Orlando Buffalo Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 1 hour ago, BillStime said: How does that QUOTE equate: https://www.newsweek.com/anti-desantis-voters-could-foot-billion-dollar-disney-tax-bill-1700103 You linked to this or a similar article back then. It is ok you know it is true but probably went back and deleted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 4 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: https://www.newsweek.com/anti-desantis-voters-could-foot-billion-dollar-disney-tax-bill-1700103 You linked to this or a similar article back then. It is ok you know it is true but probably went back and deleted it. 5 hours ago, Orlando Tim said: Disney would leave and then it would cost us in Orange County $2 billion? Yeah - they could. What does the title of the article say? And where did I ever say Disney would leave? lmao And - aren't they discussing sales tax increases in the two counties that make up Disney World? And last, you said Disney was no longer "formally pushing trans crap" - did they cancel Gay Disney? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 2 hours ago, BillStime said: Yeah - they could. What does the title of the article say? And where did I ever say Disney would leave? lmao And - aren't they discussing sales tax increases in the two counties that make up Disney World? And last, you said Disney was no longer "formally pushing trans crap" - did they cancel Gay Disney? The article is written with morons in mind and only morons believed it for a minute. Gay days have always existed outside official Disney policy, it has been going on at least as long I have lived in Florida. Right now the only possible tax increase is the one that Demings has tried to get passed a bunch of time now is for public transportation, which he started pushing before Disney situation and is unrelated. Lastly Disney would never move from Florida after investing as much as they have so anyone who listed that as even a 1% chance is stupid. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 20 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: The article is written with morons in mind and only morons believed it for a minute. Gay days have always existed outside official Disney policy, it has been going on at least as long I have lived in Florida. Right now the only possible tax increase is the one that Demings has tried to get passed a bunch of time now is for public transportation, which he started pushing before Disney situation and is unrelated. Lastly Disney would never move from Florida after investing as much as they have so anyone who listed that as even a 1% chance is stupid. Well I never once said Disney would leave Florida so I hope you enjoy your “win.” lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 9 Author Share Posted July 9 Looks like it was old Ronny D who signed a. special order to release this Grand Jury evidence about Epstein! Ha ha Grand Jury evidence is usually kept secret forever, lol Way to go Ron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) 14 hours ago, Tiberius said: Looks like it was old Ronny D who signed a. special order to release this Grand Jury evidence about Epstein! Ha ha Grand Jury evidence is usually kept secret forever, lol Way to go Ron! Let’s not lose track of what was released. It’s a really tough read to know someone would do things like that to a minor. (keep in mind this grand jury was before Trump ran for any office and released by a Republican) Edited July 10 by Backintheday544 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 10 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: Let’s not lose track of what was released. It’s a really tough read to know someone would do things like that to a minor. (keep in mind this grand jury was before Trump ran for any office and released by a Republican) No, I don’t wonder about that at all. Here’s the way I see it—a grand jury is established to move cases forward. It’s not an arbiter of truth, fairness, full disclosure or anything resembling a decision on guilt or innocence, justice, it’s simply part of the process. I read that federal grand juries result in indictment 99% of the time. With regard to Epstein, it seems there is an awful lot of information that is unknown or unreleased, and I don’t understand why that is. The guy has been dead for years, his associate jailed, and yet it seems that powerful people are being protected. This allows any mention of Epstein to be used as a hammer politically. I think that’s part of the plan tbh. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 14 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: No, I don’t wonder about that at all. Here’s the way I see it—a grand jury is established to move cases forward. It’s not an arbiter of truth, fairness, full disclosure or anything resembling a decision on guilt or innocence, justice, it’s simply part of the process. I read that federal grand juries result in indictment 99% of the time. With regard to Epstein, it seems there is an awful lot of information that is unknown or unreleased, and I don’t understand why that is. The guy has been dead for years, his associate jailed, and yet it seems that powerful people are being protected. This allows any mention of Epstein to be used as a hammer politically. I think that’s part of the plan tbh. There is a lot we do know. For instance, Alex Acosta was made Trump's labor secretary. A cabinet position! Why? Turns out he is the guy who negotiated the easy deal for Epstein. Epstein, Trump's friend, who was a serial raper of children. Given an easy deal. He was out raping, exploiting and harming children again not long. For that Acosta gets a Cabinet postion I know that's all a coincidence to you, but it's pretty clear cut, quid pro quo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 41 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: No, I don’t wonder about that at all. Here’s the way I see it—a grand jury is established to move cases forward. It’s not an arbiter of truth, fairness, full disclosure or anything resembling a decision on guilt or innocence, justice, it’s simply part of the process. I read that federal grand juries result in indictment 99% of the time. With regard to Epstein, it seems there is an awful lot of information that is unknown or unreleased, and I don’t understand why that is. The guy has been dead for years, his associate jailed, and yet it seems that powerful people are being protected. This allows any mention of Epstein to be used as a hammer politically. I think that’s part of the plan tbh. So we can focus on what we do know. And we do know a witness laid out what was in that tweet that Trump specifically did. You cant wash that away with oh the left is after him since that testimony was before Trump ran for President. This is a non/politically motivated individual saying Trump raped them as a 12/13 year old. Them throw money at her and said get an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 3 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: So we can focus on what we do know. And we do know a witness laid out what was in that tweet that Trump specifically did. You cant wash that away with oh the left is after him since that testimony was before Trump ran for President. This is a non/politically motivated individual saying Trump raped them as a 12/13 year old. Them throw money at her and said get an abortion. There are several news outlets that outright detest and fear TRUMP. What is your theory on why they aren’t using this to take him down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 34 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: So we can focus on what we do know. And we do know a witness laid out what was in that tweet that Trump specifically did. You cant wash that away with oh the left is after him since that testimony was before Trump ran for President. This is a non/politically motivated individual saying Trump raped them as a 12/13 year old. Them throw money at her and said get an abortion. There is no such thing as a non-motivated individual. Money is a huge factor. But this is unbelievable at best, which is why it's gaining zero traction (again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: There is a lot we do know. For instance, Alex Acosta was made Trump's labor secretary. A cabinet position! Why? Turns out he is the guy who negotiated the easy deal for Epstein. Epstein, Trump's friend, who was a serial raper of children. Given an easy deal. He was out raping, exploiting and harming children again not long. For that Acosta gets a Cabinet postion I know that's all a coincidence to you, but it's pretty clear cut, quid pro quo Pure speculation on your part, and all the Latin you picked up from watching LA Law reruns doesn't change that. It's the equivalent of suggesting JB's nomination of Julie Su as his labor secretary reveals deep ties to China. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 48 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: So we can focus on what we do know. And we do know a witness laid out what was in that tweet that Trump specifically did. You cant wash that away with oh the left is after him since that testimony was before Trump ran for President. This is a non/politically motivated individual saying Trump raped them as a 12/13 year old. Them throw money at her and said get an abortion. I am focusing on what I know: I know how the Grand Jury system works, generally. I also know that nothing came from the allegations, which could mean just about anything: A victim fearful of pursuing. A victim who settled discretely to put the matter behind her. A person who made unsubstantiated claims. A person who made unsubstantiated claims and a person settling to avoid harm/damage to reputation. Overzealous prosecution. Incompetent prosecution. Prosecution in on it. Most importantly to me, I know what the outcome was. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts