Sessions being hounded by the dufus to unrecuse himself? Or sending a WH counsel and a butt boy to tell him to stop the investigations of him, and RUSSIA? You just ignore those FACTS.

Easy answer. YES, it was every bit as bad and worse. She has a secret meeting with BC and just like that, HC gets off scott free.

You have evidence that Trump instructed Sessions to stop the investigation? I don't think so. He did want Sessions to not recuse himself, and he was entitled to his opinion, but I haven't heard of any substantial evidence that Sessions was told to get rid of Mueller.



Was that humor or ignoring Kavanaugh's drunk behavior, or the dufus putting his fingers all over THAT investigation?


Well, BC was the only one accused of assaulting women, being proven to have lied about having sex with a woman, and settling out of court with another one. As to Kavanaugh's drunken behavior, Obama smoked pot in college. I note that you have not allowed that to cause your support of Obama to waver. Why do you have a different standard for those two men? Would politics have anything to do with it?


It's NOT name calling if it's true! You might not like his decidedly unchristian behavior but you RELIGION VALUES TYPES support him any way, for right wing activist judges that will overturn the ungodly left wing agenda, and tax cuts that add trillions to the debt you hate, right?

Now you have hit on the difference between the two of us. I despise his budget deficits and his "decidedly unchristian behavior". I have no hesitation in criticizing Trump where I feel he is wrong. You, on the other hand, will never be able to bring yourself to say so much a single negative syllable about your beloved Mr. Obama. I know that's true, and so do you.

Pot relaxes. Alcohol removes inhibitions and makes a person aggressive. I'd much rather be at a frat party with everyone smoking pot than being there with a bunch of drunk guys who are trying to figure out how to get my clothes off.

Pot relaxes. Alcohol removes inhibitions. I'd much rather be at a frat party with everyone smoking pot than being there with a bunch of drunk guys who are trying to figure out how to get my clothes off.

If you think only drunk men try to figure out how to convince women to sleep with them, you are completely naive.

I've never smoked pot, but I doubt VERY seriously that it has become so popular because a lot of people feel the need to relax. Surely you don't believe that.

If you think only drunk men try to figure out how to convince women to sleep with them, you are completely naive.
Of course, all men do. It's the drunks that we have to be aware of and stay away from.

I've never smoked pot, but I doubt VERY seriously that it has become so popular because a lot of people feel the need to relax. Surely you don't believe that.
We aren't talking about its popularity. The topic is its effects on people. I'd rather spend an hour with a pot smoker than a drunk.

It's the drunks that we have to be aware of and stay away from.

Keep believing that if you want to. Your choice.


We aren't talking about its popularity. The topic is its effects on people. I'd rather spend an hour with a pot smoker than a drunk.

I think the guys at the drug rehab I work with would not agree with you about smoking pot to relax. People smoke pot to get high. But at any rate, I really don't think that has any impact on the discussion at hand other than to say that if you feel good about Obama smoking pot rather than drinking beer, which I imagine he did as well, then OK. Makes no sense to me, but it's not my belief so it doesn't have to.

The discussion was centered around the insulting and unprofessional article the NY Times wrote about Kavanaugh which turned out to be complete nonsense.

Keep believing that if you want to. Your choice.
How many pot smoking or drunk wimmin have you beaten off?

I think the guys at the drug rehab I work with would not agree with you about smoking pot to relax. People smoke pot to get high. But at any rate, I really don't think that has any impact on the discussion at hand other than to say that if you feel good about Obama smoking pot rather than drinking beer, which I imagine he did as well, then OK. Makes no sense to me, but it's not my belief so it doesn't have to.
We're not talking about sipping a brewski. We're talking about being drunk!!!

The discussion was centered around the insulting and unprofessional article the NY Times wrote about Kavanaugh which turned out to be complete nonsense.
Kavanaugh looks like and talks like a creep.

How many pot smoking or drunk wimmin have you beaten off?

???


We're not talking about sipping a brewski. We're talking about being drunk!!!

Who said otherwise? And we are also talking about getting high.


Kavanaugh looks like and talks like a creep.

Thank you for your objectivity. Good grief, what a judgmental statement. I never cease to be amazed at the lengths liberals will go to in order to defend Mr. Obama. It's absolutely amazing. He "looks like a creep", so no doubt he must be guilty. If someone said that about Obama you would have a fit.

???
That's what I figure

Who said otherwise? And we are also talking about getting high.
Comparing them. High lost to drunk.

Thank you for your objectivity. Good grief, what a judgmental statement. I never cease to be amazed at the lengths liberals will go to in order to defend Mr. Obama. It's absolutely amazing. He "looks like a creep", so no doubt he must be guilty. If someone said that about Obama you would have a fit.
I'm not a liberal. And I never dated Obama but did encounter far too many drunks like Kavanaugh during my dating years. He'd been drinking (to relax....) before his questioning.

Everyone: There is no way on God's green earth that dope should be legal....no way. Dope is conclusively proven to be a "Starter Drug" for many of the crack, cocaine, and meth users this world has to offer...there is no doubt that most of these "Graduates" to heavier drugs broke the ice, so to speak, with the good old harmless (my ) dope cigarette....dope RUINS LIVES! Its purely disgusting that states in these United States, have condoned the use of dope and consider it harmless fare, to be safer and "better" than alcohol. I don't drink and don't use dope either and can not understand the MANIA that people have for dope!

The dope heads are using the "Medical Marijuana" thing as a way to "break it into the mainstream" and legitimize it: The science behind "Medical Marijuana" is weaker that that of Global Warming! And what in hades makes people think that dope heads are not violent, that they are just "mello" people? This is simply not true! One major criminal psychologist said that the violent population of prisons are with people who have a very common thread amongst them: Want to know what that common thread is? All of these violent animals SMOKED DOPE!

The pseudo science trying to pretend to be real science is infuriating! Dope is bad! You can not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh&$/crap. you just can not! Bring me one person that legitimately can say "Yeah, my life really sucked up until I STARTED SMOKING MARIJUANA and, then, it got all better....Dope saved my life!" No, dope will ruin your life, no question about it!

The pseudo science trying to pretend to be real science is infuriating! Dope is bad! You can not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh&$/crap. you just can not! Bring me one person that legitimately can say "Yeah, my life really sucked up until I STARTED SMOKING MARIJUANA and, then, it got all better....Dope saved my life!" No, dope will ruin your life, no question about it!
I know several people who swear by it for back pain.

W.G.: And the Marijuana probably does help their back pain....and it probably does help people with Glaucoma pain.....as it probably help people with cancer feel better.....and, I swear to you, I am not talking about those people....far be it from me to pass judgement upon people in pain who want relief: I am talking about all of the other people who are using the MEDICAL MARIJAUNA TRAIN to get a free ride into legalizing a substance that they will simply smoke for pleasure only....a substance that leaves tracers in the body...a substance that is dangerous for the physicality of the human body in terms of knowing its long term effects...a substance that has been linked to violent criminal behavior by prison psychologist based on statistics.

I know a lot of people think Marijuana is an aphrodisiac that will help them get into women's pants, and that is why the perverts want it so bad (real POS bunch that needs good whipping, if you ask me)…..I am totally frustrated by the whole Dope Culture acceptance....its wrong, I know its wrong, and I just can't see how you can put perfume on a pig and call it anything other than a pig!

I'm not a liberal.


You've heard the old saying about if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?


And I never dated Obama but did encounter far too many drunks like Kavanaugh during my dating years. He'd been drinking (to relax....) before his questioning.

Once again, the "I'm not a liberal" person can hardly wait to come to the defense of Mr. Obama while not hesitating to slander Kavanaugh. That's why I'm convinced you are 100% liberal. It's plainly apparent.

It's not slander if it's true!

And when have I defended Obama????

what you have to decide here is not what is truth, but what are lies and misleading statements

It's not slander if it's true!

Referring to Kavanaugh as a drunk.


And when have I defended Obama????

Your entire line of argument that smoking pot is great but drinking alcohol is bad was a response to the "Obama smoked pot" statement from earlier.

Referring to Kavanaugh as a drunk.
His attitude and behavior in front of the Senate and on live TV certainly suggested that. Or emotional instability.

Referring to Kavanaugh as a drunk.

We have enough factual accounts and his own testimony to call him a drunk.


Your entire line of argument that smoking pot is great but drinking alcohol is bad was a response to the "Obama smoked pot" statement from earlier.

I think she was quite specific differentiating between drinkers, those that consume, and drunks those that consume to access. Applies to pot as well.

We have enough factual accounts and his own testimony to call him a drunk.


He did some excessive partying as a young person. If everyone who did that is a drunk, then most people are drunks. Sorry, but to call him a "drunk" is ridiculous.



I think she was quite specific differentiating between drinkers, those that consume, and drunks those that consume to access. Applies to pot as well.

What? Her whole point was that smoking pot is better than getting drunk. Pot smokers, she said, "relax", but drunks get aggressive towards women. I have no idea where you read that she did the differentiating you are referring to.

Perhaps this is one of those areas my experience gives me a great deal of insight into.

Perhaps this is one of those areas my experience gives me a great deal of insight into.

OK. You have had some experiences, so Kavanaugh must be guilty? Is that how it works now? Thank goodness we don't use that system of justice in America.

I assure you that you weren't the only one who partied as a young person.

Dope heads depend upon everyone thinking that smoking dope is O.K......it is not O.K. and despite what the idiotic states that have passed legalization think, in the MAJORITY of states in the United States, smoking dope is still ILLEGAL! So, dope smoking is not O.K. and it does not make you a better person....in fact, it doesn't make you BETTER at anything, at all. And, people that smoke dope SMELL TO HIGH HEAVEN WITH A FUNK THAT IS UNSHAKEABLE! Good lord, do dope heads stink with a particularly perculiar rancid "stank".

Go smoke dope and it will be found in your system several weeks down the road, especially in you hair follicles. We bust these idiots all the time in my industry using the "Hair Test"......Now, have a drink today, and you can not tell if you drank tomorrow......not defending drinking but facts are as they are.

I said I had insights not a crystal ball. It should disturb you that the WH squelched any real investigations to get a SCOTUS pick through. Why are you okay with that? If evidence is not looked at in the first place how do YOU claim him innocent of anything? One would think we take the time to get the truth out before we move someone to such a position. Now I realize the presumption of innocence in the rule of law, but I do not recognize the obstruction of pursuit of ANY evidence, for or against anyone.

You got something against getting the facts of the matter?

Talaniman: What is "insi"?

Talaniman: What is "insi"?

Clarify please.

Talaniman: No, you said it right, for some reason this computer cut-off you words.....strange!

No, I agree with you: Facts do matter and ALL the evidence needs presentation.....that is the way it was designed to work and that is the way it should work, our System of Justice....it is sacred and should be preserved at all costs.....no compromises.

That's why we need to dump this dufus. Not easy but like fishing, give him enough line to tire hisself out then reel him in. You fish?

the WH squelched any real investigations to get a SCOTUS pick through. Why are you okay with that? If evidence is not looked at in the first place how do YOU claim him innocent of anything?

Were you out of the country when the Senate held its hearing on Kavanaugh?

He is innocent until proven guilty. You have it backwards. Besides, the testimony against him was total nonsense, just like this recent NY Times article.

We won't know until a credible finding of fact is launched. Foolish and naïve to think the Kavanaugh hearings were credible, more a half a$$ thrown together appearance of one. Maybe it passed your sniff test, but you're still holding your nose from 2016, but it stunk up the whole system.

Innocent until proven guilty is a great law principle, but if you stop the process of proving then you break the law. Criminals use to whack the witnesses, or scare them off, but this dufus just calls them names and ignores them. He has plenty of appointed sycophants to do his dirty work.

So Hillary is fine because she when through a hearing, but Kavanaugh went through a hearing and is not fine. I wonder if the fact that one is a dem and one a repub has anything to do with your sense of legalities and fairness?

More of you're false equivalency arguments? The Clintons and Hillary in particular went through decades of repub mudslinging and investigations. 6 repub congressional hearing into Bengahzi and you got nothing? Come on JL, Kavanaugh had one lousy half a$$ investigation that the dufus squelched, and YOU call that equal?

You wingers crack me up sometimes.

6 repub congressional hearing into Bengahzi and you got nothing? Come on JL, Kavanaugh had one lousy half a$$ investigation that the dufus squelched, and YOU call that equal?

I wasn't referring to Benghazi. The only thing HC was guilty of there was absolute gross incompetence. I was talking about the toy email server she used to transmit confidential information which Comey, that great monument of impartial justice, said was a violation of the law but then chose not to prosecute. That, of course, after AG Lynch met secretly with HC's former pres husband for nearly an hour to talk about who knows what. You're fine with that whole stinking mess because, after all, she's a liberal dem.

Kavanaugh, on the other hand, was accused of assisting a friend in the sexual assault of Dr. Ford, a charge which any neutral, thinking person would have to conclude was completely void of evidence. Her story was as full of holes as swiss cheese. Even her own witnesses could not verify the story. It was a complete travesty of so-called justice. Any prosecutor attempting to bring that case to court would have been laughed to scorn.

So yeah, I guess you're right in saying it was a false equivalency. Clinton was guilty and there was no doubt about it, while Kavanaugh could be found guilty of nothing more than excessive partying as a teen. Unfortunately, as we have found out, he was drinking alcohol rather than merely smoking pot.

The only thing Kavanaugh is guilty of is being a conversative. That, in truth, is what you really don't like about him. If he was a liberal dem, he would have sailed through the hearings with no problems, and you know very well that's true.

You can defend the dufus and the other silver spoon in mouth privileged drunk frat boy all you want, and delude yourself into thinking the snake oil you bought is nectar of the gods, doesn't change the stink of almost everything about this administration's words, actions, or behavior at all.

Sorry guy, wallow in your own crap all by yourself. Oh darn there I go stooping to crass name calling again! Pass me what you're smoking so I can be loony too. What? You ain't smoking good dope? You just are naturally loony? Well heck why didn't you say so!

jlisenbe - Re your comment to tal - "You are in fantasy land again". Speaking about fantasy land......




Do you, or do you not, believe that anyone who does not believe in Jesus will spend eternity in hell suffering punishment for all time? This includes babies and children and people who never heard of Jesus. Your answer, please.

You can run, but you can't hide. We await your answer.

You can defend the dufus and the other silver spoon in mouth privileged drunk frat boy all you want, and delude yourself into thinking the snake oil you bought is nectar of the gods, doesn't change the stink of almost everything about this administration's words, actions, or behavior at all.

Sorry guy, wallow in your own crap all by yourself. Oh darn there I go stooping to crass name calling again! Pass me what you're smoking so I can be loony too. What? You ain't smoking good dope? You just are naturally loony? Well heck why didn't you say so!

No facts. No evidence. Just crude name calling. Sad. Defending Trump? He hasn't even been in the conversation.


"Do you, or do you not, believe that anyone who does not believe in Jesus will spend eternity in hell suffering punishment for all time? This includes babies and children and people who never heard of Jesus. Your answer, please."

You can run, but you can't hide. We await your answer.

The question has been answered on several occasions. I don't intend to waste anymore of my time with you on that. Go back...read carefully...comprehend. As I've told you before, if you will try that, you will profit from it. Perhaps it will be a new experience for you?

Better yet, read the Bible for yourself. Find your answers there.

You ignore facts and evidence so what's left besides name calling?

You ignore facts and evidence so what's left besides name calling?

Try making your case.

The question has been answered on several occasions. I don't intend to waste anymore of my time with you on that. Go back...read carefully...comprehend. As I've told you before, if you will try that, you will profit from it. Perhaps it will be a new experience for you?

Better yet, read the Bible for yourself. Find your answers there.


In that case, jisnbe I will recall it for you. I'm not surprised you avoid answering.

YES, you believe that babies and people who never heard of Jesus will spend eternity in a hell being tortured and punished for all time. You defend this by quoting the Bible which does not say that. No need to go over that. I've explained it to you more than once to no avail. That makes me think you are pleased with the idea.

Why do I bring it up again? Because such a bizarre belief reveals your thought process and how you process information. Like many others, you sublimate reason to your biases. This is typical of the core Trump group which includes Christian Evangelicals many of whom hold the same belief about hell. The correlation is instructive as both conclusions rely on non-rational approaches to issues.

Believing innocent children will roast forever in a fiery hell helps us to weigh your belief in your various expressed political/social positions against your truly sick belief in the torture of babies.

In that case, jisnbe I will recall it for you. I'm not surprised you avoid answering.

YES, you believe that babies and people who never heard of Jesus will spend eternity in a hell being tortured and punished for all time. You defend this by quoting the Bible which does not say that. No need to go over that. I've explained it to you more than once to no avail. That makes me think you are pleased with the idea.

Why do I bring it up again? Because such a bizarre belief reveals your thought process and how you process information. Like many others, you sublimate reason to your biases. This is typical of the core Trump group which includes Christian Evangelicals many of whom hold the same belief about hell. The correlation is instructive as both conclusions rely on non-rational approaches to issues.

Believing innocent children will roast forever in a fiery hell helps us to weigh your belief in your various expressed political/social positions against your truly sick belief in the torture of babies.

That does not represent my beliefs. Never said it. So again, "The question has been answered on several occasions. I don't intend to waste anymore of my time with you on that. Go back...read carefully...comprehend. As I've told you before, if you will try that, you will profit from it. Perhaps it will be a new experience for you?

Better yet, read the Bible for yourself. Find your answers there."

That does not represent my beliefs.

Excellent! That's great news. I'm glad you've changed.

I know what you said. You know what you said. Others may go back and discover for themselves. I have no need to.

I know what you said. You know what you said. Others may go back and discover for themselves. I have no need to.


"The question has been answered on several occasions. I don't intend to waste anymore of my time with you on that. Go back...read carefully...comprehend. As I've told you before, if you will try that, you will profit from it. Perhaps it will be a new experience for you?

Better yet, read the Bible for yourself. Find your answers there."

That does not represent my beliefs

Hmm, now I'm wondering. Did you have your fingers crossed when you said that? I think you had your fingers crossed. Just when I thought it was finished with your admission.


"The question has been answered on several occasions. I don't intend to waste anymore of my time with you on that. Go back...read carefully...comprehend. As I've told you before, if you will try that, you will profit from it. Perhaps it will be a new experience for you?

Now you repeated this. Are you retracting your admission?

How about this? Do you formally renounce the following statement?

To wit:
"UNBELIEVERS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS GOT TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT".

"Unbelievers", of course, would include children too young to understand and all people who ever lived that never heard of or believed in Jesus.

I was hoping you would finally see the absurdity of such a belief. Now I'm not sure you got it.

And again.

"The question has been answered on several occasions. I don't intend to waste anymore of my time with you on that. Go back...read carefully...comprehend. As I've told you before, if you will try that, you will profit from it. Perhaps it will be a new experience for you?

Better yet, read the Bible for yourself. Find your answers there."

Athos: You keep coming at jlisenbe about an interpretation of Biblical scriptures.....What about Democrat Muslims and their beliefs in Koran scriptures: Why don't the beliefs of Democrat Congressmen/women bother you so much....you are alluding the Bible as being something akin to a fairytale, right? That you can't believe a literal translation of it without being some whack job, isn't that what you are saying? Where is your disdain for those on the Democrat side that believe in Koranic scriptures? Or, believing literal translations of those are O.K. or are you afraid to condemn them? Why is criticism of Islamic beliefs "FORBADDEN" but condemnation of those who believe in the Bible just fine with you?

And why do you want to condemn Trump because Evangelicals support him when, at the same time, filthy socialist and vermin communist support Democrat candidates and some Democrat Congressmen are straight-up socialist? What gives?

WHY THE DICHOTOMY WITH YOU AND THE LEFT: Do you know how many AMERICANS have been killed by communist and those who claim to believe in Islam (which they can't be true Muslims or they wouldn't be killing in the first place)? But yet, its O.K. for the left to have these radical groups on their side, endorsing them, and the left says that is just fine....and the Democrats will take their donations, too: no problem! But Trumps a SOB because some Evangelicals decide to support him! You can't explain this away....its way bigger than you and you just ESPOUSE THE PARTY LINE.

Yup! you got the repub party line down pretty pat yourself.

Athos: You keep coming at jlisenbe about an interpretation of Biblical scriptures

No, it's only one scripture. His stated belief that unbelievers spend eternity being punished in hell. I have pointed out to him the absurdity of such a belief but he clings to it like a dog to his bone. Be careful how you read posts here.


What about Democrat Muslims and their beliefs in Koran scriptures:

What about them? Or any Muslim, for that matter? You're coming across here as a mindless bigot.


Why don't the beliefs of Democrat Congressmen/women bother you so much

Apparently, they bother you. More mindless bigotry. Sad.


you are alluding the Bible as being something akin to a fairytale, right?

No, wrong! You should stop assuming things you have no knowledge about. That's a trait of mindlessness.


That you can't believe a literal translation of it without being some whack job, isn't that what you are saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying. You're batting zero. Are you ever going to say something intelligent?


Where is your disdain for those on the Democrat side that believe in Koranic scriptures?

Good grief, you're running amok. I suspect you're projecting your own disdain for "Democrats that believe in Koranic scriptures". As for me, I have none.


Or, believing literal translations of those are O.K. or are you afraid to condemn them? Why is criticism of Islamic beliefs "FORBADDEN" but condemnation of those who believe in the Bible just fine with you?

You don't have the slightest inkling what I believe or don't believe about the Koran, yet you continue to charge me with things you have no knowledge of. You have just graduated to religious BIGOT with a capital B.


And why do you want to condemn Trump because Evangelicals support him

You have it backwards. I criticize Evangelicals because they support Trump. Got it?

Evangelicals promote themselves as strict moralists yet they support this man Trump who is demonstrably a person of unbridled lusts and lies, and financial cheating as a businesssman.


at the same time, filthy socialist and vermin communist support Democrat candidates and some Democrat Congressmen are straight-up socialist? What gives?

What gives is your fevered mind. Do you deny Neo-Nazis support the right-wing? Racists and anti-Semites, also? What is socialism practiced by "some Democrat Congressmen"?


WHY THE DICHOTOMY WITH YOU AND THE LEFT:

Dichotomy? I don't think you know what the word means. Better look it up.


Do you know how many AMERICANS have been killed by communist and those who claim to believe in Islam (which they can't be true Muslims or they wouldn't be killing in the first place)?

Not exactly, but I know that far more in orders of magnitude have been killed by Bible-believing Christians. Not even close.


But yet, its O.K. for the left to have these radical groups on their side, endorsing them, and the left says that is just fine....and the Democrats will take their donations, too: no problem! But Trumps a SOB because some Evangelicals decide to support him! You can't explain this away.

Of course I can "explain it away" This is just a mindless rant not deserving of a long explanation. How about this: Sustitute "right" for "left", "Republicans" for "Democrats", "idiot" for "SOB", and you have a better rant.


It's way bigger than you and you just ESPOUSE THE PARTY LINE

As an independent, I have no party line to "espouse". I can't say the same for you.

Byw, are you a member of the John Birch Society? Just curious.

His stated belief that unbelievers spend eternity being punished in hell. I have pointed out to him the absurdity of such a belief but he clings to it like a dog to his bone.

John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

Rev. 20:11ff Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

I would guess you do not dispute the necessity of faith in Christ. For those who do not have faith, what do you think happens to them?

I would guess you do not dispute the necessity of faith in Christ. For those who do not have faith, what do you think happens to them?
We're waiting for you to tell us what happens to all those who've never heard about Jesus -- all those miscarried and aborted babies, all the people who lived before Jesus showed up, all those who've never had Christian missionaries tromping across their lands.

I would guess you do not dispute the necessity of faith in Christ. For those who do not have faith, what do you think happens to them?

Whatever you call your power greater than yourself, or have none, it's all good because our bodies turn to dust and our souls belong to the universe. That's enough for me. It's hard enough being a good human to worry about the things I cannot control. Pray for me anyway though in case you're right.

Athos: I am an Independent, too, thank you....and, I am not a member of the John Birch Society.….Do you know who was John Birch? He was a U.S. Intelligence Officer who was murdered by ChiComs not long after WWII ended but before the Cold War began....The John Birch Society celebrates John Birch and is decidedly anticommunist....So you have a problem with those who are anticommunist?

You obviously have a problem with the word of God, when that word comes from Christians.

You are sidestepping huge issues within the workings of the left......Republicans have no Muslim Congressmen or Senators but Democrats have three that I know of. Republicans have no communist/socialists in their ranks but Democrats have at least two that I know about. Oh, to your charge: Republicans have no Nazis or right wing extremist in their party but there are many radicals in the Democrat Party. Let's see: Communists killed 38,000 Americans in the Korean Conflict and 58,000 Americans in the Vietnam Conflict....that is 96,000 Americans killed by Bolsheviks but yet you say we should not worry about that and concentrate on the number of Americans killed by Christians because Christians killed more Americans than did communists? What in the name of God are you talking about? Do you even know? Oh, and by the way: ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE....there is no such thing as a Christian that doesn't believe in the Bible! Obviously, you missed this one....you don't know much about the Bible, do you?

And, then, there are the Muslims: You labeled me....I didn't label you and I WILL NOT EVER LABEL YOU.....I just don't do that. Why are those on the left so quick to label? You label me as a Religious Bigot because I point out the discrepancies that exist between the Right and the left in terms of who is embracing Muslims more than they are embracing Christians...that makes me a Religious Bigot, according to you: I am not....what I am doing is demonstrating that Democrats have, in their ranks, members of a religion that has DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES AT HOME AND AROUND THE WORLD....and that is not an exaggeration, at all. Do you remember 911? It wasn't committed by Christians, was it? Terrorism is owned by this religion, try and dispute that and you will look mortally silly......that religion owns 98-99% of world terrorism....dispute it, if you can but I know its undisputable. And the left loves to molly coddle this bunch. I don't have issues with those that are law abiding CITIZENS who assimilate to the American way of life.....but I have problems with radicals of this religion that have gobbed onto the Democrat Party and espouse the destruction of the American way of life and whom the left endorses, consistently, at all opportunities. The U.S. Constitution guarantees us certain unalienable rights and that includes Freedom of Religion. You are free to practice whatever religion you so choose. However, you are not permitted to mix religion and government: We are secular n terms of government and the same rules apply to all religions, not just Christians. The left wishes to exclude Christians while embracing other religions and they want to bend to rules to permit this...typical.

And it is a DICHOTOMY between you and the left on these issues: You and the left talk about freedoms but yet are perfectly willing to deny those same freedoms to those who do not believe as the left does.

You tried desperately to make jlisenbe look like a fool, saying no scriptures existed that says you will burn in hell for eternity if you die not believing in God...you are clearly wrong!

I am not Protestant, I am Catholic....but I support a Protestant Evangelicals right to support whomever he sees fit....Remember, this is the U.S. and we have a Constitutional Right called Freedom of Religion....It is not called "Freedom From Religion"....and, you know what, the small differences between Catholicism and Protestants really don't matter in the big picture because a very big common thread exists: When it comes to the scriptures, God said it and that is that!....and it doesn't matter if you believe it or not but be aware that the payment for not believing is eternal damnation.

We're waiting for you to tell us what happens to all those who've never heard about Jesus -- all those miscarried and aborted babies, all the people who lived before Jesus showed up, all those who've never had Christian missionaries tromping across their lands.

For babies and children, no, you are not waiting. I've already answered that.

As to those who are adults and are guilty before God (which is everyone), then based on the scriptures I presented, perhaps you should ask God.

"guilty before God" but don't know that, have never been told that....

"guilty before God" but don't know that, have never been told that....

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." What did you think that meant?

"But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all."

"Transgressions". "Iniquities". What are those?

I would suggest you read the first three chapters of Romans.

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." What did you think that meant?
It doesn't mean damnation.

I suggest you read Hebrews 11.

It doesn't mean damnation.


No, but Rev. 20 did.


I suggest you read Hebrews 11.

Hebrews 11 is the "hall of faith" chapter. It speaks of those who found favor with God by their faith. And Jesus said, in the John passages above, that it is faith in Him that delivers from sin. So what is your point?

Just about everything you write is wrong! I will address it point by point. Read carefully.


Athos: I am not a member of the John Birch Society.So you have a problem with those who are anticommunist?

I do not have a problem with anti-communists. I never said I did. You are making stuff up again. We're off to a bad start.


You obviously have a problem with the word of God, when that word comes from Christians.

You OBVIOUSLY cannot read! Never did I say I had a problem with the word of God - whether from Christian or from Muslim. Please, please, please - READ!!!!!!


Republicans have no Muslim Congressmen or Senators but Democrats have three that I know of. Republicans have no communist/socialists in their ranks but Democrats have at least two that I know about.

Name the communist who is a Dem Senator. What is wrong with Muslims in Congress? Are you familiar with US Law and how it applies to Congressional membership? I asked you what you think socialism is, but you didn't answer. Unfortunately, people like you only use the word "socialism" as a trigger word for your friends. You wouldn't know socialism if it bit you in the arse. Your objection to Muslim Congresspeople tells me you are not a convinced American. Go back to your history books.


Oh, to your charge: Republicans have no Nazis or right wing extremist in their party

Your comment was about SUPPORT to the parties!!!!! Domestic terrorism is almost exclusively white male supremacists. Can you read a paper, watch a news program? These neo-Nazis, and Klansmen, and anti-semites and fascists support the RIGHT wing!! Do you deny it?


Communists killed 38,000 Americans in the Korean Conflict and 58,000 Americans in the Vietnam Conflict....that is 96,000 Americans killed by Bolsheviks but yet you say we should not worry about that and concentrate on the number of Americans killed by Christians because Christians killed more Americans than did communists? What in the name of God are you talking about?

Yes, I know, but you don't. Add up the American Revolution (British Christians), War of 1812 (same), Mexico, Civil War, Spanish-American War WW1, WW2 to start. The American dead killed by Christians dwarf those killed in your example. Do you deny it?


Do you even know? Oh, and by the way: ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE....there is no such thing as a Christian that doesn't believe in the Bible! Obviously, you missed this one....you don't know much about the Bible, do you?

V7 - I'm sorry but you're really coming across as a moron. Sorry for the label, but you invite it. You say things on impulse without a scintilla of knowing what you are talking about. I'm reaching a limit with you unless there's some marked improvement.


And, then, there are the Muslims: You labeled me....I didn't label you and I WILL NOT EVER LABEL YOU.....I just don't do that. ,<You just did it above> Why are those on the left so quick to label? You label me as a Religious Bigot because I point out the discrepancies that exist between the Right and the left in terms of who is embracing Muslims more than they are embracing Christians...that makes me a Religious Bigot,

Yes, you are a religious bigot because you believe it necessary to point out who is Muslim and who is Christian - the Muslims out to destroy America. That's religious bigotry - as bigoted as it gets.


what I am doing is demonstrating that Democrats have, in their ranks, members of a religion that has DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES AT HOME AND AROUND THE WORLD...

I can almost see the spittle coming out of your mouth. You're hopeless.


and that is not an exaggeration, at all. Do you remember 911? It wasn't committed by Christians, was it? Terrorism is owned by this religion, try and dispute that and you will look mortally silly......that religion owns 98-99% of world terrorism....dispute it, if you can but I know its undisputable.

It's INdisputable, not UN. When I post on these pages, I assume my "opponent" uses a modicum of logic. You don't even have that. If we blame Muslims for all members of their religion, do we blame Catholic or Protestant or Jewish offenders (pick your offense) for their religions?


.but I have problems with radicals of this religion

Ah, progress. Not ALL Muslims, just the radicals. Good


we are secular n terms of government and the same rules apply to all religions, not just Christians. The left wishes to exclude Christians while embracing other religions

V7 - That's an out and out lie. I can put up with your ignorance, but you cross the line when you try to lie your way through a discussion. SHAME!


And it is a DICHOTOMY between you and the left on these issues

You still don't know what DICHOTOMY means. You had a chance to look it up, but you couldn't even do that.


: You and the left talk about freedoms but yet are perfectly willing to deny those same freedoms to those who do not believe as the left does.

More unsubstantiated charges.


You tried desperately to make jlisenbe look like a fool, saying no scriptures existed that says you will burn in hell for eternity if you die not believing in God...you are clearly wrong!

He made himself look like a fool (your words) - I don't necessarily think that. He believes erroneously, that's all. Now that you are on his punishment/hell team, check his post today. Not one quote proves his point. But that's another thread.


...When it comes to the scriptures, God said it and that is that!....and it doesn't matter if you believe it or not but be aware that the payment for not believing is eternal damnation.

Why, oh why, do you fundies ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS close out with a threat?

There is a difference between a threat and a warning. Anger threatens. Love warns.

There is a difference between a threat and a warning. Anger threatens. Love warns.
Where's the love? I see only anger and threats.

Athos: You are an excellent counterpuncher, my hat is off to you! I can only hope to be as polished as you are at this, one day!

Make no doubt about it: The Democrat Party has sketchy relationships with a lot of sketchy people and groups....The Republicans, not so much. In their past, and the past predicts the future, most of the time, the Democrats have accepted campaign money from the Chicoms, point in fact, going into Bill Clinton funds....this is shear treachery.

The scriptures that jlisenbe stated come from the Bible, there can be no doubt about that.....they may not be the words you wish to hear, they may not fit the narrative you hope to fill, but they are from the Bible and they are clear in their meanings. These are hard, heavy words stated in the Bible but there can only be one true interpretation. So if you disagree with the words from those scriptures, you are disagreeing with the word of God, by definition.

Klansmen in the Republican Party? I am from the South and have some news for you: The Democrat Party IS THE PARTY OF THE KLAN! The real hard assed racists I know are Democrats...I know this at a level you never will. What you see running around, pretending to be Klansmen: they aren't Klansmen, they are weirdos...Klan wouldn't have them.....the Klan is a secret society, they don't "expose" themselves....and they are dreadfully evil people.

I am not trying to trigger anyone: Bernie Sanders is a communist....an old Bolshevik, to be more exact.....he has flirted with "romantic communism" his whole life....he is one of those who thinks Che Guevera was a superhero......hell, he took one of his honeymoons to Soviet Russia while we were in a "Cold War" state with Russia...do you think that was because he anticommunist? No, he is in league with communism: Scratch a socialist hard enough and you find a communist underneath...Remember the acronym U.S.S.R.? Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics......socialist = communist.

And why do you identify NAZIs as Republicans, they cannot be Republicans: Nazi stands for National Socialist...ke word here is SOCIALIST.....so you think SOCIALISM IS OF THE RIGHT? I thought you said I wouldn't know Socialism if it bit me in the : You might need to look in the mirror on this one!

Radical Muslims do not have American values, we know that......but the jury is still out about the capacity of Muslims to assimilate. Like I said, those that are U.S. Citizens and have adopted to American way of life are fine. But those radical Muslims in the Democrat Party are in no way representative of the American way of life.....in fact, they poorly represent their own religion: Remember Keith Ellison beat the hell out of woman (a no, no!).

In the end, though, we are talking about historical fact, not conjecture: The danger exists in any situation where we have to "watch" people because we can't be 100% sure where their allegiances reside.....this is a big, big problem. There can be no denying: 911 was committed by those proclaiming to be Muslims, radical as they were.....and these acts certainly were not committed by Christians. The Democrats, not the Republicans, have an association with Muslims.....only they can reconcile that relationship and have a clean conscious. I don't have a problem because I am neither Democrat nor Republican.

O.K., so you are going to count the Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, The Civil War, The Spanish American War, WWi, WW2, all of that as Christians killing more Americans? I guess you could be right.....but who were the Christians in WWII that were killing Americans? Are you saying the Nazis were Christians? All of this doesn't get the Democrats off the hook: They are "closer" to communists than are the Republicans: Its the "Number Line Of Politics" where the extremities define the sides, and the Democrats are decidedly to the "left" of the origin......and the Republicans are on the right of the origin!

You are wanting to say that every crazy joker that shoots up a place is a domestic terrorist because that gives you some sort of "balance" to leverage against Islamic terrorists? NO! That scale is still weighing heavily in favor of the Islamic terrorists. And, then, you are wanting to say these "domestic terrorists" are all Right Wing? NO! What about the Ohio shooting? What about the Dallas Police Ambush (Black left wing perpetrator)? There are loads more that were just crazy bastards having no affiliation politically.

John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

Rev. 20:11ff Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

I would guess you do not dispute the necessity of faith in Christ. For those who do not have faith, what do you think happens to them?

None of your citations meet all the requirements - punishment, hell, eternity, unbelief. Some have some, none all.

As for Revelation, the language is so obviously poetic/dramatic/mythical/fantastic, who could possibly take it as literal? Even then, readers saw it as symbolic referring to Rome. However, your right to believe what you want is your right.

Of course, I dispute the necessity of faith in Christ. How could people who never heard of Christ have faith in him? How about people who lived 5,000 years before Christ?

I have no idea what happens to them. Neither do you. I hope we all lead decent lives. Life after death will always be a mystery in the here and now. We may hope as we will.

None of your citations meet all the requirements - punishment, hell, eternity, unbelief. Some have some, none all.

The "requirements" are yours and yours alone. They are silly and designed to appear clever, but serve no useful purpose.


As for Revelation, the language is so obviously poetic/dramatic/mythical/fantastic, who could possibly take it as literal? Even then, readers saw it as symbolic referring to Rome. However, your right to believe what you want is your right.

You won't take it literally because you don't like the message. As to readers of that time, how do you know how they saw it?


Of course, I dispute the necessity of faith in Christ. How could people who never heard of Christ have faith in him? How about people who lived 5,000 years before Christ?

Then you disbelieve the Bible. Now that's your prerogative for sure, but then one wonders what you base your beliefs on.


Where's the love? I see only anger and threats.

When one sees a day of judgement coming, then love would prompt that person to warn others.

The "requirements" are yours and yours alone. They are silly and designed to appear clever, but serve no useful purpose.

No, the requirements are yours. I got them from you. What's silly about them? Do you now deny they are what you believe? "Designed to appear clever" ?? "Serve no useful purpose"?? They're hardly clever or useful. I have no idea why you should think so.


You won't take it literally because you don't like the message.

Frankly, Revelation is like a comic book - something out of someone's imagination. But that's not the issue here. Believe it if you must.


As to readers of that time, how do you know how they saw it?

Because they included it in the Bible.


Then you disbelieve the Bible.

Not believing in Revelation does not mean I disbelieve in the Bible. I understand why you say that. That will make you feel that you are correct.


Now that's your prerogative for sure

Thanks.


but then one wonders what you base your beliefs on.

As far as the Bible, I base my belief on the brain God gave me to discern literal truth from allegorical truth. It's not new - been done for two thousand years. You should try it.


When one sees a day of judgement coming, then love would prompt that person to warn others.

When is your day of judgement coming? Seems somebody here had a similar prediction and he swore up and down he was right. He was wrong. The predicted day came and he left, never to be seen here again. What date do you have in mind? It will be a good test of your belief.


Finally, do you now hold that unbelievers do NOT go to hell for eternal punishment?

I am referring to the requirements you listed months ago. I haven't listed any requirements.

I was asking how you could know that, "Even then, readers saw it as symbolic referring to Rome." How do you know how people in John's time saw the book of Revelation?

As to the day of judgement, Jesus said this. "“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." As to someone predicting a date, I haven't seen that on this board, but certainly it has been done all too frequently, and millions of books have been sold on that basis.


Yes, we must use our minds to make sense of what we read, and some Bible passages are clearly figurative, but you must have good reason to look at it that way. The general rule of thumb is to take a passage literally unless there is a compelling reason not to, and thinking that the passage does damage to some cherished belief or makes one uncomfortable is not sufficient.. I don't know of any compelling reason not to take the 20th chapter literally. Also, I don't know of anyone other than you who considers the book of Revelation to be some sort of cryptic reference to Rome. There are some references to Babylon that could mean Rome, but to suggest the entire book is a reference to Rome is questionable. That wouldn't really make any sense. The great white throne of judgement description is pretty hard to simply pass off as figurative language. It would be figurative of what???

I believe as I have for years. I believe that only those with faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus are in right standing with God and will not face judgement on that day. It is a very plain teaching of scripture. Those who do not have faith will be judged as they are still in their sins. They will spend eternity in hell. Now is it possible for a person to be trusting in the mercy of God and have a faith in Jesus though they have not heard of Him? I think it's possible. I look to the story of the pharisee and tax collector in prayer to be able to say that. The tax collector, Jesus said, prayed, "Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner." Jesus said the man went away justified, so it might be that those who sincerely seek God's mercy will be accepted even if they have not heard of Jesus. That's not, however, a widely accepted point of view. But the Bible is very clear that one cannot be saved by following other gods.

It is also possible to take the story of Cornelius in Acts 10 to show how God responds to those who are genuinely seeking the God of the Bible but do not know about Jesus.

"Even then, readers saw it as symbolic referring to Rome." How do you know how people in John's time saw the book of Revelation?

Contemporary evidence. One example - coinage from 71AD. Many others. Look it up.


As to someone predicting a date, I haven't seen that on this board,

This board has been around long before you arrived.


I don't know of anyone other than you who considers the book of Revelation to be some sort of cryptic reference to Rome.

Babylon as Rome was the original common understanding. You could look it up.


The great white throne of judgement description is pretty hard to simply pass off as figurative language.

You gotta be kidding! A great white throne NOT figurative? It couldn't be anything else. Unless you think God sits up there on it.


Those who do not have faith will be judged as they are still in their sins. They will spend eternity in hell.

There you are! In black and white. Unbelievers (those who do not have faith) will spend eternity in hell. ALL THE REQUIREMENTS YOU DENIED HAVING!!!! I hope all those interested read this comment in your own words. Especially after you denied it so many times!


Now is it possible for a person to be trusting in the mercy of God and have a faith in Jesus though they have not heard of Him? I think it's possible.

Exactly how someone has faith in Jesus without having heard of him is a bit of a mystery. But I detect an attempt to walk back your original belief. Keep trying.


I look to the story of the pharisee and tax collector in prayer to be able to say that. The tax collector, Jesus said, prayed, "Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner." Jesus said the man went away justified, so it might be that those who sincerely seek God's mercy will be accepted even if they have not heard of Jesus.

Excellent example. I was holding that one for you, but you needed to be much more advanced in your belief before I brought it up. You surprised me, but I am glad for it. Now, can you go a step further? The Pharisee was a Jew. What about a Samaritan? A good one. Can you extend the idea to a Buddhist, a Hindu, and the ultimate test, an atheist?


But the Bible is very clear that one cannot be saved by following other gods.

We'll leave that for now.


It is also possible to take the story of Cornelius in Acts 10 to show how God responds to those who are genuinely seeking the God of the Bible but do not know about Jesus.

How God responds to people is not at issue here.

Contemporary evidence. One example - coinage from 71AD. Many others. Look it up.


In other words, you have no idea. You really want us to believe that coinage from 71 A.D. shows us how people viewed the book of Revelation in 90 A.D.? Really?

I'm not going on one of your wild goose chases. If you have evidence, then fine. Post it here. Otherwise, admit that you have no idea how the Christian community in A.D. 90 viewed the book of Revelation.

Look, this is how it is supposed to work. Someone says, "How do you know that?" You can then respond with something like, "I read a quote from the Roman historian Tacitus (or whoever) in which he said blah, blah, blah," or you can simply say that you don't have a clue. But to be evasive with a comment about how someone needs to go out and look something up is really a poor response. Either put your cards on the table or get out of the game, but don't just make statements that you can't back up.


There you are! In black and white. Unbelievers (those who do not have faith) will spend eternity in hell. ALL THE REQUIREMENTS YOU DENIED HAVING!!!! I hope all those interested read this comment in your own words. Especially after you denied it so many times!

I have never denied it, and I don't recall posting any requirements. If I did, then post the quote. The only exception I am aware of, and I have said this before, is for children or for those who are mentally unable to be held accountable.


Exactly how someone has faith in Jesus without having heard of him is a bit of a mystery. But I detect an attempt to walk back your original belief. Keep trying.

No, I'm attempting to have a thoughtful conversation with someone who is interested in pursuing the truth. I don't think that describes you, but I hold out hope that I am wrong.


Excellent example. I was holding that one for you, but you needed to be much more advanced in your belief before I brought it up. You surprised me, but I am glad for it. Now, can you go a step further? The Pharisee was a Jew. What about a Samaritan? A good one. Can you extend the idea to a Buddhist, a Hindu, and the ultimate test, an atheist?

No, the idea cannot be extended to those who pursue false gods. In the story Jesus spoke, the man was praying to the God of Israel, not to one of the millions of Hindu gods. As to Cornelius, when he began to seek God, then God responded by sending the gospel message to him.

How God responds to people is not the issue? It is entirely the issue. How God responds to your sins and my sins is 100% the issue. That God will someday judge every person for sin is, in fact, the very heart of the issue. When we all stand before a completely holy God and have to give account for wrong acts, then it is going to be a day that is going to be terrible. Those who have faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ have nothing to fear. Those who trust in their own goodness have everything to fear.

The idea that you were holding onto something until the right time made me laugh. It is funny how you seem to view yourself as the great fount of knowledge.

Look God responds to prayer whether in 90 AD or now. Revelation tells us something and we should be aware that this time is passing away. Now I don't expect to be around when the asteroids start falling, but if you read Revelation you get the message, time is short

Paraclete: You nailed it! Time is short and we are on the end of a lightning bolt as far as our time here on earth. Rather than debate who is or who isn't going to go to hell, you need to get right with God! THERE IS ONLY ONE RIGHT ANSWER because there is only one God......God, in his Divine Wisdom, will sort all of this debate out and the one who is correct will go one way and the one who is wrong will go some place else. It is sufficient to say that the MAJORITY of those ever born, before, now, and into the future, WILL NOT GET TO GO FORWARD UNTO HEAVEN.

It is sufficient to say that the MAJORITY of those ever born, before, now, and into the future, WILL NOT GET TO GO FORWARD UNTO HEAVEN.
What a depressing understanding of what the Bible really says! I weep!

W.G.: I agree with you, it is extremely depressing......and very entirely preventable.

W.G.: I agree with you, it is extremely depressing......and very entirely preventable.
YOUR inadequate understanding is what's depressing!

W.G.: Everyone can not go to heaven.....there are prerequisites that must be met....this is no different than many other tenets of life.....You can't expect wacked-out, cultic believing souls will receive passage into heaven, do you. For instance, atheist can not go to heaven: Do you know how many Marxist there are in world? Millions, possibly billions and NONE OF THEM will receive passage into the kingdom of heaven: To be a Bolshevik means that you are an atheist and to be an atheist means you can not get into heaven. Anyone who has committed blasphemy will not go. It is straightforward and clear as it can be. God will have the final say so.....I know nothing but my own interpretation of the word of the Lord so, please, don't shoot the messenger!

I know nothing but my own interpretation of the word

Truer words were never spoken.

W.G.: Everyone can not go to heaven.....there are prerequisites that must be met....this is no different than many other tenets of life.....You can't expect wacked-out, cultic believing souls will receive passage into heaven, do you. For instance, atheist can not go to heaven: Do you know how many Marxist there are in world? Millions, possibly billions and NONE OF THEM will receive passage into the kingdom of heaven: To be a Bolshevik means that you are an atheist and to be an atheist means you can not get into heaven. Anyone who has committed blasphemy will not go. It is straightforward and clear as it can be. God will have the final say so.....I know nothing but my own interpretation of the word of the Lord so, please, don't shoot the messenger!
You're really holding tight to those keys!

W.G.: You give me way too much credit and certainly I have no power: The keys are held the one who made all of us.....We all have an equal shot, its really a choice....its up to us to make the right choice. Believe me, it was hard for me to come to terms with the absolute finality of what the choice is IF THAT CHOICE IS THE WRONG ONE.....I thought about the fairness of it and questioned a lot of things that I THOUGHT I KNEW WITH COMPLETE CONFIDENCE.....but some things are not of "interpretation", some things are simply of belief, of trust, of knowing that God has your back, no matter what: That's the deal: In the Catholic religion, its called "The Mystery Of Faith".....it simply means that you follow, whether you understand it or not, whether you know the absolute solution or not......you follow to the end of no ends.

W.G.: You give me way too much credit and certainly I have no power
I was scolding you!

W.G.: I know you were….but I also want you to know that I am not as crazy as you may think I am, as I might sound.....I really can't articulate what I feel about this, and certainly I am not of an Evangelical bent, but I admire faith......it is sorely lacking today.....and it is enough to bring you to tears. It so seems that faith in God is under attack on all fronts these days and it saddens me.

W.G.: I know you were….but I also want you to know that I am not as crazy as you may think I am, as I might sound.....I really can't articulate what I feel about this, and certainly I am not of an Evangelical bent, but I admire faith......it is sorely lacking today.....and it is enough to bring you to tears. It so seems that faith in God is under attack on all fronts these days and it saddens me.
Exactly the opposite! I'm struggling with severe anemia and have had a lot of medical intervention during the past year. My medivan drivers, my nurses, my hematologist, lab techs. Many open to expressing their faith.

Exactly the opposite! I'm struggling with severe anemia and have had a lot of medical intervention during the past year. My medivan drivers, my nurses, my hematologist, lab techs. Many open to expressing their faith.

Then let me express mine also, WG, be whole and healed in the name of Jesus

Then let me express mine also, WG, be whole and healed in the name of Jesus
Thank you. Won't happen in this life. Would have to be treated with bone marrow stem cells.

Thank you. Won't happen in this life. Would have to be treated with bone marrow stem cells.

well in order to receive your healing you have to claim it not deny it

In other words, you have no idea. You really want us to believe that coinage from 71 A.D. shows us how people viewed the book of Revelation in 90 A.D.? Really?

Yes, really. But you'll never know because you don't like wild goose chases. I think you once said you would not click on links. Your loss.


you have no idea how the Christian community in A.D. 90 viewed the book of Revelation.

As a matter of fact, I do. You could know too with some intelligent searching.


I have never denied it, and I don't recall posting any requirements. If I did, then post the quote.

Against my better judgement, I will do as you ask this one time. I do it because it is the crux of the matter. On post #232 on Sep 25 at 7:15am, you wrote, "Those who do not have faith will be judged as they are still in their sins. They will spend eternity in hell."


The only exception I am aware of, and I have said this before, is for children or for those who are mentally unable to be held accountable.

Mentally unable is a new one. You're getting there.


No, I'm attempting to have a thoughtful conversation with someone who is interested in pursuing the truth. I don't think that describes you, but I hold out hope that I am wrong.

Do you still criticize those who insult others?


How God responds to people is not the issue? It is entirely the issue.

No. The issue is how YOU interpret a Bible passage. Nothing more.


.................................. acts, then it is going to be a day that is going to be terrible. Those who have faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ have nothing to fear. Those who trust in their own goodness have everything to fear.

There is another page here for your prosyltizing. This one is for the purpose I said above.


The idea that you were holding onto something until the right time made me laugh.

I'm glad you found me amusing.