AOC steals almost $1 million in campaign money...

[S.A. Boggs]

1705097.jpg
Sam

[togor]

Bodyman I answer your questions, and I'm good with give and take but fair is fair, a question apiece. And in this medium, concise answers are preferred to stemwinding, or an endless supply of straw men. (hint: try writing a reply without using the word "you" in it).

As for AOC's cause or causes, she certainly wants to see CO2 tackled in an aggressive way. It's a fair guess that she would be prepared for some economic disruption but then again so was Trump with his tariffs. I would therefore infer that she isn't expecting the Rapture before the CO2 SHTF, so that means she probably not a member of a certain type of Evangelical church. As for economics, she'd probably not blink at taxing billionaires a lot more, but not being one myself, I'm not moved to trembling by that. These are guesses, you can ask her for the real dope

My question to you: Trump's tax returns. Insofar as he voluntarily undertook to be a public servant in the highest office in the land, do you genuinely believe that the public has no claim to understanding his hidden financial interests and how they may intersect with his public policy?

[dryheat]

I don't really believe Trump is in it for the money. He's not stupid about money either, it's in his DNA. Allens post wasn't very Allen-y. I've voiced the exact same myself. Reminds me of the line from a song;
You'll NEVER get enough, you got too much stuff.

[Vern Humphrey]

It is usually a give and take in a conversation; answer then ask - but you almost never answer the questions and instead just evade, like now.

Supposedly, you want people to engage in cogent, lucid discourse on these difficult topics. So here is an opportunity to demonstrate the depth and breadth of the liberal mind - to defend that viewpoint and see if it stands up under a microscope - so engage.

Or are you here for some other reason?

Sorry about the length - your lips must be really tired after all that reading. Difficult topics, however, often take a good bit more parsing.

He's a narcissist. Note how he attempts to impose his rules on you -- rules that he, himself doesn't follow.

[m1ashooter]

I'm thinking that Nancy and company are also behind the scenes directing the investigations. AOC is a thorn in the old guards sides. I also bet AOC didn't declare all her tips when she was tending bar.

[togor]

He's a narcissist. Note how he attempts to impose his rules on you -- rules that he, himself doesn't follow.

Passive-aggressive arguments in the Humphrey household must be a sight to behold, as the principles take turns stating their grievances to the cat.

[togor]

Back sorta to the OP, here is a Daily Mail piece on AOC. As you might expect they found an angle which is pretty devastating.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...boyfriend.html

[Clark Howard]

Defend any communist. Tell any lie. Destroy any person. Steal anything in sight. Instigate untruth. Insert persona where it is not welcome. Dems. Regards, Clark

[Vern Humphrey]

Come on, Guys. No need to keep poking at our resident National Socialists -- you've got their panties in a wad already.

[S.A. Boggs]

Come on, Guys. No need to keep poking at our resident National Socialists -- you've got their panties in a wad already.

ONE OF "THEIR" OUTSTANDING LEADERS, HOW PROUD THE PARTY MUST BE!
Samsays so much (2).jpg

[togor]

Pretty good Photoshop Boggs. Do that yourself?

[Bodyman]

Oh, where to start, ...

OK, line by line - responses in blue, ...

Bodyman I answer your questions, No. You do respond but in any way you wish; you change subjects, you evade and now state an error as truth which does not make it so - you have answered only one question. and I'm good with give and take but fair is fair, a question apiece. And in this medium, concise answers are preferred to stemwinding, or an endless supply of straw men. (hint: try writing a reply without using the word "you" in it). I was warned about talking in the third person and now am not to use the second - hmmmm, ... do you often have conversations in the first person? I wonder, who wins the arguments? Sorry, I will stick to old fashioned way; regular old conversational English.

As for AOC's cause or causes, she certainly wants to see CO2 tackled in an aggressive way. You have absolutely no clue whether what you say is actually correct. To what degree is AGW real or is it some other unknown dynamic to which we may or may not be contributing and certainly do not fully control. And yet on mere unsubstantiated opinion that this is the actual problem in all its worst case scenarios, you seek to use the power of the state to aggressively tackle your idea of the cause - that is fear, by the way - but in other words, you want to use a pitch fork to kill a gnat based on the idea that your trash can won't stink any more. The real crime is that you have been duped into accepting this 'cause of the day' to further empower someone without ever noticing the power grab. You have been enticed into wanting to give up some of YOUR Inalienable Rights, and deriding (again; hate, ...) those who disagree and refuse to do the same because they actually SEE the sham. You have no clue and yet defend/support and naively propagate the scheme! You wish to empower a daft bimbo even in light of her overwhelming incompetence for whatever she might dream up next, and they are using fear and hate to manipulate you to do so! It's a fair guess that she would be prepared for some economic disruption but then again so was Trump with his tariffs. That comparison is completely invalid and irresponsible; one is a spit in the ocean and the other is draining it. Going after CO2 in an aggressive way envisioned by the left would not be disruption but would destroy the economy of the entire developed world. Is that what you want? As we have already shown, that was the agenda of the obamas, ... and you sucked it up like a Hoover Deluxe. I would therefore infer that she isn't expecting the Rapture before the CO2 SHTF, so that means she probably not a member of a certain type of Evangelical church. You got me what that means but I think it is derogatory and was typed with a smirk, ... As for economics, she'd probably not blink at taxing billionaires a lot more, but not being one myself, I'm not moved to trembling by that. Maybe you should tremble - you are a millionaire to most of her base who have yet to avail themselves of the opportunities in this land like you - they have created nothing for themselves yet and possess only a single vote which they don't value so they predictably sell it for the trinkets offered by the latest daft, bimbo that hasn't got a clue that she could destroy things, and worse, she doesn't really seem to care. And once CO2 is aggressively 'tackled' and the country is in ruins and she/they realize that there is no money left to do anything about anything but things like NO2 which is 100 times worse than CO2 and is in far greater quantities, are still getting worse, then what? What cause du jour will these power hungry loons be shilling next? Whatever it is, you can rest assured they will have no problem "aggressively tackling" it with YOUR dollars exactly the same as some faceless billionaire. These are guesses, you can ask her for the real dope Dope. I'll skip it - far too many jokes but its almost Freudian or something.

My question to you: Trump's tax returns. Insofar as he voluntarily undertook to be a public servant in the highest office in the land, do you genuinely believe that the public has no claim to understanding his hidden financial interests and how they may intersect with his public policy? What is wrong with the goose and the gander? He should have just smiled and said; 'I followed the law exactly and didn't pay any taxes - pretty cool huh. Isn't America awesome'. How much credit does he get for the jobs created and all those taxes that didn't exist prior? But why be so interested in the finances of one party's candidates and not the others. Hillary never did find all the billing statements for the Rose law firm but at least she worked there. obama never held a real job for a day in his life, and even once elected, at his paying job downstate in the Illinois legislature he voted 'present' 100 times. I always wanted to know exactly how lucrative it was being a 'community organizer' and exactly who pays you. It must be pretty tasty money because after a few years you have enough to run for President! Where did their money come from? Who got it for them and then held the strings of influence? How did the Clinton foundation get its mega-money? How about babs or pelosi or levin or gore or uncle joe - why not take a look at how they are doing and where their money came from as 'public servants'.

Trump got his money from his Dad. He could have put it in an index fund and made the same or more money than he has now, but instead decided to try to build things, ... and did. The one thing that even you cannot deny is that he actually IS different than the rest of the critters in DC. Maybe enough of us all just got tired of being told the same lies from both sides, and figured we'd try someone else's shtick for a while. Maybe too many of us felt like we were drowning and we reached even for that proverbial sword when we elected him. Dunno, but I do know a lot of people don't feel like they are drowning any more, ...

Disagreement is a part of the system, but I always figured if these things could be examined thoroughly enough that even the most ardent would find the same bedrock under it all. I don't really want to generalize because I know that some folks really do have their hearts in the right place and are open to, and really can re-examine what they 'think'. But the most ardent liberals have a real tendency to ignore or deny the very most important facts and instead focus on some of the least important. When pressed, instead of thinking they will revert to pre-digested talking points. If one can lead them logically somewhat astray and show them the water, they will deny its very existence. Eventually one must admit that this is all intentional and little if any real thought is being applied, merely instead picking and choosing the things that support what they have already concluded and there is no room for re-examining or especially not for introspection.

How disappointing.

Perhaps I have granted too much credit and Clark Howard above actually hit the nail on the head.

AMHO

[Allen]

OK, line by line - responses in blue, ...

Why do you waste your time?

Even if you say the sky is blue there will be nothing but resistance from such as he/they are trying to destroy a gun and conservative forum.

To respond to such behavior is to feed such behavior.

If they had been ignored long ago they would be gone long ago.

Please stay with us but ignore the riff raff.

[togor]

If I understand the reply, Bodyman, no public claim is seen on Trump's financial affairs, insofar as there may be a public/private conflict of interest. OK, noted. Not sure if the questions thereafter about Hillary's or Obama's financial affairs are rhetorical or meant as the next interrogative. If it is the latter, I can say that I don't know those answers, but I am in favor of broad financial disclosure by candidates. Anyhow, please advise if we are done here or if another query awaits.

I understand that Allen doesn't like it when someone calls out some of the Allen-y things that come from that login, but c'mon, some of the stuff is really heinous.

[S.A. Boggs]

Why do you waste your time?

Even if you say the sky is blue there will be nothing but resistance from such as he/they are trying to destroy a gun and conservative forum.

To respond to such behavior is to feed such behavior.

If they had been ignored long ago they would be gone long ago.

Please stay with us but ignore the riff raff.

There is a "sociopathic" personality behind the "voices" in the Nazi response on this board, intelligent conversation is an impossibility with this person[s] IMHO. This "person" has made claims and refuses to back them up except from Huffington responses. One would do much better communicating with a brick wall, at least any returning audio stimulation would be worthwhile. A "trained" engineer, more like a trained monkey! I am enclosing a "picture" so that the "person" can have a visual understanding of communication as this "person" has proved otherwise! If we are in luck, perhaps another "voice" will chime in with stimulating retort!52153202_2549714465101849_3712778092410830848_n.jpg
Sam