Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
jasper76 wrote: So buried underneath the important news of Angeline Jolie divorcing from Brad Pitt, apparently Trump has been using money from the Trump Foundation (ostensibly a charity) to settle legal liabilities for his businesses.
The last of the four newly documented expenditures involves the second painting of Trump, which he bought with charity money.
It happened in 2014, during a gala at Mar-a-Lago that raised money for Unicorn Children’s Foundation — a Florida charity that helps children with developmental and learning disorders.
The gala’s main event was a concert by Jon Secada. But there was also an auction of paintings by Havi Schanz, a Miami Beach-based artist.
A painting by artist Havi Schanz of Donald Trump. (Photo provided by Havi Schanz)
Trump with the painting that he bought. (Photo provided by Havi Schanz)
One was of Marilyn Monroe. The other was a four-foot-tall portrait of Trump: a younger-looking, mid-’90s Trump, painted in acrylic on top of an old architectural drawing.
Trump bought it for $10,000.
Afterward, Schanz recalled in an email, “he asked me about the painting. I said, ‘I paint souls, and when I had to paint you, I asked your soul to allow me.’ He was touched and smiled.”
Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
A few days later, the charity said, a check came from the Trump Foundation. Trump himself gave nothing, according to Sharon Alexander, the executive director of the charity.
Trump’s staff did not respond to questions about where that second painting is now. Alexander said she had last seen it at Trump’s club.
“I’m pretty sure we just left it at Mar-a-Lago,” she said, “and his staff took care of it.”
The website TripAdvisor provides another clue: On the page for Trump’s Doral golf resort, near Miami, users posted photos from inside the club. One of them appears to show Schanz’s painting, hanging on a wall at the resort. The date on the photo was February 2016.
On a side note, it looks like a reporter just found the painting in question...
LordofHats wrote: *Not necessarily a reference to Fox News. I know I've called them Faux News before, but on this occasion it's not what I'm referring too. I'm primarily referring to partisan mongers like Sean Hannity, and even Bill O'Reilly as well as the large body of right wing conspiracy blogs that masquerade themselves as news. And it's not like there isn't a left wing outrage machine. Go to the blogosphere and you find it as easily as anything, but it isn't institutionalized in the same way as its right counter part. This is probably helped by TV media outlets paying them a lot less mind, while they've at times made it a personal mission to react to everything that comes from Fox News, making it easy for Fox to perpetuate its personal mythology of being the one true "fair and balanced" news source both within itself and among its viewers.
Yeah, at the grassroots level there's as many left wing lying partisan hacks as there are right wing lying partisan hacks. The difference is how much institutional politics has engaged with and embraced the lying partisan hacks. FOX News has been a key part of the Republican party and its messaging for a couple of decades now, and now it appears Trump has flanked that and gone even further right by embracing Breitbart.
The real concern I have going forward is that Democrats may end up in a similar place. Not necessarily by choice, but out of a belief that these people can be useful. Very quickly though, these media gatekeepers end up exerting tremendous control over the party.
The US will end up with two irresponsible parties, not just one.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The old school media/blogosphere are a liberal/left-wing tilt. I think the reason why folks like Hannity/Limbaugh are so popular is that they're all compressed in a very small aspect of media/culture. (namely talk radio / cable news).
I’m not going to comment on political bias in the mainstream media – we’ve had that discussion way too many times before And LordofHats gave a really good answer to the overall question as well.
But on the popularity of Hannity, or any of the FOX News presenters, I think you’re quite far off. I mean sure, they monster the cable news ratings, but that’s like being the biggest goldfish in the bucket, sitting next to the Pacific Ocean. Cable news is a tiny part of total tv, which in turn is just a part of total media. If the audience for FOX News was actually all of the conservative audience, then the conservative audience would be about 2 million people and Republicans wouldn’t be able to get a dog catcher elected.
The reason FOX News, and O’Reilly, Limbaugh and the like are successful is that they’ve carved out a niche in a format that can function very well with a small but dependable audience. What’s interesting is that given the fairly limited audience for this how big the impact on greater conservative politics is. The station leads Republican thought and policy, and no Republican will dare go against a narrative being pushed by FOX News.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/22 01:12:18
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The old school media/blogosphere are a liberal/left-wing tilt. I think the reason why folks like Hannity/Limbaugh are so popular is that they're all compressed in a very small aspect of media/culture. (namely talk radio / cable news).
I’m not going to comment on political bias in the mainstream media – we’ve had that discussion way too many times before
you don't wanna dance wit me anymore??
But on the popularity of Hannity, or any of the FOX News presenters, I think you’re quite far off. I mean sure, they monster the cable news ratings, but that’s like being the biggest goldfish in the bucket, sitting next to the Pacific Ocean. Cable news is a tiny part of total tv, which in turn is just a part of total media. If the audience for FOX News was actually all of the conservative audience, then the conservative audience would be about 2 million people and Republicans wouldn’t be able to get a dog catcher elected.
The reason FOX News, and O’Reilly, Limbaugh and the like are successful is that they’ve carved out a niche. They say conservative things to an audience that wants to hear conservative things. What’s interesting is that given the fairly limited audience for this how big the impact on greater conservative politics is. The station leads Republican thought and policy, and no Republican will dare go against a narrative being pushed by FOX News.
I don't think I've argued that they're not big... far from it.
In fact, you're proving my point in that they're small bucket compared to the Pacific.
LordofHats wrote: Damn it Seb don't make me feel even more depressed.
I think this campaign, starting with Sanders’ run, has shown that mainstream, practical Democratic politics just doesn’t register with the kids at all. And the left wing that is on-line is much more radicalised, and is a growing share of the market every year. Democrats will go where the audience is, go where the votes are. Individual Democrats might be reluctant, but many will simply be challenged and replaced in primaries by more radical opponents, same as we’ve seen in the Republican party.
I could be wrong. This Trump nightmare could provide a sobering point, a realisation of what extremist politics eventually brings. Or maybe the underlying drivers of this increasing radicalisation will fade for some reason. But what I described is a reasonably likely medium term future for the US, I believe.
I don't think I've argued that they're not big... far from it.
In fact, you're proving my point in that they're small bucket compared to the Pacific.
Yeah, given FOX News’ audience is actually pretty small, that puts a big whole in your argument that the station’s audience exists because it was chased away from mainstream media because of its lefwing bias.
If only two million views left other media, this means either there is only two million conservatives, or the rest of them are happy sticking to other media. The first isn’t an option, because we know tens of millions of people turn out to vote for Republicans every few years Which tells us that actually most conservatives are happy continuing to get their news from other sources. Probably because those sources aren’t actually hostile to conservatives, they just happen to not share your own conservative mindset.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 01:44:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I imagine there's a sizeable share of conservatives who just don't watch any news. I've encountered more than a few who think Fox is just part of the liberal conspiracy. Crazy eh? Welcome to south central PA.
LordofHats wrote: I imagine there's a sizeable share of conservatives who just don't watch any news. I've encountered more than a few who think Fox is just part of the liberal conspiracy. Crazy eh? Welcome to south central PA.
I don't know about that... I just don't like Fox's format and the two nimcompoops that is Hannity and O'Reilly.
I've always preferred CNN (when they're not looking for a crashed plane!) and their website... even though at times, they can be the Clinton News Network.
LordofHats wrote: I imagine there's a sizeable share of conservatives who just don't watch any news. I've encountered more than a few who think Fox is just part of the liberal conspiracy. Crazy eh? Welcome to south central PA.
Yeah, there’d be a lot of conservatives who don’t follow the news, and plenty more who get their news from some other format, especially these days.
But there are also a lot of conservatives who are happy watching non-politically aligned news. This indicates that not every political person needs to have their news given their preferred political filter, and that many conservatives don’t actually find mainstream media to be biased against their political views.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I don't know about that... I just don't like Fox's format and the two nimcompoops that is Hannity and O'Reilly.
I've always preferred CNN
I don't like any cable news. Ultimately there isn't 24 hours of news every day, most days there is barely 30 minutes. Early on there was hope that a lot time would be focused on investigative and in depth pieces, but it turns out those were expensive. So instead we just get endless talking and pretend controversies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 02:17:32
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Yeah, there’d be a lot of conservatives who don’t follow the news, and plenty more who get their news from some other format, especially these days.
But there are also a lot of conservatives who are happy watching non-politically aligned news. This indicates that not every political person needs to have their news given their preferred political filter, and that many conservatives don’t actually find mainstream media to be biased against their political views.
I just thought we'd be inclusive
For better or worse, people get news from all over the place, including Social Media like Facebook and Twitter, TV shows John Oliver's like Last Week Tonight, probably even South Park.
I think there's a simultaneous environment out there where people are both engaging information far more intelligently than we give them credit for (such as being able to distinguish a fact from a joke when watching the likes of Stephen Colbert or John Oliver), and far more stupidly than we expect. I've seen people unable to differentiate a plurality from a majority, and some of them are news anchors on major news TV news stations and not necessarily Fox News (CNN does it too fairly frequently).
It's all a lot more colorful than people give it credit for.
For better or worse, people get news from all over the place, including Social Media like Facebook and Twitter, TV shows John Oliver's like Last Week Tonight, probably even South Park.
I think there's a simultaneous environment out there where people are both engaging information far more intelligently than we give them credit for (such as being able to distinguish a fact from a joke when watching the likes of Stephen Colbert or John Oliver), and far more stupidly than we expect. I've seen people unable to differentiate a plurality from a majority, and some of them are news anchors on major news TV news stations and not necessarily Fox News (CNN does it too fairly frequently).
It's all a lot more colorful than people give it credit for.
Heh, I quite like that - people are engaging in far smarter and far dumber ways than we might consider It’s certainly worth considering that even a fairly dumb piece of media might be viewed effectively by an informed viewer engaging in critical thinking. And a fairly considered, smart piece might be viewed by a partisan just listening in for bits that are critical of the other team.
The other issue is that media is changing constantly, and often by the time we get our heads around how some platform is used, the audience is moved on to some other thing.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
For better or worse, people get news from all over the place, including Social Media like Facebook and Twitter, TV shows John Oliver's like Last Week Tonight, probably even South Park.
And local newscasts. And talk radio. And, if you're old, newspapers. Or, if you're young, Youtube.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 05:19:34
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
For better or worse, people get news from all over the place, including Social Media like Facebook and Twitter, TV shows John Oliver's like Last Week Tonight, probably even South Park.
And local newscasts. And talk radio. And, if you're old, newspapers. Or, if you're young, Youtube.
jasper76 wrote: So buried underneath the important news of Angeline Jolie divorcing from Brad Pitt, apparently Trump has been using money from the Trump Foundation (ostensibly a charity) to settle legal liabilities for his businesses.
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems by David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post
Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.
Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.
In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the height of a flagpole.
In a settlement, Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Trump sent a check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records.
The check to charity from the Trump Foundation.
In another case, court papers say one of Trump’s golf courses in New York agreed to settle a lawsuit by making a donation to the plaintiff’s chosen charity. A $158,000 donation was made by the Trump Foundation, according to tax records.
The other expenditures involved smaller amounts. In 2013, Trump used $5,000 from the foundation to buy advertisements touting his chain of hotels in programs for three events organized by a D.C. preservation group. And in 2014, Trump spent $10,000 of the foundation’s money on a portrait of himself bought at a charity fundraiser.
Or, rather, another portrait of himself.
Several years earlier, Trump used $20,000 from the Trump Foundation to buy a different, six-foot-tall portrait.
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) railed against GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump from the Senate floor Sept. 20. Reid accused Trump of being "incapable of making money honestly." ( / C-SPAN)
If the Internal Revenue Service were to find that Trump violated self-dealing rules, the agency could require him to pay penalty taxes or to reimburse the foundation for all the money it spent on his behalf. Trump is also facing scrutiny from the New York attorney general’s office, which is examining whether the foundation broke state charity laws.
More broadly, these cases also provide new evidence that Trump ran his charity in a way that may have violated U.S. tax law and gone against the moral conventions of philanthropy.
“I represent 700 nonprofits a year, and I’ve never encountered anything so brazen,” said Jeffrey Tenenbaum, who advises charities at the Venable law firm in Washington. After The Washington Post described the details of these Trump Foundation gifts, Tenenbaum described them as “really shocking.”
“If he’s using other people’s money — run through his foundation — to satisfy his personal obligations, then that’s about as blatant an example of self-dealing [as] I’ve seen in awhile,” Tenenbaum said.
The Post sent the Trump campaign a detailed list of questions about the four cases but received no response.
The Trump campaign released a statement about this story late Tuesday that said it was “peppered with inaccuracies and omissions,” though the statement cited none and the campaign has still not responded to repeated requests for comment.
The New York attorney general’s office declined to comment when asked whether its inquiry would cover these new cases of possible self-dealing.
Washington Post reporter David A. Fahrenthold is investigating how much Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has given to charity over the past seven years. Here's what he found. ( Sarah Parnass / The Washington Post)
Trump founded his charity in 1987 and for years was its only donor. But in 2006, Trump gave away almost all the money he had donated to the foundation, leaving it with just $4,238 at year’s end, according to tax records.
Then, he transformed the Trump Foundation into something rarely seen in the world of philanthropy: a name-branded foundation whose namesake provides none of its money. Trump gave relatively small donations in 2007 and 2008, and afterward, nothing. The foundation’s tax records show no donations from Trump since 2009.
[In 2007, Trump had to face his own falsehoods. And he did, 30 times.]
Its money has come from other donors, most notably pro-wrestling executives Vince and Linda McMahon, who gave a total of $5 million from 2007 to 2009, tax records show. Trump remains the foundation’s president, and he told the IRS in his latest public filings that he works half an hour per week on the charity.
The Post has previously detailed other cases in which Trump used the charity’s money in a way that appeared to violate the law.
In 2013, for instance, the foundation gave $25,000 to a political group supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R). That gift was made about the same time that Bondi’s office was considering whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. It didn’t.
Tax laws say nonprofit groups such as the Trump Foundation may not make political gifts. Trump staffers blamed the gift on a clerical error. After The Post reported on the gift to Bondi’s group this spring, Trump paid a $2,500 penalty tax and reimbursed the Trump Foundation for the $25,000 donation.
In other instances, it appeared that Trump may have violated rules against self-dealing.
In 2012, for instance, Trump spent $12,000 of the foundation’s money to buy a football helmet signed by then-NFL quarterback Tim Tebow.
And in 2007, Trump’s wife, Melania, bid $20,000 for the six-foot-tall portrait of Trump, done by a “speed painter” during a charity gala at Mar-a-Lago. Later, Trump paid for the painting with $20,000 from the foundation.
In those cases, tax experts said, Trump was not allowed to simply keep these items and display them in a home or business. They had to be put to a charitable use.
Trump’s campaign has not responded to questions about what became of the helmet or the portrait.
After the settlement, Trump put a slightly smaller flag farther from the road and mounted it on a 70-foot pole as seen in this Nov. 1, 2015, photo. (Rosalind Helderman/The Washington Post)
The four new cases of possible self-dealing were discovered in the Trump Foundation’s tax filings. While Trump has refused to release his personal tax returns, the foundation’s filings are required to be public.
The case involving the flagpole at Trump’s oceanfront Mar-a-Lago Club began in 2006, when the club put up a giant American flag on the 80-foot pole. Town rules said flagpoles should be 42 feet high at most. Trump’s contention, according to news reports, was: “You don’t need a permit to put up the American flag.”
The town began to fine Trump, $1,250 a day.
Trump’s club sued in federal court, saying that a smaller flag “would fail to appropriately express the magnitude of Donald J. Trump’s . . . patriotism.”
They settled.
The town waived the $120,000 in fines. In September 2007, Trump wrote the town a letter, saying he had done his part as well.
“I have sent a check for $100,000 to Fisher House,” he wrote. The town had chosen Fisher House, which runs a network of comfort homes for the families of veterans and military personnel receiving medical treatment, as the recipient of the money. Trump added that, for good measure, “I have sent a check for $25,000” to another charity, the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial.
Trump provided the town with copies of the checks, which show that they came from the Trump Foundation.
In Palm Beach, nobody seems to have objected to the fines assessed on Trump’s business being erased by a donation from a charity.
“I don’t know that there was any attention paid to that at the time. We just saw two checks signed by Donald J. Trump,” said John Randolph, the Palm Beach town attorney. “I’m sure we were satisfied with it.”
Excerpt from a settlement filed in federal court in 2007.
In the other case in which a Trump Foundation payment seemed to help settle a legal dispute, the trouble began with a hole-in-one.
In 2010, a man named Martin Greenberg hit a hole-in-one on the 13th hole while playing in a charity golf tournament at Trump’s course in Westchester County, N.Y.
Greenberg won a $1 million prize. Briefly.
Later, Greenberg was told that he had won nothing. The prize’s rules required that the shot had to go 150 yards. But Trump’s course had allegedly made the hole too short.
Greenberg sued.
Eventually, court papers show, Trump’s golf course signed off on a settlement that required it to make a donation to a group of Greenberg’s choosing. Then, on the day that the parties informed the court they had settled their case, a $158,000 donation was sent to the Martin Greenberg Foundation.
That money came from the Trump Foundation, according to the tax filings of both Trump’s and Greenberg’s foundations.
Greenberg’s foundation reported getting nothing that year from Trump personally or from his golf club.
Both Greenberg and Trump have declined to comment.
Several tax experts said that the two cases appeared to be clear examples of self-dealing, as defined by the tax code.
The Trump Foundation had made a donation, it seemed, so that a Trump business did not have to.
Rosemary E. Fei, a lawyer in San Francisco who advises nonprofit groups, said both cases clearly fit the definition of self-dealing.
“Yes, Trump pledged as part of the settlement to make a payment to a charity, and yes, the foundation is writing a check to a charity,” Fei said. “But the obligation was Trump’s. And you can’t have a charitable foundation paying off Trump’s personal obligations. That would be classic self-dealing.”
The Trump International Hotel in Washington, a renovation of the historic Old Post Office Pavilion, opened Sept. 12. (Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post)
In another instance, from 2013, the Trump Foundation made a $5,000 donation to the D.C. Preservation League, according to the group and tax filings. That nonprofit group’s support has been helpful for Trump as he has turned the historic Old Post Office Pavilion on Pennsylvania Avenue NW into a luxury hotel.
The Trump Foundation’s donation to that group bought a “sponsorship,” which included advertising space in the programs for three big events that drew Washington’s real estate elite. The ads did not mention the foundation or anything related to charity. Instead, they promoted Trump’s hotels, with glamorous photos and a phone number to call to make a reservation.
“The foundation wrote a check that essentially bought advertising for Trump hotels?” asked John Edie, the longtime general counsel for the Council on Foundations, when a Post reporter described this arrangement. “That’s not charity.”
The last of the four newly documented expenditures involves the second painting of Trump, which he bought with charity money.
It happened in 2014, during a gala at Mar-a-Lago that raised money for Unicorn Children’s Foundation — a Florida charity that helps children with developmental and learning disorders.
The gala’s main event was a concert by Jon Secada. But there was also an auction of paintings by Havi Schanz, a Miami Beach-based artist.
A painting by artist Havi Schanz of Donald Trump. (Photo provided by Havi Schanz)
Trump with the painting that he bought. (Photo provided by Havi Schanz)
One was of Marilyn Monroe. The other was a four-foot-tall portrait of Trump: a younger-looking, mid-’90s Trump, painted in acrylic on top of an old architectural drawing.
Trump bought it for $10,000.
Afterward, Schanz recalled in an email, “he asked me about the painting. I said, ‘I paint souls, and when I had to paint you, I asked your soul to allow me.’ He was touched and smiled.”
Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
A few days later, the charity said, a check came from the Trump Foundation. Trump himself gave nothing, according to Sharon Alexander, the executive director of the charity.
Trump’s staff did not respond to questions about where that second painting is now. Alexander said she had last seen it at Trump’s club.
“I’m pretty sure we just left it at Mar-a-Lago,” she said, “and his staff took care of it.”
The website TripAdvisor provides another clue: On the page for Trump’s Doral golf resort, near Miami, users posted photos from inside the club. One of them appears to show Schanz’s painting, hanging on a wall at the resort. The date on the photo was February 2016.
Gives a whole new meaning to "give until it hurts." I believe every word of it too.
That does seem to be the prevailing mood in America.
"This town needs an enema, and I'm going to give it one."
-Joker for President
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 11:06:53
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
That does seem to be the prevailing mood in America.
Which is precisely why reactionaries are currently gathering such strength. A simple message of destruction or strength (ignoring the consequences) is much easier to shout than one of incremental change, measured systemic reform, and increased accountability.
Except there has been no incremental reform and increased accountability.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jasper76 wrote: So buried underneath the important news of Angeline Jolie divorcing from Brad Pitt, apparently Trump has been using money from the Trump Foundation (ostensibly a charity) to settle legal liabilities for his businesses.
No reform of government. No accountability of government or private officials (note the thread on the Wells CEO).
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
There are only two ways we'll get any real reform in government at this point. The voters could suddenly decide to vote for good, honest people. Or, a bunch of the powerful, influential politicians from all sides could stand up and say "feth the parties, feth our chances at re-election, we're going to do the good, honest thing now for the good of the nation."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 14:53:53
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
No reform of government. No accountability of government or private officials (note the thread on the Wells CEO).
Yes, equal rights for HBTQ people is only important to SJWs. You're completely right and not insane at all.
That gak only matters to rich people.
It did not come through the democratic process. It came via lawsuits. It wasn't "government reform." frankly govenrment shouldn't be involved in the first place. HB? Is that like heeby jeeby?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 14:52:13
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
No reform of government. No accountability of government or private officials (note the thread on the Wells CEO).
Yes, equal rights for HBTQ people is only important to SJWs. You're completely right and not insane at all.
That gak only matters to rich people.
Sure, or gay people. Or people with gay children, or gay friends, or gay coworkers. But sure, whatever.
Frazzled wrote: It did not come through the democratic process. It came via lawsuits. It wasn't "government reform." frankly govenrment shouldn't be involved in the first place.
The SCOTUS has been a vehicle for social reform for almost as long as it's existed, and I'm pretty sure their checks are drawn from the US treasury, making that, in fact, government reform by any reasonable measure.
If you mean it didn't go through Congress, that's true. I will definitely and freely concede that social change also can come via legislature, but that does not make it the only valid avenue by any means. An additional wrinkle is that with how our Congress now operates, if the Senate was on fire, they'd filibuster Obama to prevent him from grabbing a fire extinguisher.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
And LordofHats gave a really good answer to the overall question as well.
