CEOExpress Blogger Private Label
 CEOExpress Home


 Total visits to this poll: 18591

This icon appears on your homepage
when there are new posts.

      Search Messages:           
 
AllThis Forum

Do you think that the Trump Tax plan will help the middle class?

Yes
No
I have no idea



Forum View Preference: Basic | AdvancedOpen Forums/Previous Polls | Suggest a Poll
See All Messages

1-77 of 77

1. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 12:41:52 PM)
     Message ID #294719

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294718 )  Back To All Messages

No, I go with Noel on this one. There has to be proof of wrong doing that was overlooked or suppressed to investigate her. Just because many people dislike her, and want her prosecuted for something is not enough. Presumption of Innocence?

2. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/4/2017 5:33:29 PM)
     Message ID #294720

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294719 )  Back To All Messages

Presumption of innocence? You can't have it one way and then not have it apply the other way.

You should presume Clinton innocent until proven guilty. You should do the same for Trump. Similarly, this should be the presumption for all those accused of sexual impropriety who have not been tried and convicted. Those who have ADMITTED wrongdoing, well, they're impacting their own right to presumption of innocence.

But you say that there should be proof of wrong? The FBI presented proof of wrong... then the FBI suggested that a reasonable DA would not prosecute. Whether that is the FBI's right or role to weigh in on that decision is up for debate, but the FBI clearly found wrong. What was not done was taking the next step for a trial and an ultimately binding finding.

But, back to the original statement, if you want HRC presumed innocent, you should concede DT gets the same presumption, as painful as either or both may be.

3. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 12:48:34 PM)
     Message ID #294721

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294720 )  Back To All Messages

No, you are comparing onions and apples. Your I'll wants a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton. trump, Moore, Lauer, Cosby, etc, have multiple credible women charging them with sexual assault. They will never see the inside of a court, but public opinion has taken the word of the women. trump is a self-admitted sexual predator.

4. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 5:48:19 PM)
     Message ID #294722

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294720 )  Back To All Messages

Petraeus committed crimes and lied about it to the FBI. He personally, knowingly gave TS material to someone not authorized to have it. He pleaded guilty and was given a slap on the wrist.

5. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 5:39:10 PM)
     Message ID #294723

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294720 )  Back To All Messages

The FBI found no evidence that Secretary Clinton intended to provide classified material to anyone not authorized to have it. Petraeus clearly intended to do that and then lied in an attempt to cover his crime.

6. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/4/2017 2:51:18 PM)
     Message ID #294740

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294723 )  Back To All Messages

Your knowledge of criminal law is showing. Intent is not required to be guilty of negligence.

7. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 1:13:20 PM)
     Message ID #294763

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294740 )  Back To All Messages

You seem to have no ability to do critical thinking. I will try to type slow. There was clear intent by General Petraeus to violate the law. He knowingly passed documents containing TS intelligence to his mistress who had no need to know, and was not authorized to have them. In the opinion of the FBI Secretary Clinton had no intent to provide classified documents to anyone not authorized to have them, and there was no evidence that her actions resulted in compromising the low level documents she had on her server.

8. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/4/2017 1:03:32 PM)
     Message ID #294768

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294763 )  Back To All Messages

You try to belittle everyone you respond to in a sad attempt to lift yourself to their level.

You are the mouse that tried to roar...and failed.

9. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 1:00:47 PM)
     Message ID #294769

This message is in response to Robert Fahrbach ( message id #294768 )  Back To All Messages

You complete inability to post anything factual or meaningful on any subject is what reduces you to attacking other posters. You are a pathetic imitation of your bigoted, misogynic, bone spur, little hands hero. trump and moore, has the GOP ever been lower, can the GOP ever get lower?

10. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/4/2017 8:07:16 PM)
     Message ID #294773

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294769 )  Back To All Messages

...I asked you nicely to stop proving all my points... you're spoiling the fun.

11. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/4/2017 8:05:36 PM)
     Message ID #294775

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294763 )  Back To All Messages

Please read slowly

Comey's report:

"there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail.."
"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail." "..even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

Earlier drafts of Comey memos indicated his classification of her actions as grossly negligent.

Gross negligence - n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil.

Note the definition doesn't require intent. Reckless carelessness would fit within the definition.

There is a standard of what other reasonable persons would do in the same situation. She didn't meet that standard, as clearly stated. She was negligent, and grossly negligent.

So, notwithstanding your (ill-informed) statement that there was no evidence that her actions resulted in compromising the documents she had on her server. You also suggested that her documents were low level... implying that all her emails were low level. That also is ill-informed, and actually false.

My critical thinking would lead me to conclude that based on the empirical evidence you have freely provided on a regular and continuous basis, your ability to think critically is severely impaired.

If your thinking were critical, you would be open to the contention that sometimes you're right, and sometimes you're wrong. We all are. However, I've yet to see you admit you've been wrong on anything. I'm not quite sure (actually I'm pretty sure) you belittle anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with you. How sad.

In my own critical thinking, I can learn much when someone challenges my statements with logical and factual statements. It calls me to re-think and often change conclusions to fit new or more accurate info.

12. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 6:33:02 PM)
     Message ID #294776

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294775 )  Back To All Messages

Right. General Petraeus committed worse and lied to the FBI about it, and got a slap on the wrist. That is the standard we are dealing with. Get over it.

13. D Robb
     (12/4/2017 6:31:44 PM)
     Message ID #294777

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294775 )  Back To All Messages

Please read: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/23/timeline-general-david-petraeus-paula-broadwell-jill-kelley/26245095/
• October 2012: After an investigation, FBI agents confront Petraeus in his office. Petraeus denies sharing classified information.
Nov. 9, 2012: Petraeus resigns from the CIA after President Obama is told the day before about the affair and the FBI investigation. Petraeus signs a form saying he has no classified material.
• April 2013: FBI seizes eight binders of classified material in a search of Petraeus' Arlington, Va., home, where he had kept them in the unlocked drawer of a desk.
• March 3, 2015: Petraeus reaches a deal with federal prosecutors to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified materials.
• April 23, 2015: Petraeus pleaded guilty in federal court in Charlotte, N.C.

14. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 9:34:31 AM)
     Message ID #294779

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294777 )  Back To All Messages

Read more slowly next time..

I don't care about what they've found out with Petraus. They're doing what they're going to do, and it's not in my hands.

You said there was no evidence against HRC. I simply provided the facts. Whether they do anything with it or about it is way out of my hands. Nobody with the DOJ is calling me and asking me what I think they should do, and I'm fine with that.

For me, there's nothing to get over.

You, however, can't seem to get over that everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily wrong. But, as you say, get over it.

15. D Robb
     (12/5/2017 9:28:45 AM)
     Message ID #294782

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294779 )  Back To All Messages

I have read it dozens of times. Comey said she should not have had a private server, but there was no evidence of a prosecutable crime. You are the one that refuses to accept reality.
In Petraeus case, he committed two prosecutable crimes, (far worse than anything Secretary Clinton was accused of) but they let him plead guilty and keep his 4 Star pension because they made a judgement call that the embarrassment and loss of his position as CIA Director was enough punishment.
The FBI found in the case of Secretary Clinton that there was no evidence of a prosecutable crime, full stop, end of story.

16. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 9:25:47 AM)
     Message ID #294724

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294720 )  Back To All Messages

Is that hysterical, or what...

...you merely propose to the guy that the presumption of innocence should be applied equaly to all... and he responds with three successive posts to refute it.

His game is to invent a false premise and get you to help make it real by denying it. Once you argue against it - it graduates from silliness to a matter of opinion - and thus has a 50-50 chance of being true.

17. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 8:46:23 AM)
     Message ID #294741

This message is in response to Robert Fahrbach ( message id #294724 )  Back To All Messages

It would be hysterical... if....

But it's not really funny...

Grandpa still summed it up pretty nicely... You can't fix stupid.

18. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 11:14:55 AM)
     Message ID #294732

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294719 )  Back To All Messages

You (and apparently Noel as well) say (per your post): "There has to be proof of wrong doing that was overlooked or suppressed to investigate her."

One problem w/ this philosophy (and it's a killer): How are you gonna determine if there was anything "overlooked or suppressed" unless and until you investigate?????? Answer ... It can't be done.

Therefore ... New investigation, both unbiased and bi-partisan, is required.

19. D Robb
     (12/5/2017 10:05:18 AM)
     Message ID #294735

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294732 )  Back To All Messages

No, do the cops investigate everybody? No, they investigate when there is evidence that a crime has been committed. When there is none, there is no justification for an investigation. In fact, it is illegal.

20. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 10:00:10 AM)
     Message ID #294744

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294735 )  Back To All Messages

Gee D,

I would have thought you already knew the difference between "cops" and "Special Prosecutors".

Cops are cops and Special Prosecutors are attorneys. While I have no particular reverence for "attorneys" myself, they aren't the police.

Let 'em look. If they fail to find anything, then fine. It's over. Unless of course you are afraid they'll actually FIND something worthwhile.

21. scott walker
     (12/5/2017 9:36:24 AM)
     Message ID #294760

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294744 )  Back To All Messages

Tams bixby,
It is quite a thing to enroll a special counsel who can roam the countryside looking for all crimes against all people and try to break as many people as he can. The Obama democrats wanted a special counsel to continue to destroy the Constitution, looks like they got their way for now.

22. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 8:57:21 AM)
     Message ID #294761

This message is in response to scott walker ( message id #294760 )  Back To All Messages

Scott,

You don't give ANY Special Prosecutor "Carte Blanche" to investigate whatever they want wherever they want to. You give them a mandate and ensure they follow it. If it ever needs broadening then the Prosecutor needs to come back and ask for additional leeway. If they're given it then OK, else No.

"The Obama democrats wanted a special counsel to continue to destroy the Constitution, looks like they got their way for now."

Obama and cronies seem to have failed but it looks as though Trump is indeed attempting to do just that single handedly.

And speaking for myself ... I hope he (Trump) fails miserably.

Message edited by user at 12/5/2017 9:00:29 AM

23. scott walker
     (12/5/2017 12:29:24 PM)
     Message ID #294764

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294761 )  Back To All Messages

Tams bixby
And speaking for myself ... I hope he (President Trump) Makes America Great Again.

Ok you retirees it’s time to feed thirty horses and a bunch of Black Angus visit you “SeeMore and DoLess” employees in a few hours, bye.

24. D Robb
     (12/5/2017 12:13:05 PM)
     Message ID #294770

This message is in response to scott walker ( message id #294764 )  Back To All Messages

I am in Rome. Thursday, I depart for Sicily, Sardinia, Tunisia, Algeria, and Spain. I much prefer that to mucking stalls and feeding cows, but each to his own.

25. Scott Walker
     (12/5/2017 10:19:13 AM)
     Message ID #294790

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294770 )  Back To All Messages

D robb, nice, watch your back side, perfer to travel the USA and Canada, don't travel overseas much any more.

My work is helped by my Hispanic friends so it's not work, work is when you don't enjoy what your doing. Beside this is one of five properties to visit and work, kind of chasing the best weather place.

26. D Robb
     (12/5/2017 9:47:26 AM)
     Message ID #294792

This message is in response to Scott Walker ( message id #294790 )  Back To All Messages

We are all different and that is a good thing. People are the same around the world. You can find good and bad anywhere you go.

27. scott walker
     (12/5/2017 9:25:54 AM)
     Message ID #294921

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294770 )  Back To All Messages

D robb,
WOW, Did you post a FAKE Message POST in your 736 post, what about your many other posts

., your IP location says you are still in the states….hmmmm
--------------------
736. D Robb
(12/5/2017 9:56:57 AM)
Message ID #294770
I am in Rome. Thursday, I depart for Sicily, Sardinia, Tunisia, Algeria, and Spain. I much prefer that to mucking stalls and feeding cows, but each to his own.

28. Thomas C CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 4:29:46 PM)
     Message ID #294923

This message is in response to scott walker ( message id #294921 )  Back To All Messages

He went on a mind vacation......it was well deserved!

Message edited by user at 12/5/2017 4:32:15 PM

29. M Bathurst
     (12/5/2017 1:27:53 PM)
     Message ID #294927

This message is in response to Thomas C ( message id #294923 )  Back To All Messages

Wrong - one needs a mind to take a mind vacation. The example of the perfect/total void space.

30. Domenick Aulozzi CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 10:13:52 AM)
     Message ID #294928

This message is in response to scott walker ( message id #294921 )  Back To All Messages

I think you guys are all missing the obvious. Robb is a creation of someones imagination. He is not a real person. He is probably someone sitting in his basement with a bank of computers that ding to give him an answer whenever he needs to respond to something.

31. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 9:56:57 AM)
     Message ID #294930

This message is in response to Domenick Aulozzi ( message id #294928 )  Back To All Messages

Based upon his 'less than human' range of cognitive response... I'm guessing he is an algorithm with limited text output capabilities.

Does it matter?

Only if you engage him as a human. If you use him as a sort of 'Alexa' you will wonder how you ever managed without one on your shelf.

We need to teach him to play music.

32. D Robb
     (12/8/2017 12:48:45 PM)
     Message ID #294942

This message is in response to Domenick Aulozzi ( message id #294928 )  Back To All Messages

And you as ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced as you appear.

33. Thomas C CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/6/2017 1:43:55 AM)
     Message ID #294952

This message is in response to Domenick Aulozzi ( message id #294928 )  Back To All Messages

Incorrect!

Robb is a time traveler from another dimension, and Meyer is his guide.

34. D Robb
     (12/5/2017 8:34:50 PM)
     Message ID #294765

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294744 )  Back To All Messages

You don't use law enforcement, FBI resources to "investigate" unless there is reason to believe a crime has been committed. Only dictators like Putin use law enforcement for such purposes. I know trump thinks Putin is his Daddy and admires him greatly, but we still are democratically elected government, not a dictatorship.

35. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/5/2017 2:24:11 PM)
     Message ID #294771

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294765 )  Back To All Messages

Yea you're right. We ARE a democratically elected government ... for now. But if Trump keeps going the way he's going we won't be for long.

And according to what I hear (in the news), there's both sufficient debate and doubt/concern about whether or not a crime was/has been committed (WRT HRC) for the FBI to investigate. Given all that doubt/debate, that means there IS sufficient reason to believe.

I'm no expert on it so I have to go with what I see, read and hear in the news and other sources. That's exactly what I'm doing.

36. D Robb
     (12/8/2017 1:25:39 PM)
     Message ID #294736

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294732 )  Back To All Messages

Now in the case of trump we have loads of evidence crimes have been committed, including his taped bragging. What more is required?

37. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/8/2017 12:52:02 PM)
     Message ID #294745

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294736 )  Back To All Messages

It (the evidence to which you refer) still took time to unearth. Samo samo for HRC. Give 'em a chance. Unless ... (see previous post).

38. D Robb
     (12/6/2017 10:13:26 AM)
     Message ID #294767

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294745 )  Back To All Messages

Tams, you don't investigate someone because you don't like her and hope that you can find something, anything illegal to prosecute. Unfortunately, that is what they did with Secretary Clinton and then tried her in the media despite finding nothing, nada, zero, nil, not any criminal acts.
Now, in hopes of finding something, you want to waste more money and time?

39. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/6/2017 1:40:00 AM)
     Message ID #294772

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294767 )  Back To All Messages

First off, I agree "you don't investigate someone because you don't like her and hope that you can find something, anything illegal to prosecute.".

But that's not the reason I say it needs to be redone. I say that because I haven't heard or seen a fair, unbiased and bi-partisan investigation done to date. There are still far too many unanswered questions to let it die by the wayside. You have to cross all the "T's" and dot all the "I's" before it's over.

40. D Robb
     (12/8/2017 4:45:40 PM)
     Message ID #294774

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294772 )  Back To All Messages

Tams, you keep posting this nonsense without giving any specifics. Benghazi and the server have been thoroughly investigated. What do you want investigated?

41. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/8/2017 3:52:09 PM)
     Message ID #294788

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294774 )  Back To All Messages

You say it's been investigated "thoroughly" but I say it hasn't been investigated in an "unbiased and bi-partisan manner". They are totally different ways to characterize what HAS been done.

And as far as "specifics" are concerned, it can't get any more specific than I have already been. Now I'm through discussing this because I'm also tired of rehashing the same old stuff which you keep bringing up.

42. D Robb
     (12/8/2017 2:19:25 PM)
     Message ID #294794

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294788 )  Back To All Messages

No, it is you and Hoskins that keep bringing it up despite it being a dead issue as far as I am concerned. Noel hit the nail on the head. You Secretary Clinton haters will never give it a rest.

Message edited by user at 12/8/2017 2:20:13 PM

43. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/8/2017 1:22:13 PM)
     Message ID #294813

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294794 )  Back To All Messages

Well there again you miss the mark.

While it's true I "Don't Like" HRC, it's NOT true I hate her. What I hate is LIARS (for reasons I'll keep to myself) and since the vast majority of politicos lie, which most definitely includes HRC, well then there ya have the reason I "Don't Like" her.

It's probably closer to being correct to say ALL politicos lie but I try to cut 'em some slack about whether or not they intentionally lie(d), at least until: (1) Proven they do it more often than not; and (2) Whether or not they do it for the benefit of "We, The People" or not, by looking at whether or not they did it primarily to benefit themselves or not.

In HRC's case, she does it to benefit herself and "the Slickster" and to hell with "We, The People" so she gets no slack at all.

44. D Robb
     (12/6/2017 10:22:59 AM)
     Message ID #294814

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294813 )  Back To All Messages

Tams, when trump is out of office he will be out of mind. He wasn't important to me before he became president and he will be even less important to me when he no longer is. (The sooner that happens, the better.)
Your relationship with Secretary Clinton is different. She was a great Senator for NYS. She has been out of office for a while. She will probably never be in a public office. Why can't you let it go?

45. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/6/2017 11:03:44 AM)
     Message ID #294815

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294814 )  Back To All Messages

That's certainly a shameful lie.

You've been licking his feet since he first announced his candidacy - long before his election was even plausible.

In fact, it isn't your sick obsession with Donald Trump that is interesting... it is your total lack of interest in anything you can not reduce to a Trump issue.

Message edited by user at 12/6/2017 11:09:47 AM

46. D Robb
     (12/6/2017 10:37:19 AM)
     Message ID #294817

This message is in response to Robert Fahrbach ( message id #294815 )  Back To All Messages

Wait until he is gone, Robert. You will see. Hopefully, that will be soon.

47. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/6/2017 10:35:40 AM)
     Message ID #294819

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294817 )  Back To All Messages

Lol. Then you would have to build your entire life around something else.

Take heart, he will be gone in seven years. Maybe he will pardon Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the way out.

48. D Robb
     (12/6/2017 12:17:18 PM)
     Message ID #294820

This message is in response to Robert Fahrbach ( message id #294819 )  Back To All Messages

At the rate that Mueller is going he will be lucky to get two more years. He sure as hell is not going to get elected to another term. There were a lot of people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Secretary Clinton, and they are regretting their decision now. They won't miss their next chance to vote against the bone spur guy.

49. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/6/2017 11:08:29 AM)
     Message ID #294830

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294820 )  Back To All Messages

Yes...well... by all means indulge in whatever fantasies float your boat (you always have).

In the real world, the tax plan is progressing, Obamacare is eroding, the personality of government is changing, Contractors for the wall have been approved, the Supreme Court has green-lighted the immigration ban, thousands of regulations have been reversed, trade deals are being re-negotiated, the economy is better, the military is being rebuilt... etc., etc., etc.

... small wonder you wish to live in a dream world. It's the onlyone you have left.

50. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/6/2017 10:46:38 AM)
     Message ID #294816

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294814 )  Back To All Messages

D...

Who appointed you as the ultimate judge of who was a great office holder and who was not (whether its presidency, senate, house, court, or whatever)?

Why don't you say that you believe she was a great senator? That leaves it as an IMO statement that is easily understood and accepted?

If everyone is his or her own judge of right and wrong, good and bad, etc., then how will we, as a people comprised of whatever the plural version of he and she might be, ever discern a community standard by which we can all live, agree, and be governed?

You're not god. Why can't you let it go?

51. D Robb
     (12/6/2017 10:44:24 AM)
     Message ID #294818

This message is in response to B Hoskins ( message id #294816 )  Back To All Messages

She was my senator. She was great for NYS and me. That is my opinion based on my experience and standards. Clear enough?
Provide me some factual reasons why I shouldn't hold the opinion I do. You are the one with the problem. Not me.

52. B Hoskins CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/7/2017 8:02:00 AM)
     Message ID #294821

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294818 )  Back To All Messages

There's no reason why you should be denied your right to your opinion. I even support your right to your opinion.

It's when you imply, by your sweeping statements, that your opinion is empirical fact. That's different.

That said, you even have the right to state your opinion in a manner that suggests that the viewpoint is correct and should be accepted as universal truth. However, when you do, you should never be surprised if someone who disagrees, does so with the same fervor that you use when you state your opinions.

You are the one with the problem. Not me.

If you want to play Pee Wee Herman with me, I can do this all day. Make sure you eat your Wheaties, Cheerios, spinach and take your pills. I know you are, but what am I?

53. Thomas C CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/6/2017 3:34:04 PM)
     Message ID #294822

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294818 )  Back To All Messages

One day, some time ago I looked up Sen Clintons' Congressional record...she successfully sponsored 10-12 bills that renamed federal property, mostly post offices, another was very compelling, recertifying a watershed in upstate..

So basically, it was housekeeping bills

Please tell us, pray tell Mr. Robb what she did for you? Other than being a partisan Liberal????

Is there a roadway or post office named in your honor we don't know about?

P.S. "uncle Ted' was my Senator for many years, recently his family, along with a Koch brother put the nail in the coffin on Cape Wind via lawsuits. It was Teddy's last fight......

54. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/6/2017 12:51:34 PM)
     Message ID #294823

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294814 )  Back To All Messages

WRT your first sentence/statement ... I couldn't agree more.


WRT your second sentence/statement (and this is the last I'll say about it) ... What she did (during her tenure as Sec'y of State) was anything but in the People's interest (Email Server - definitely so; Benghazi - ???? We'll see if they ever do an unbiased and bi-partisan investigation into it).

You asked, now you know. Now I'm done w/ this. Sayonara ...

55. D Robb
     (12/6/2017 11:01:05 AM)
     Message ID #294825

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294823 )  Back To All Messages

The military respected her as Sec State. Heads of State respected her. Way different story now.

Message edited by user at 12/6/2017 11:03:30 AM

56. Noel Meyer
     (12/6/2017 11:00:16 AM)
     Message ID #294831

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294823 )  Back To All Messages

Interesting.

Trump wants to step in and make Jerusalem the capital of Israel where Congress has already said the American Embassy would be located.

Bannon is campaigning for Moore. Bannon calls Moore's election a religious war where Alabama values will be taken to Washington. So why do you need to be concerned? Perhaps I don't want to follow 'Alabama values' on a NATIONAL LEVEL.

Thank-you Republicans for selling out to Bannon and supporting child molester be on the ticket to the Senate.

57. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/6/2017 10:50:08 AM)
     Message ID #294832

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #294831 )  Back To All Messages

That's the problem with crying 'wolf!' every other day.

No one believes you any Moore.

58. M Bathurst
     (12/7/2017 9:39:56 AM)
     Message ID #294836

This message is in response to Robert Fahrbach ( message id #294832 )  Back To All Messages

"No one believes you any Moore."

I like the use of words (not really a pun; but, similar) - very creative.

59. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/7/2017 9:33:58 AM)
     Message ID #294835

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #294831 )  Back To All Messages

Noel,

Now you know better because you've been around here long enough to.

I've never made it a secret that I'm a RINO, not a Repugnican and that means I'm a right-leaning IDEPENDENT.

So don't go lumping me into the same pot w/ them Repugnicants.

Therefore now that we've gotten that settled (yet again), what's your question, errr beef????

60. Domenick Aulozzi CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/7/2017 9:31:52 AM)
     Message ID #294851

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #294831 )  Back To All Messages

Trump wants to step in and make Jerusalem the capital of Israel where Congress has already said the American Embassy would be located.

Noel, your ignorance is showing again. The president of the United States does not determine what city is the capital of any sovereign country. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because that is what the people of Israel determined almost 70 years ago.

Trump simply formally acknowledged what Congress said 20 years ago, that the United States recognizes that Israel says it's capital is Jerusalem.

61. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/7/2017 8:51:35 AM)
     Message ID #294853

This message is in response to Domenick Aulozzi ( message id #294851 )  Back To All Messages

Hi Domenick,

I'm not gonna dispute anything you've said as that's pretty much between you and Noel, but I will say the following ...


While Trump may have "simply formally acknowledged what Congress said 20 years ago", it has at the very least caused some of the Arab Mideast to call for a new Intifada (see the link).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/12/07/hamas-leader-calls-new-intifada-after-trumps-jerusalem-move/929806001/?csp=dailybriefing

Now the questions will quickly become:
  • How many, if any, others in the Arab Mideast will sign on to it?; and
  • Regardless of whether they do or not, then how much new/more bloodshed have his actions caused?

However much occurs, if any, will be on HIS head and hands and regardless of that, I suspect he has done the actual Mideast Peace Process no favors, but I could be wrong. Only time will tell the tale. I just hope he doesn't get us into yet another war: NK looming and now the ME????? Given "Old BoneSpur" never wore "the uniform" he leaves quite a bit to be desired when it comes to Int'l Relations and Military Conflicts. The vast majority of what he has to offer comes from a foul wind in his wake.

The Mideast Peace Process is certainly no easy nut to crack and I'm also no expert on it as that arena is above my paygrade, but at least I'm aware of my limitations. He hasn't got the first clue.

JM2c

Message edited by user at 12/7/2017 9:13:44 AM

62. M Bathurst
     (12/6/2017 6:52:35 PM)
     Message ID #294871

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294853 )  Back To All Messages

So what? If the Arab world wanted peace it would happen. It has been put on a platter several times for them - only to reject it.

Moving to recognize Jeursalem as the capital city of Israel is a move to reality.

63. Noel Meyer
     (12/6/2017 10:53:11 AM)
     Message ID #294877

This message is in response to M Bathurst ( message id #294871 )  Back To All Messages

"So what? If the Arab world wanted peace it would happen."

If Chicago wanted peace it would happen? But it doesn't so does that make the Arab world as bad as Chicago or is there another factor occurring?

If American politics wanted peace or even civility, it would happen? But it doesn't so does that make the Arab world as bad as American politics or is American politics as bad as the Arab world or are there other factors occurring?

If America wanted to rebuild its infrastructure it would happen but it doesn't so why does that happen? Does America like to spend billions and trillions more on war than helping to rebuild from hurricanes or from giving the rich tax cuts instead of health care for the needy?

M Bathurst-
Was that peace platter what others were willing to give to get peace or was that peace platter what the Palestinians needed before peace was possible?

64. M Bathurst
     (12/7/2017 3:56:56 PM)
     Message ID #294878

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #294877 )  Back To All Messages

Your statements are simply silly; and, not related to my post.

Your last question is simply an attempt to misdirect the discussion. You seem to have excess time on your hands - do the research on the offers given to them; which they have rejected - and look for what they have requested. Reasonable to you?

65. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/7/2017 11:49:14 AM)
     Message ID #294881

This message is in response to M Bathurst ( message id #294871 )  Back To All Messages

While it may sound as if I'm disagreeing, I'm really not. I just don't particularly care for the damn politicos and their eternal "Keep trying the same solution to a given problem and expecting a different solution" and we both know what that is the definition of.

So while I don't care for Trump or his modus operandi, I suspect it may turn out to be better than what's been going on before. I'll hunker down in my foxhole and wait to see what happens.

66. Noel Meyer
     (12/7/2017 10:54:16 AM)
     Message ID #294854

This message is in response to Domenick Aulozzi ( message id #294851 )  Back To All Messages

Domenick Aulozzi-

Trump recognized the Israeli claim that Jerusalem is their capital.

Trump talked to Taiwan after the election in ignorance or defiance to America's ONE CHINA policy.

"Noel, your ignorance is showing again. The president of the United States does not determine what city is the capital of any sovereign country. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because that is what the people of Israel determined almost 70 years ago."

Domenick - YOUR IGNORANCE is showing. Just because a nation decides anything means nothing if the more powerful nations do not recognize the legitimacy of those decisions.

For years, DIPLOMACY mandated a policy by the US of not recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital so that peace in the Middle East might be attained.

For years, REALITY dictated a ONE CHINA policy by the US towards recognizing Taiwan now that mainland China, nuclear China made defending Taiwan against mainland China too expensive and dangerous.

The US does not recognize mainland China's claims of sovereignty in the South China sea regardless of what mainland China claims or has determined.

So pounce away, twist and attack the messenger if you wish, I find such delusions as yours amusing were it not leading this nation to defeat and oblivion.

67. D Robb
     (12/6/2017 11:41:56 AM)
     Message ID #294855

This message is in response to Domenick Aulozzi ( message id #294851 )  Back To All Messages

No, it is your ignorance showing. Under international law, Israel has no claim to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. Neither the UN nor the EU nor most of the rest of the world recognizes Israel's claim. It is all supposed to be negotiated as part of a land for peace deal with the Arab nation's and Palestinians. No good will come of it, except to further isolate and marginalize both the US and Israel.

68. Noel Meyer
     (12/8/2017 12:48:03 AM)
     Message ID #294856

This message is in response to Domenick Aulozzi ( message id #294851 )  Back To All Messages

"Noel, your ignorance is showing again. The president of the United States does not determine what city is the capital of any sovereign country. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because that is what the people of Israel determined almost 70 years ago."

Funny how you completely ignore the fact that the Palestinians determined Jerusalem was the capital of their nation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp40Uztk3bg

Trump's decision (in his own words)that HE determined it was time to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Turkey, the Pope, France and other nations said was wrong.

69. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/7/2017 7:11:27 PM)
     Message ID #294858

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #294856 )  Back To All Messages

Under the Constitution, the President has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory.

Under that authority, President Clinton refused to sign the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed by Congress in 1995. Donald Trump is now President, and that authority is entirely his.

Jerusalem is not the Capitol of Palestine, it is the Capitol of Israel... in which the tongue-in-cheek State of Palestine and the Jewish occupied territories co-exist.

It is a political act designed to signal that the idea of a separate Palestinian State is no longer on the table. Rightfully so... since it never succeeded in moving the Arabs to agree to a just resolution in the area. Why should they? America, Israel and others are paying all of their bills.

70. Noel Meyer
     (12/7/2017 12:05:39 PM)
     Message ID #294859

This message is in response to Robert Fahrbach ( message id #294858 )  Back To All Messages

Robert -
"Under the Constitution, the President has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory."

Then I hope you have faith in Trump's instincts when he pisses Mainland China off by having conversations and recognizing Taiwan.

The President also has the ability to denounce ultra right white supremacy and racism, something he was reluctant to do in Charlotte.

Russia, China, France, Germany, Turkey and other nations argued against Trump's EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY decision but then in this troubled time who needs the other powerful powers support in putting out terrorism?

Fools go where angels fear to tread. Trump angers and alienates OUR allies, antagonizes OUR enemies and generally feels entitled to do just what-ever he feels like because his life of entitlement and ignorance of how the national and international political world operates.

"It is a political act designed to signal that the idea of a separate Palestinian State is no longer on the table. Rightfully so"

YOUR OPINION. Wonder what Tillerson thinks. Other world leaders give this political act an "F".

How will the Israelis react and how will American civilians react when 'reaction' to this stupid political act sparks increased violence?

So under Trump America faces a possible nuclear war which only China can prevent from North Korea and an eruption of violence in the oil rich Middle East which is in our trust of Netanyahu and his political agenda in Israel.

I thought it was 'America first' not 'America becoming the bit$h of the crazies in this world.

71. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/7/2017 11:18:29 AM)
     Message ID #294860

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #294859 )  Back To All Messages

You needn't hope. I trust President Trump's instincts over yours.

72. Thomas C CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/7/2017 7:23:40 PM)
     Message ID #294862

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #294859 )  Back To All Messages

My generation will never solve Mideast peace in that region regarding Israel.

We failed.

25 to 35 years of futility, hatred, bombings, death.

The only country in the region with a western style democracy, where it's people are prosperous. Women are free, human rights are respected.

Perhaps the next generation, or perhaps the generation after that.

Every President pledged to do this going back to Clinton, they all failed. We failed.

Time to move on and be done with it.

73. D James
     (12/7/2017 5:22:09 PM)
     Message ID #294863

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #294856 )  Back To All Messages

The last time I looked there is not nor has there ever been a "nation" of Palestine. The modern "Palestine" is a figment of the demented and murderous mind of one Yassir Arafat, an Egyptian who was expelled from his native land for incitement to violence. Israel took Jerusalem in its entirety via force of arms from Jordan during the 67 War. The Islamists had chosen to use many of the Jewish and Christian Holy sites as urinals and worse.

The President is doing what was promised by Boy Clinton in the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, and followed by GWB, and Barry Soetoro who all did nothing. Trump is spot on correct. An analogy: would the US have its Embassy to the UK in Nottingham or Liverpool when the national capitol is London? Having the USEMB to Israel in Tel Aviv merely conveniences the State Dept party goers who love the TA night life but will actually be in more austere surrounding in Jerusalem. And by the way, Jerusalem is not mentioned , even once, In the Koran. So much for it being the "4th Holiest City" to that cult that beheads c/o the Prophet on the White Horse.

74. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/7/2017 12:22:14 PM)
     Message ID #294864

This message is in response to D James ( message id #294863 )  Back To All Messages

Palestine is a legal entity (though exactly what kind of entity is up in the air) - but Jerusalem in not a legal part of it.

75. D Robb
     (12/7/2017 11:45:33 AM)
     Message ID #294865

This message is in response to Robert Fahrbach ( message id #294864 )  Back To All Messages

Perhaps in your alternative facts universe, but not in the real world. The best solution would be to make Jerusalem and open city as part of a peace treaty. This illegal and unilateral action will please right wing nuts, especially Evangelicals who believe it is necessary for the end times. American Jews don't support it or Netanyahu.
It just makes the US more unimportant and marginalized

76. Robert Fahrbach CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/7/2017 11:34:15 AM)
     Message ID #294866

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #294865 )  Back To All Messages

Lol. Congrats. You managed a sentence full of words that don't contain a single letter of truth.

Let us in on your secret... are you the dumbest person in the world... or just the most dishonest???

(My guest is BOTH.)

77. D James
     (12/7/2017 12:26:02 PM)
     Message ID #294873

This message is in response to Robert Fahrbach ( message id #294864 )  Back To All Messages

Not a "nation". Strictly a spot on the map hosting various marauder tribes.
  1-77 of 77