 |
Why are you obsessed with Obama? At least you don't mention Hillary in every post now, thank goodness.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.
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.Quote:
Why are you obsessed with Obama? At least you don't mention Hillary in every post now, thank goodness.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Oh, yeah. It's bedtime in your neck of the woods. Sleep tight!
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.Quote:
I'm obsessed with Obama? I've rarely mentioned him and only in response to you.
I thought you went to bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.
At least you are acknowledging that you refuse to answer. I guess that's progress of some sort.Quote:
You know why I REFUSE to answer? Pray tell why. And I have never extolled his virtues here.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
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.
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.Quote:
The left has nothing against rich guys, we just know a lot more about HOW they got rich and stayed that way
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.Quote:
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 talk about "beaten down fellow workers" in the same paragraph as auto workers? You mean the ones who retire at 60 with nice pensions?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.
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.Quote:
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 continue to wonder how such a smart hard working fellow like you could be so ill informed, but so radically critical.
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.Quote:
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?
If you are trying to get me to feel sorry for UAW members, you'll need to work a lot harder.Quote:
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.
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?
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.Quote:
but must add that I get the impression union workers are held in disdain by you. Am I right?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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.
I feel the same way. Well said!!Quote:
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 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 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.Quote:
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.
That made me laugh. It has to happen someday!!Quote:
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.
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/u...45tion=topNews
Quote:
Thebureau pledged to look into the Ramirez allegations, 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...ugh/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.
What a statement.Quote:
Anything goes.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
If, as you said, "anything goes", then why are you upset?Quote:
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 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'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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/?c48171...ns-lewandowski
I can deal with anything goes, why can't you?
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
I can deal with anything goes, why can't you?
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 witnessQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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.
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.Quote:
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?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:57 PM. |