SoCal Deek

Yes, Seriously If you’ll read my earlier post…the problem isn’t the lobbyist offering the tickets. The problem is the elected official accepting them.

Your posts keep getting more and more angry. Time to seek help. Back away from the keyboard and go outside. It’ll do you good. PS: Happy Easter… He Has Risen!

You literally have no idea what any of these stories are about, do you?

It’ll be a short trip then. 😉. Don’t pack a winter coat.

Correction….he wants you to “go to hell”…his words, not mine.

FYI: The old Chargers stadium has already been demolished and they’ve just finished building a brand new ‘little’ stadium on the property that’ll be the new home of San Diego State. So…to get a new NFL team San Diego is going to have to find a new location.

So let me see if I understand you here. Your argument against the existence of voter fraud is to show examples of VOTER FRAUD? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

I’m begging you….PLEASE stay off public transportation. I don’t want to be the one on the evening news having to say I read your posts and didn’t do any about them!

It’s not your money paying for the super bowl tickets. The tickets and lunches and all the other perks are purchased by private organizations.

Many lobbyists represent private companies or industry organizations. Private money funds those lobbyists. Where you should be concerned is the public employee unions who take your tax dollars before they ever get into the hands of union members and turn right around and use those tax dollars to influence legislators, and representatives like school board and city council members.

Ha ha! Sure let’s ask Adam Schiff what ANY of that was actually about. Maybe he can tell us who his secret whistleblower was while we’re at it. Unbelievable!

Legislative writes badly worded/incomplete laws. Executive uses the holes in the badly worded laws to get the results they want for political gain. Judicial is totally partisan now and first looks to see which side appointed them to their seat on the bench.

I'm guessing that any discussion about playing in another stadium for a year is more about the logistics of completing the new facility while still keeping Rich Stadium open. (I seriously doubt it has much of anything to do with it being unsafe....or they would 'red tag' the place.) At some point the new and the old are going to have to live next door to each other, and then the old one will be torn down. That's part of what the final design studies are about. As I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread, the new Tottenham Stadium was an interesting construction feat. It was actually built in two halves so as to reduce the time that the Team had to play elsewhere. Now, the Bills site nowhere near as tight, but you'll be surprised as to how much larger the new stadium's footprint will be even with a smaller capacity. In the end, you want the new facility to be in the best location on the property. It will be there for 50+years. Nobody's going to want to walk all the way around the new stadium just to get inside because the old stadium was in the way 50 years ago. Make sense?

You can't be serious? Trump tried to intervene in the Ukrainian corruption gravy train. But when we said he would send them aid, on the condition that they'd clean up their act....Nancy and her clown car impeached him for asking! Were you taking a nap that year?

It's not hard at all to change the rules. But you have to want to change them....and the people who would write a new rule are the very same people addicted to the superbowl tickets, extravagant foreign research trips, and three martini lunches. So unless you and me are going to send a Bill to the floor...good luck!

Not so fast. This topic is extremely complicated....and thus the problem. I'm guessing that the laws, as written, are full of what lay people call 'loop holes', so for example the current Executive Branch says "we are enforcing the law, we're just stipulating the time and date for these illegal immigrants to return for a court date'"...We of course know that almost none of them ever return for their date, and the federal government conveniently doesn't have the manpower to track them down. It's no different than people over-staying their visa (like the 9/11 terrorists). The root of the problem is that our government has failed us all miserably. They KNOW the intent of the law, but they're driving big trucks through those loopholes...on purpose. This is not an act of omission, the regime knows exactly what they are doing!

Are you trying to say we don’t have laws that govern immigration? I’m sure we do. The problem is that the Executive Branch is choosing how they wish to enforce them.

Not going to happen. His entire existence is built upon bomb throwing, name calling, and the Twitter sphere of hate and division. I’ve attempted numerous times to reach and get him to simply join the conversation. I’m convinced now that it’ll never happen. It’s all just scorched earth. I wish I could say that his approach had given me pause, or even advanced my longing for understanding on where he’s coming from. I’ve learned instead that there’s no desire there save for beating everyone to a pulp. Sad!

I’ve been asked speak about this subject at a few conferences over the years. The problem isn’t the lobbyists asking for favors. It’s not even the offer of meals, contributions, or sports tickets. The problem is the politicians accepting the offer! Just say NO!

You’re very welcome….and don’t call me Shirley

Exactly my point. Many are going to be super disappointed.

My comment was of course sarcastic, but I’ve often wondered if everyone in the Congress has to take a half day seminar ever year on the constitution…and pass a test as part of Continuing Education credits. If they don’t….they should.

So it’s your position that someone who just happens to have darker skin than another person couldn’t possibly be conservative by nature? Why exactly? Is it because you judge them only by their skin color and NOT by the content of their character? Yikes!

Chef…that’s a pretty recent interpretation of retirement. Not very long ago social security was conceived as something to get you through the few years you might have after the paychecks stopped coming in. The baby boomer generation turned retirement into a much more extravagant experience.

Shouldn't a President who has spent his entire 50 year career in and around Washington, be expected to know at least something about the Constitution?