From the you can't make this up folder
- Thread starter TopSecretBoiler
- Start date
It's interesting that it was exactly one month ago when you last posted on this board. It was a post filled with nothing but personal attacks, with some pretty nasty stuff thrown in.
Take the mod's advice.
LOL
2) Read 'em twice, if you have to. I didn't post that you WOULD be tempted to do anything. 7th grade reading comprehension. I suggested that you resist temptation...i.e. IF you were tempted being the assumptive. lol
You write that because it is something you would be inclined to do. Be tempted by a politician. That is projection. Never mind, it is ovious to me at this point, after spelling it out for some of you here several times, you do not understand the concept.
Obama left office wealthier due almost EXCLUSIVELY to the income from the several books he authored. Your issue with that is WHAT, exactly ?? Spell it out.
If some do not see the issue with politicians making the money they make while in office I am not sure what to say. They tend to create soap operas then write about it. Cannot write books or make movie deals fast enough after leaving office. The difference between me and yourself is I think it needs looked into for all of them. You, just want Trump constantly investigated.
Eventually, you're bound to hit something in a post of yours
LOL-Funny, coming from someone that does not pay on bets they lose to others. Have a nice day.
Do you get any entertainment value out of this board?This is the general discussion board. Unless a poster is targeting an individual with pointed remarks or making hurtful/hateful posts directed at groups of people, I'm not going to remove them simply because individuals on both side of the political spectrum don't agree with one another. To be frank, I get almost equal amounts of 'reports' from both sides complaining how 'unreadable' the General Discussion Board has become.
Want to make it better? Police it yourself by being more open to the other side of the discussion and quite casting stones at one another and then getting offended when it occurs back at you. The reports I get from you all are mainly just complaining about individual posters who aren't technically breaking any of the guidelines. When they do, I delete the post and give a warning as needed.
Listen, I would love to have this board be a place where opinions are respected and there isn't mud-slinging...but to be honest it isn't worth my time when many of you act so juvenile in your posts that if I followed your requests, the board would be a lonely place...
This is the general discussion board. Unless a poster is targeting an individual with pointed remarks or making hurtful/hateful posts directed at groups of people, I'm not going to remove them simply because individuals on both side of the political spectrum don't agree with one another. To be frank, I get almost equal amounts of 'reports' from both sides complaining how 'unreadable' the General Discussion Board has become.
Want to make it better? Police it yourself by being more open to the other side of the discussion and quite casting stones at one another and then getting offended when it occurs back at you. The reports I get from you all are mainly just complaining about individual posters who aren't technically breaking any of the guidelines. When they do, I delete the post and give a warning as needed.
Listen, I would love to have this board be a place where opinions are respected and there isn't mud-slinging...but to be honest it isn't worth my time when many of you act so juvenile in your posts that if I followed your requests, the board would be a lonely place...
This board is a lot better when a Dem is in Presidency. The topics discussed then are more revolved around policy/strategy. There were good investment threads here once upon a time. When a Republican is in the WH, it turns into an absolute doodoo show. Just constant crying and whining.
Why do you think that there has been a greater influx of "crying and whining" over the last 3 years? Would you say it was similar during the Bush years (I wasn't active on the board at that time)? Is there something different about this President and the way he holds the office that would lead to said crying and whining? It has been 11 years since the last R President.
It seems like things are better when there is an adult in charge with a fully functioning brain.
Your post is highly ironic, considering you act like a petulant child on here almost every day.
Are you acting out because I constantly prove you wrong? If you only took a little time to be more informed, it wouldn't happen so often.
Unlike you, I actually have a job and can't live on this board 24/7 to fact check every ridiculous thing you and your lib cohort write and contend.
Dumb take, I have a job too. It doesn't take that long to try and be informed about an issue, you choose to talk out of your @ss all the time and then get upset when it gets fact checked.
* Funny, can't recall ever making a bet with you or anyone else, here. I'm sure I can count on your courtesy now providing the when and what details of your faulty memory.
* The Obama books would have been written BEFORE and again AFTER his presidency. Not WHILE IN office. Clear ? Soap Opera creation ?? What does that even mean ??
* When a book publisher approaches George H.W. Bush or his son with an offer, post-presidency, to pay handsomely for memoirs....why in hell would
that "need looking into " ??? What particular area of that kind of transaction would suggest an investigation ??
*Ya' know, 97, some Americans long for the days of yesteryear when a president doesn't deserve and invite investigation.
I'm one of those.
Hey, squirrelguy - thanks for your " like " !!
Re: " .......before Clinton and Obama "
1) Clinton had to be, and was, investigated.
2)Obama didn't deserve to be, and wasn't.
Correct ??
I don't think the Obama administration is completely in the clear yet, not with the IG and John Durham investigations still being worked and their findings currently unreported. Andrew McCabe is in trouble, too. And he's just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019...t-recommends-andrew-mccabe-indictment-1492925
Well, the next-to-last Democratic president was Bill Clinton. I can only imagine the intellectual purity of all the posts about policy and strategy that would have been forthcoming from board conservatives when the blue dress, the cigar, Paula Jones et al hit the tv sets.......for TWO YEARS......
Yeah. MY point. 97's point was that a Dem. pres. brought about policy/strategy conversations, here. Not when there's bigtime scandal, there aren't.
.
Yeah, Pocahontas is a really good choice. "She speaks with forked tongue." She says she wants to reduce lobbying in government. The next day she hires a lobbyist for her campaign. Once again with her, it's "do as I say, not as I do".
https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-warren-declares-war-lobbying-112400418.html
Not even sure if there was a GD then.
Anyway, was referring to Obama years. Sure there was some bs, but a lot of talk about economy, world affairs, interest/deficit/debt, investing
Just do not see it as much now even though the availability for discussion on those topics is there
Oh, absolutely no GD in '98 !!
Obama yrs. ? NodramaObama yrs. ? You bet.
But I'd add that MINUS the CL______K of the 2003+ Iraq War/Occupation, the 12 yrs. of the Bushes combined would come nowhere near the animosity and turmoil generated here in the 2 1/2 yrs. of THIS Republican.
Warren hired a 29 yr. old woman who spent 5 yrs. with the NON-PROFIT Planned Parenthood, and previously with the Florida State Senate as Chief of Staff.
Given the State of Fla. has comparatively strict requirements for who has to register as a lobbyist, her decades of railing against the influence of large , mega-corporate lobbying $$$ in government might not be tarnished substantially by working for a non-profit that is prohibited, by law, in giving to campaigns.
(Warren speaks with forked tongue ? Trump's been speaking with a forked 747. )
Maybe after one of these explanations SDBoiler will learn to get a clue, but I’m not holding my breath. I’m guessing he’ll ignore your post then say something ignorant again.
Do you know what happened with the grand jury? Have you followed the facts of the case or just look at headlines? Have you checked on the case lately?
Maybe you should. "McCabe lied" isn't the correct answer.
Is rational thought that foreign to you that two people exhibiting it is so strange?
interest/deficit/debt:
we likely don't see as much about that now, because even the "conservative" team now has similar spending, QE desires, etc
(or even more $)
not sure birtherism/secret muslim/etc
qualifies much as policy talk? which became a launching pad & pillar of the successful republican campaign
Last edited:
A thread embodying the "you can't make this up" is certainly the place to review what the Dems are doing in Arizona as viewed by a local political opinion writer.
Laurie Roberts astutely pointed out the 19th century mentality articulated by the Arizana Repubs when Senator Kyrsten Sinema was sworn in last January.
And now, a mere 8 months later, she writes of the lunacy of their Dem counterparts in approaching a political self immolation.
How can they really think that an 81% anti-Trump voting record from an Arizona Senator is a bad thing???
Laurie Roberts astutely pointed out the 19th century mentality articulated by the Arizana Repubs when Senator Kyrsten Sinema was sworn in last January.
And now, a mere 8 months later, she writes of the lunacy of their Dem counterparts in approaching a political self immolation.
How can they really think that an 81% anti-Trump voting record from an Arizona Senator is a bad thing???
Have to wonder how this all ends, this trying to lead from the extremes. I, it appears along with a growing number of people, don't identify with either party. What happens when we become the majority?
The ready answer is that in some fashion the country will likely have to operate in a manner similar to the parliamentary systems of the world, with their coalition governments. I'm not sure exactly how it would come to fruition but it seems perhaps inevitable given the current state of affairs.
Obviously the Constitutional machinery would inhibit such a system substantially
There's always the chance, however remote, that the Executive Branch will eventually be led by a president capable of injecting some meaningful level of compromise and bi-partisanship into the equation. The interminable clash of political wills that exists probably won't be alleviated, much, by operating in a parliamentary system. Our current Constitutional mechanisms, as you point out, would make such a system's existence a far, far off possibility.
One thing's for sure.....2017-2019 ain't no fun....
Why ?? Because Barack Obama lied to the American People's faces a dozen times a day ??
Because he trash-talked every single, solitary political opponent and media member like a drunken sailor ?
Because he embarrassed the office of the Presidency with his crude, inarticulate manner ?
Because he practically propositioned two of the country's most intractable adversaries ??
Whatever 2009-2017 was, it sure AS HELL ain't THIS !!!
“If you want to keep your insurance, you can keep it.”
“The average family will save $2,500 a year.”
“We will not have lobbyists working in my White House.”
"90 percent of the budget deficit is due to George W. Bush's policies."
"The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged it was an act of terrorism."
"I didn't call the Islamic State a 'JV' team."
"We have not had any major scandal in my administration."
"We will close Guantanamo Bay."
"We signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history."
"The Keystone pipeline is for oil that bypasses the United States."
"We have fired a whole bunch of people who are in charge of these [VA] facilities."
Last edited:
