dondubble
Established Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 419
|
Post by dondubble on Nov 22, 2024 11:18:09 GMT -5
Criminal presidential administrations: -Nixxon -Reagan -Trump Based on number of convictions. These are SCgal’s people. Regan  ? No, REAGAN. A treasonous swine that tripled our debt and presided over the CIA enabling the crack epidemic. I’m not sure who you meant. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 22, 2024 11:24:11 GMT -5
Not sure if you are questioning the appropriateness of including Reagan but if: From HUD to Iran-Contra: Crime During the Reagan AdministrationAlleged and actual crime and wrongdoing during the Reagan administration exceeded that of previous presidents, including Nixon, Harding, Grant, and Buchanan. Between 1980 and 1988, over 200 individuals from the Reagan administration came under either ethical or criminal investigation. Obama fast and furious? Let's get the facts right about that, shall we? The first gun-running operation began in 2006, almost three years before Obama took office. By the time Obama took office, not a single indictment had been issued as a result of the operation. In 2009, the same ATF personnel who had run the earlier operation decided to try it again. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder knew of, approved, or authorized the plan. What the Obama DOJ did do that the Bush DOJ did not after the operations became known, was to investigate and end the operations with disciplinary action or prosecution for those involved. Your outrage appears to be misplaced. Again. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,762
|
Post by scgal on Nov 22, 2024 11:28:21 GMT -5
Hmmm. Not sure how this fits in as a response to a post addressing the widespread criminality during the Reagan Administration. I do get the attempt. I work with kids and "Well, they ..." is common. If there was criminality in Regan admin it doesn't mean that he was a criminal. Was Reagan charged? Its cute how to try to say I'm a child bless your heart |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,913 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 22, 2024 11:29:57 GMT -5
Let's get the facts right about that, shall we? The first gun-running operation began in 2006, almost three years before Obama took office. By the time Obama took office, not a single indictment had been issued as a result of the operation. In 2009, the same ATF personnel who had run the earlier operation decided to try it again. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder knew of, approved, or authorized the plan. What the Obama DOJ did do that the Bush DOJ did not after the operations became known, was to investigate and end the operations with disciplinary action or prosecution for those involved. Your outrage appears to be misplaced. Again. Your actual facts will be viewed as fake news to a poster or two. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,762
|
Post by scgal on Nov 22, 2024 11:33:33 GMT -5
Let's get the facts right about that, shall we? The first gun-running operation began in 2006, almost three years before Obama took office. By the time Obama took office, not a single indictment had been issued as a result of the operation. In 2009, the same ATF personnel who had run the earlier operation decided to try it again. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder knew of, approved, or authorized the plan. What the Obama DOJ did do that the Bush DOJ did not after the operations became known, was to investigate and end the operations with disciplinary action or prosecution for those involved. Your outrage appears to be misplaced. Again. Pull your lips from Obamas rear and breath, it will be ok. Thank god |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,762
|
Post by scgal on Nov 22, 2024 11:41:41 GMT -5
Two things.
1. The nastiness and name calling has really gotten out of hand. I know I'm not innocent of speaking harshly but I've seen some posts that are absolutely beyond any sort of decency.
2. scgal - your own posts are basically hate speech at this point (rather than a simple opinion) and I've had enough of that, too. This is your one warning.
moon - wearing the admin hat It is not hate speech, and it not just simple opinion it is a simple opposing opinion to yours. I don't hate trans people and I don't want any harm to come to trans people. It is my opinion that they should not be crossdressing out in public and that is a danger to a normal society. So if that in your OPINON is hate speech then I guess it will get me banned. You and people like you who think differently like to hide behind the hate speech crap and are the ones who are intolerant. |
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Nov 22, 2024 11:42:40 GMT -5
I’ve worked for a dozen corporations over the past 35 years. I was involved in Churches, PTAs, neighborhood associations, youth sports teams, travel groups etc. Aren’t all organizations dysfunctional? At least at some level or to some people? But they can still get things done - and some of those things matter. Some matter a lot. I’ve never known of a hospital that wasn’t rumored to have some level of dysfunction - but I am so happy they exist. Police departments have all kinds of dysfunction - but even mention rethinking their duties and people flip out, so we like that they exist. I can concede that our national government is dysfunctional. I can even concede that every agency has some level of dysfunction, but to eliminate them and leave a void, or to just plunge them into total chaos will not improve things. BTW - anyone see that the car manufacturers are asking Trump to leave the Biden’s regulations and EV tax credits in place? Maybe making rash changes will not be good for business 🤷 I saw that, and as an EV owner (I drive a Toyota RAV4 Prime PHEV (2021, sold for about what I purchased it for net of rebate, and now 2024), and DH drives a 2023 Ford Lightning F150. I have said this from the beginning. Ford invested a heck of a lot of $$ in the Ford Lightning. Now that the Republicans have gone so anti EV, they could seriously harm the American Car Makers that went in for the EV development just to benefit the Petroleum industry. Are Republicans really anti-EV though? Musk certainly is not and judging by a Cybertruck group I'm in I would say the majority of them are republicans. In another finance group I'm in a woman from TX was so happy Trump was elected so it would turn things around with all the solar and windfarms in TX and bring back more drilling. I highly doubt that will happen with Musk having moving his operations there now and he is a HUGE advocate of solar and thinks the entire country should be powered that way. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 22, 2024 11:43:15 GMT -5
Let's get the facts right about that, shall we? The first gun-running operation began in 2006, almost three years before Obama took office. By the time Obama took office, not a single indictment had been issued as a result of the operation. In 2009, the same ATF personnel who had run the earlier operation decided to try it again. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder knew of, approved, or authorized the plan. What the Obama DOJ did do that the Bush DOJ did not after the operations became known, was to investigate and end the operations with disciplinary action or prosecution for those involved. Your outrage appears to be misplaced. Again. Pull your lips from Obamas rear and breath, it will be ok. Thank god Let's note your incredibly witty response for posterity.  I can certainly understand why a far-right conservative always prefers a facts-free version of history. It's the only way they can make themselves look good. True history doesn't work like that, and it is almost always the fascist types who try hardest to control it. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,467
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 22, 2024 11:49:17 GMT -5
Hmmm. Not sure how this fits in as a response to a post addressing the widespread criminality during the Reagan Administration. I do get the attempt. I work with kids and "Well, they ..." is common. If there was criminality in Regan admin it doesn't mean that he was a criminal. Was Reagan charged? Its cute how to try to say I'm a child bless your heart What you quoted used the word "administration". |
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Nov 22, 2024 11:51:43 GMT -5
Two things.
1. The nastiness and name calling has really gotten out of hand. I know I'm not innocent of speaking harshly but I've seen some posts that are absolutely beyond any sort of decency.
2. scgal - your own posts are basically hate speech at this point (rather than a simple opinion) and I've had enough of that, too. This is your one warning.
moon - wearing the admin hat I deleted mine. I'm done with her entirely. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,467
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 22, 2024 12:06:26 GMT -5
Two things.
1. The nastiness and name calling has really gotten out of hand. I know I'm not innocent of speaking harshly but I've seen some posts that are absolutely beyond any sort of decency.
2. scgal - your own posts are basically hate speech at this point (rather than a simple opinion) and I've had enough of that, too. This is your one warning.
moon - wearing the admin hat I deleted mine. I'm done with her entirely. If only it were so easy to relieve our society of this attitude but this immediately past election suggests otherwise. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 22, 2024 12:11:12 GMT -5
Two things.
1. The nastiness and name calling has really gotten out of hand. I know I'm not innocent of speaking harshly but I've seen some posts that are absolutely beyond any sort of decency.
2. scgal - your own posts are basically hate speech at this point (rather than a simple opinion) and I've had enough of that, too. This is your one warning.
moon - wearing the admin hat It is not hate speech, and it not just simple opinion it is a simple opposing opinion to yours. I don't hate trans people and I don't want any harm to come to trans people. It is my opinion that they should not be crossdressing out in public and that is a danger to a normal society. So if that in your OPINON is hate speech then I guess it will get me banned. You and people like you who think differently like to hide behind the hate speech crap and are the ones who are intolerant. I will certainly agree that your opinions are opposite of mine, in the sense that mine are educated, logically-derived, coherent, fact-based, well-expressed, and devoid of spelling, syntax, punctuation, or other grammatical errors.... |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 22, 2024 12:24:44 GMT -5
Let's get the facts right about that, shall we? The first gun-running operation began in 2006, almost three years before Obama took office. By the time Obama took office, not a single indictment had been issued as a result of the operation. In 2009, the same ATF personnel who had run the earlier operation decided to try it again. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder knew of, approved, or authorized the plan. What the Obama DOJ did do that the Bush DOJ did not after the operations became known, was to investigate and end the operations with disciplinary action or prosecution for those involved. Your outrage appears to be misplaced. Again. Your actual facts will be viewed as fake news to a poster or two. Pearls before swine? |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,913
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 22, 2024 12:30:48 GMT -5
Good article. An opinion piece. Matt Gaetz declined Trump’s Cabinet pick. That doesn’t fix a major problem.To be surprised at any of Trump’s controversial picks feels painfully naive. On Thursday, former congressman Matt Gaetz announced he was withdrawing from consideration by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as attorney general in his administration. The day before, after a two-hour closed-door meeting, the House Ethics Committee announced it would not at that time be releasing a report on Gaetz, the culmination of an investigation into allegations that Gaetz participated in sex parties, took illegal drugs and had sex with a minor. Gaetz reportedly announced his withdrawal on X after he was asked for comment about testimony concerning an alleged second and previously unreported sexual encounter with the minor, according to CNN. (Gaetz has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and the DOJ closed its investigation into him without bringing charges.) Gaetz was just one of many controversial Cabinet picks we’ve seen from Trump as he prepares to re-enter the White House, with Democrats and Republicans alike expressing surprise and concern. In fact, Gaetz’s sudden decision to remove himself from consideration one day after he courted senators was less surprising, to some, than the pick itself. “Holy s---! I didn’t see that coming,” Sen. John Fetterman reportedly said sarcastically after learning of Gaetz's withdrawal. Some GOP senators are reportedly “relieved” by the news. Yet Gaetz's withdrawal and the uncertain future of the ethics report don’t derail the trajectory the president-elect has already set for his future Cabinet — one that embraces not only the unqualified, but also men accused of sexual assault. There is no “relief” in sight when the allegations against Gaetz did not automatically disqualify him for consideration on Day One. There will be no relief as a result of his withdrawal, which potentially allows the former congressman to sidestep accountability and avoid further scrutiny, either. Instead, lawmakers will continue to scratch their proverbial heads over Trump’s pick of former WWE executive and former Small Business Administration administer Linda McMahon for education secretary or television host and surgeon Mehmet Oz as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. By any logical, reality-based standard, these picks would be unanimously viewed as laughable, inappropriate and even dismissible — but Trump has made it clear that normal standards no longer apply. When Trump named Gaetz to head up the Justice Department, attention promptly turned to the sexual assault allegations surrounding the embattled lawmaker, including claims he had sex with a minor and was allegedly involved in sex trafficking alongside his former friend Joel Greenberg, who pleaded guilty to sex trafficking in 2021. “Why is he so intent on picking the most controversial firebrand he can think of for every post?” NBC News’ Chuck Todd wrote, arguing that “politically, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense” for Trump to name a man investigated by the House Ethics Committee on allegations of sexual misconduct. A bevy of GOP senators were reportedly “stunned, and not in a good way,” by the Gaetz pick. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, responded to the news by asking one reporter: “Are you s-------’ me?” Rest of article here: Matt Gaetz declined Trump’s Cabinet pick. That doesn’t fix a major problem. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,913
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 22, 2024 12:37:10 GMT -5
GOP senators warn Trump against aggressive recess appointment moveRepublican senators are pouring cold water on the idea that President-elect Trump could force the Senate into an extended recess next year so he would be able to fill key positions in his Cabinet without going through the upper chamber’s confirmation process. Republican senators and aides say Trump allies who claim the incoming president would have power under Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution to force an extended recess don’t understand how Congress really works. And they warn that Trump would trample on the Constitution’s separation of powers if he tries to force the Senate to take a recess of 10 days or longer to get around the chamber’s responsibility to provide “advice and consent” on executive branch nominees. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said he doesn’t think the Constitution’s Article 2 gives a president the authority to force the Senate — or the House, for that matter — to take a recess. “I don’t think so,” he said. “The separations of powers doctrine is pretty fundamental: three coequal branches of government. One branch can’t commandeer the other two. I think that would be the outcome.” Several of Trump’s Cabinet picks are facing potentially strong opposition from Senate Republicans, even after former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) withdrew his name from consideration to serve as attorney general Thursday, after several GOP senators raised concerns about allegations against him of sexual misconduct and illicit drug use. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a close ally of incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), says it would be “extremely difficult” for Trump to force the Senate into a long recess. “I think you would have to have a majority in the Senate that would agree to that,” he said of any effort to recess the Senate for more than 10 days. “I think it would be extremely difficult to get done,” he added. Putting the Senate into a recess lasting 10 days or longer has become a hot topic of conversation on Capitol Hill because the Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that’s how long a recess would have to last to enable a president to make emergency appointments without having to go through the Senate confirmation process. Rounds thinks Trump allies are floating the threat to gain leverage with senators who might be tempted to oppose some of his controversial Cabinet picks, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to serve as secretary of Health and Human Services or former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) to serve as director of national intelligence. Rest of article here: GOP senators warn Trump against aggressive recess appointment move
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,891
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 22, 2024 12:47:49 GMT -5
I saw that, and as an EV owner (I drive a Toyota RAV4 Prime PHEV (2021, sold for about what I purchased it for net of rebate, and now 2024), and DH drives a 2023 Ford Lightning F150. I have said this from the beginning. Ford invested a heck of a lot of $$ in the Ford Lightning. Now that the Republicans have gone so anti EV, they could seriously harm the American Car Makers that went in for the EV development just to benefit the Petroleum industry. Are Republicans really anti-EV though? Musk certainly is not and judging by a Cybertruck group I'm in I would say the majority of them are republicans. In another finance group I'm in a woman from TX was so happy Trump was elected so it would turn things around with all the solar and windfarms in TX and bring back more drilling. I highly doubt that will happen with Musk having moving his operations there now and he is a HUGE advocate of solar and thinks the entire country should be powered that way. It doesn’t matter what generic republicans want. The push to reverse EV support is to continue to prop up oil profits. Who has the better lobby - oil or car manufacturers? It is going to get kinda crazy. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Nov 22, 2024 12:57:56 GMT -5
Which is also why keeping promises is difficult. I am sure Michigan republicans want the subsidies to continue. Texas republicans want the oil regulations eased. Wonder who wins?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,817
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 22, 2024 13:38:20 GMT -5
Which is also why keeping promises is difficult. I am sure Michigan republicans want the subsidies to continue. Texas republicans want the oil regulations eased. Wonder who wins? Whichever lobby gives Trump the largest ‘donation.’ |
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,129
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Nov 22, 2024 13:38:52 GMT -5
Two things.
1. The nastiness and name calling has really gotten out of hand. I know I'm not innocent of speaking harshly but I've seen some posts that are absolutely beyond any sort of decency.
2. scgal - your own posts are basically hate speech at this point (rather than a simple opinion) and I've had enough of that, too. This is your one warning.
moon - wearing the admin hat It is not hate speech, and it not just simple opinion it is a simple opposing opinion to yours. I don't hate trans people and I don't want any harm to come to trans people. It is my opinion that they should not be crossdressing out in public and that is a danger to a normal society. So if that in your OPINON is hate speech then I guess it will get me banned. You and people like you who think differently like to hide behind the hate speech crap and are the ones who are intolerant.
And these statements you made (which I have removed but am citing as examples) clearly use hate terms.
"Trans person in a bathroom is only part of it. They shouldn't be out in public display at all
"Simple He will push for more laws for transgenders. They are not the same as Gay and Lesbian. There should be no special rules or laws to include these people. People like them makes a decline in a normal society."
"If Sarah is still intact He uses the mens room."
You will not win this battle. You don't get to decide what is hate speech on my forum. I do - because *I* am the one who risks the forum being shut down. Well, actually, we all risk it because all would be affected. And I doubt that I'm alone in considering it hate speech.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,817
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 22, 2024 13:49:20 GMT -5
I’m having Deja vu from the 1950s when seeing a mixed race couple was considered offensive, unchristian and unnatural in a large portion of the country.
There’s a church in the city where I work that refused to let one of their members sing in the choir back in the sixties because she had gotten divorced. She was allowed to attend but not participate in the service.
Interesting how public sentiment changes with time.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,762
|
Post by scgal on Nov 22, 2024 13:55:46 GMT -5
It is not hate speech, and it not just simple opinion it is a simple opposing opinion to yours. I don't hate trans people and I don't want any harm to come to trans people. It is my opinion that they should not be crossdressing out in public and that is a danger to a normal society. So if that in your OPINON is hate speech then I guess it will get me banned. You and people like you who think differently like to hide behind the hate speech crap and are the ones who are intolerant. I will certainly agree that your opinions are opposite of mine, in the sense that mine are educated, logically-derived, coherent, fact-based, well-expressed, and devoid of spelling, syntax, punctuation, or other grammatical errors.... i will reply to this now as i'm probably going to get banned. You forgot arrogant, conceited |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,762
|
Post by scgal on Nov 22, 2024 14:06:48 GMT -5
It is not hate speech, and it not just simple opinion it is a simple opposing opinion to yours. I don't hate trans people and I don't want any harm to come to trans people. It is my opinion that they should not be crossdressing out in public and that is a danger to a normal society. So if that in your OPINON is hate speech then I guess it will get me banned. You and people like you who think differently like to hide behind the hate speech crap and are the ones who are intolerant.
And these statements you made (which I have removed but am citing as examples) clearly use hate terms.
"Trans person in a bathroom is only part of it. They shouldn't be out in public display at all
"Simple He will push for more laws for transgenders. They are not the same as Gay and Lesbian. There should be no special rules or laws to include these people. People like them makes a decline in a normal society."
"If Sarah is still intact He uses the mens room."
You will not win this battle. You don't get to decide what is hate speech on my forum. I do - because *I* am the one who risks the forum being shut down. Well, actually, we all risk it because all would be affected. And I doubt that I'm alone in considering it hate speech.
Oh honey there is not a battle here. You will probably ban me for this but, this forum is just that a forum you take your little position too seriously. This is "your forum" what a joke. You don't like it when people differ from you ok I get it most leftist are intolerant. Saying I don't consider transgender people part of normal society does not make it hate speech. It does not surprise me that you would find others here considering it hate speech. So go ahead ban away. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 22, 2024 14:27:20 GMT -5
I will certainly agree that your opinions are opposite of mine, in the sense that mine are educated, logically-derived, coherent, fact-based, well-expressed, and devoid of spelling, syntax, punctuation, or other grammatical errors.... i will reply to this now as i'm probably going to get banned. You forgot arrogant, conceited Technically, it is not necessarily arrogance if the high opinion is warranted, and I am certainly far beyond the level of "some" here. And conceited doesn't really fit at all. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 22, 2024 14:54:54 GMT -5
Let me refer you to this portion of the PB Terms of Service:
And these statements you made (which I have removed but am citing as examples) clearly use hate terms.
"Trans person in a bathroom is only part of it. They shouldn't be out in public display at all
"Simple He will push for more laws for transgenders. They are not the same as Gay and Lesbian. There should be no special rules or laws to include these people. People like them makes a decline in a normal society."
"If Sarah is still intact He uses the mens room."
You will not win this battle. You don't get to decide what is hate speech on my forum. I do - because *I* am the one who risks the forum being shut down. Well, actually, we all risk it because all would be affected. And I doubt that I'm alone in considering it hate speech.
Oh honey there is not a battle here. You will probably ban me for this but, this forum is just that a forum you take your little position too seriously. This is "your forum" what a joke. You don't like it when people differ from you ok I get it most leftist are intolerant. Saying I don't consider transgender people part of normal society does not make it hate speech. It does not surprise me that you would find others here considering it hate speech. So go ahead ban away. You really don't know anything about anything, do you? A forum owner is bound by platform rules and has to run their board in accordance with those rules. Allowing things that are contrary to those rules risks having the whole thing shut down. To risk something that hundreds or more enjoy to cater to the worst and dumbest among us will never happen. I used to assume that the sc part of your name here referred to South Carolina. I'm guessing now it more rightfully refers to s***** c***. |
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,501
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Nov 22, 2024 15:11:02 GMT -5
I’m having Deja vu from the 1950s when seeing a mixed race couple was considered offensive, unchristian and unnatural in a large portion of the country. There’s a church in the city where I work that refused to let one of their members sing in the choir back in the sixties because she had gotten divorced. She was allowed to attend but not participate in the service. Interesting how public sentiment changes with time. Right? There are a whole host of things I would prefer not to see/experience while out in public, but unless they are violating public decency laws, its on me to cope. Though regression, repression, and control has long been the Conservative goal. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,467
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 22, 2024 15:11:08 GMT -5
Hmmm. Not sure how this fits in as a response to a post addressing the widespread criminality during the Reagan Administration. I do get the attempt. I work with kids and "Well, they ..." is common. If there was criminality in Regan admin it doesn't mean that he was a criminal. Was Reagan charged? Its cute how to try to say I'm a child bless your heart It is just that I have a lot of experience with children including being a witness to their interactions with other adults. I am amazed frequently by their ability to direct conversations away from their behavior and send it into a tangent. When I witness adults, they will do the same but usually with more subtlety. Your two attempts here were not subtle. |
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,970
|
Post by hurley1980 on Nov 22, 2024 20:05:29 GMT -5
Can't we just ban her already? I mean, its long overdue...so many of her posts violate the rules. She's nothing more than a troll at this point.
I have her blocked, but its not enough.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,467
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 22, 2024 21:16:08 GMT -5
Can't we just ban her already? I mean, its long overdue...so many of her posts violate the rules. She's nothing more than a troll at this point. I have her blocked, but its not enough. Why isn't you having her blocked enough for you? |
|
azucena
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 13:23:14 GMT -5
Posts: 5,942
|
Post by azucena on Nov 23, 2024 0:20:46 GMT -5
Because we all continue to feed the troll by quoting her. Myself included.
Her saying nothing wrong with 17 sleeping with 30+ may have cured me. Wrong on so many levels and illegal to boot. No wonder she doesn't care about Republican sex scandals.
I can't imagine Teen or dd16 having a relationship with someone that age.
And yes just to be clear more wrong on the older man's part, he's supposed to know better.
And if she was lying once again to bait us then truly troll and worthless here.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,467
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 23, 2024 1:03:13 GMT -5
Because we all continue to feed the troll by quoting her. Myself included. Her saying nothing wrong with 17 sleeping with 30+ may have cured me. Wrong on so many levels and illegal to boot. No wonder she doesn't care about Republican sex scandals. I can't imagine Teen or dd16 having a relationship with someone that age. And yes just to be clear more wrong on the older man's part, he's supposed to know better. And if she was lying once again to bait us then truly troll and worthless here. What is wrong with feeding the troll? I find it entertaining. |
|
