Archy1221
-
Posts
15,184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
277
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Archy1221
-
-
9 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, knapplc said:
You work in a bank. You have access to all that money. You're going to take some for your kids, right? Because you would help your kids anyway you can/could. It is normal. Right?
Absolutely. If I worked in a bank I would have my deposits in said bank too. So I guess I would take out some of that money In the bank for my kids if they were in need. Sad that you wouldn’t.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, teachercd said:
So...you agree it is insane?
How is this different; from BLM protesters? To me it is not different. It is still insane. I feel like you are arguing to argue even though you agree with me.
@BlitzFirstis just arguing to argue. He can’t really be taken seriously if he thinks violently taking down an unarmed person who is not being belligerent or resisting for the crime of being out too late is normal.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, funhusker said:
Go figure, Obama is smarter than Trump.
Is that what you’re trying to say? One man used his clear understanding of shady legal tactics and it was effective enough to win. The other used a crazy ole cook with his hair melting off his head in a landscape supply parking lot to lose...again...
I’m not saying anything. The cnn link speaks for itself.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:
Lol....you don’t want to answer because you know what the answer is.
It really is a simple question. You seem to act like you already know.
No I think you should do your own work and answer your own question as was told to me. Those are apparently the rules and I’m just abiding by them.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:
How is this about police reform?
It seems pretty aggressive behavior by the police in that situation.
-
2
-
-
https://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/
interesting how Obama won his first campaign primary.
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
54 minutes ago, commando said:
new evidence emerged as they were debating in the senate. that evidence was barred from the senate even though some senators were asking for it to be considered. moscow mitch blocked it. having senate sycophants certainly was a good thing for the trump crime family.
And what new evidence emerged? Maybe Schiff wanted to do the bare minimum to get a partisan impeachment and throw it to the Senate to try and do his work for him.
not the Senates job. Schiff should have brought an actual case instead of a sham As renowned Liberal constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley eloquently said.
your side tried and lost. Valiant effort trying to make a steak out of hamburger. Was just no there there
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:
You literally ignored everything I just posted, so I'll post again. Maybe you'll try understanding that we're talking about the Senate trials and the Senate rules of presenting evidence and witnesses.
I didn’t ignore you, I chose to ask what I feel is a more relevant question. Why didn’t the House secure that testimony that was not in the Senate trial.
isn’t that the basic rules in a nut shell? The House investigates and charges, presents the evidence to the Senate, and the Senate votes to convict or not convict.
And yes I know that the Senate sets the rules of the Senate, just like the House sets the rules of the House. Schifty Schiff had every opportunity to get whatever evidence he wanted or thought was out there. He chose not to.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:
Fixing bankruptcy law would be a start, but that doesn't really fix the underlying issue except by the tedious task of every individual going to court to get the loans forgiven, assuming they can get them forgiven. That doesn't help the economy or the tax-payers in any significant way like simply forgiving the loans would. The Fed pumped $2.3 trillion into the economy over just 6 weeks, so it's not like this is something we can't do.
Another thing to take a look at is why college costs have skyrocketed compared to when Boomers went to college, so slow your roll on "financially loose".
Average Cost of College Has Jumped an Incredible 3,009% in 50 Years
I have zero interest in paying for someone’s $100,000 private liberal arts college degree loans when it could have been done for 1/4 the cost
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:
Fixing bankruptcy law would be a start, but that doesn't really fix the underlying issue except by the tedious task of every individual going to court to get the loans forgiven, assuming they can get them forgiven. That doesn't help the economy or the tax-payers in any significant way like simply forgiving the loans would. The Fed pumped $2.3 trillion into the economy over just 6 weeks, so it's not like this is something we can't do.
Another thing to take a look at is why college costs have skyrocketed compared to when Boomers went to college, so slow your roll on "financially loose".
Average Cost of College Has Jumped an Incredible 3,009% in 50 Years
They are financially loose and I won’t slow my role. People chose to take out the loans knowing the rules.
and yes let’s take a look at why college is so much more expensive. Go ahead and start with the access to all the easy loan money. Colleges are not stupid. So much more access to funds and prices magically raise.
Go to CC for two years and state school for 2 years. It would take an exception to not afford that with minimal loans.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:
The Senate sets up it own rules for the trial, in which Repubs hold the majority. So the Repubs blocked evidence by inventing rules to prevent that evidence from being presented.
It's hard for evidence to be presented when Repubs are blocking it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-impeachment-trial-senators-vote-on-witnesses-11580508468
Why didn’t the House procure said evidence.
-
2
-
-
37 minutes ago, RedDenver said:
People can return their cars or even declare bankruptcy to get relief from car loans. College loans are in a special class that cannot be returned and are very difficult to get discharged in bankruptcy.
Plus the government does not hold $1.37 trillion in car loans like they do for student loans.
However, I agree that car loans maybe one of the triggers of the next financial collapse like mortgages were in 2008.
Ask Obama why they hold the student loans.
And so instead of of just forgiving those loans, Let’s work to change the BK laws and allow the bankruptcy courts to decide how it should be handled like virtually every other debt. I advocated for this earlier. At least there is a penalty associated for being financially loose, to put it mildly, with their decisions.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:
Put in the record from where?
You are the one asking, do your own work. I think that was the rule I was told before.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, RedDenver said:
Exactly, the Senate could have convicted Trump. The rest is simply your opinion. I'd even disagree that the Senate followed the evidence since they refused to hear much of the evidence.
The bold is false. There's no law that says which way the Senate should vote.
Because the House didn’t put whatever it is you wanted into evidence.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, RedDenver said:
So instead of forgiving $1.37 trillion in student loan debt and giving a gigantic boost to the economy, we could let almost a third go into default, fiscally destroy a bunch of Americans, potentially crash the economy, and still lose $435 billion.
I get that people don't want someone else to get a good deal they themselves didn't get, but the student loan crisis isn't going away.
When do we also forgive the car loan debt. It’s roughly the same amount. People need their cars and if they didn’t have to pay for them, it would allow more money into the economy.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:
How did they hear the evidence?
Impeachment managers and read what was put into the record
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, RedDenver said:
Which again has nothing to do with the original post that the Senate could have convicted Trump. When you bring up a Constitutional scholar, you usually have some type of legal claim about the Constitution. In this case, Turley is just another lawyer with an opinion about the merits of Trump's impeachment. His Constitutional expertise has no bearing.
Sure they COULD have convicted Trump similar to juries COULD convict an innocent man, but they chose to follow the evidence and vote not to convict. They followed the law which I’m surprised you are against that.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:
That means nothing. I could find an "expert" that says anything.
Fact is, Moscow Mitch and the other Republican Senators stated long before even the House hearings that they WOULD NOT convict Trump no matter what. They went into the hearings like....
That doesn't mean Trump was innocent. That means he had friends who protected him.
no
It means they heard the evidence and found Trump to be not guilty of the charges and voted no on the articles of impeachment.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, commando said:
Where are all of the incompetent stooges, grifters, charlatans, criminals, and religious zealots? this isn't making america great again
edit....add no nepotism to the list.
Just dig a little deeper and you will quickly find that they are there.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, TGHusker said:
Monday afternoon - I guy can only give so much.
Much better
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TGHusker said:
You mean to say there are some people with more than one neck.
--- Rudy better investigate that, perhaps they voted 2x.
Come on, you can make better jokes than that. Kinda weak
-
1
-
The Biden Cabinet
in Politics & Religion
Posted
Yes I do