One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
A fitting Memorial celebration, no but just what you would expect.
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
May 24, 2020 18:09:44   #
Larry Joe
 
proud republican wrote:
So what are you doing to celebrate ,Kevyn ?? Oh yeah same old tired thing:B***hing about President Trump as usual ! !!!! Can't wait your reaction when President Trump wins ree******n!!!


One quote from Trump that I believe is absolutely correct about America: “I’m not the one they are after, you are. I’m only standing in their way”. It is our way of life Soros and the left want to destroy. They are using the left’s and the MSM’s ABSOLUTE HATRED of Trump the individual, to distract the populace in order achieve their long term goals to destroy our current form of government. Many on the left in this group are simple pawns in their efforts. They cannot see beyond their hatred of one man who would be gone in four years to see the future envision by the far left and Socialism.
Larry Joe

Reply
May 24, 2020 18:21:04   #
Larry Joe
 
Parky60 wrote:
[Jesus said:] "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Matthew 6:1-4
i Jesus said: "Be careful not to practice ... (show quote)


Parky60, I don't think Kevy believes in God. That is why we were given free choice. My bet is on eternity and not simply a few short years. His choice.
Larry Joe

Reply
May 24, 2020 19:07:51   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
useful mattoid 45 wrote:
Yes, me too. I want the vulnerable to feel safe and this is a way I can help.

Are any of the rwnjs doing this for their neighbors?

And I wore a mask as is appropriate. Are any of the rwnjs doing this?


Yep! We know you Liberals give more than conservatives! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Always ready to serve those in need! Just ask any one of you! 😇 Angels......yes you are!

According to Times columnist Paul Sullivan, “Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democrat-dominated blue counties.” Sullivan was referencing a study published last month in the academic journal, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. The study was a creation of four research professors “who set out to explore how political differences affect charitable giving.” As Sullivan noted in his analysis of the report, the “more Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions.”

Further about the study, it should be said up front how the researchers acknowledged that in analyzing itemized tax returns in over 3,000 counties, “they were looking at a more affluent slice of donors.” This rates mention given the presumed desire among some to suggest an economic slant to the study’s findings. More realistically, any study of charitable giving is going to have an affluent slant to it when it’s understood how charitable the rich are. As Arthur Brooks showed in his 2006 book Who Really Cares, U.S. households in the top 10 percent of income accounted for at least a quarter of all money donated, while U.S. households with net worths of over a million dollars were the source of over half of all charitable gifts. Brooks’s study also confirmed what the more recent one did: Republicans give more than Democrats do to charity, and do so at all levels of income. READ THIS AGAIN! ALL LEVELS OF INCOME.......emphasis mine!

Taken together, the two studies mentioned exist as inconvenient t***hs for those who equate wealth with a lack of charity and/or overall stinginess. America’s rich are plainly quite generous, and then America’s Republican rich are statistically quite a bit more generous than are Democrats. The latter is particularly inconvenient for a left desperate to paint a picture of “rich” and “Republican” as something that’s indicative of haughty disdain for the poor and unwell. READ AGAIN! WHO HAS NO HAUGHTY DISDAIN FOR THE POOR?

More importantly, it speaks to a crucial difference in philosophy that should have economic implications. Up front, it’s a known quantity that Republicans tend to v**e for politicians expressing a desire to reduce tax rates. Democrats on the other hand v**e for politicians promising to raise tax rates. At least in the past, these v****g patterns were used by some to create the narrative that the Democrats are more giving in light of their desire to pay more in taxes. Such a viewpoint fails in two ways, and realistically many more.

For one, it’s now a known quantity that red counties are much more charitable than blue counties. What this reminds us is that Republicans aren’t not compassionate as much as they think giving should be a personal choice, as opposed to something coerced through taxation. Republicans are clearly big givers, but think they can more expertly give sans governmental oversight.

Second, readers need only consider the entertainment industry. It’s arguably the most monolithically Democratic sector in the U.S., but also one of the most sk**lful when it comes to avoiding taxes. If anyone doubts this, they need only Google “movies made in Georgia.” Needless to say, voluminous production in the Peach State isn’t an effect of better scenery than California. It’s a tax thing. Those still in doubt should then buy Michael Ovitz’s excellent new book, Who Is Michael Ovitz, only to read about why good agents secure for their clients a percentage of “gross” over “net profits.” Without going into detail, sk**lful entertainment-industry accountants can make seemingly any film unprofitable….

Third, it's never been explained what's at all compassionate about arrogating precious resources to Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi over Jeff Bezos and Fred Smith (FedEx). Government wastes, while private actors relentlessly make our lives better when matched with capital.

Hall of Fame quarterback Roger Staubach once quipped that he liked women every bit as much as noted ladies’ man Joe Namath, but chose to stick with one woman. Applied to charity, Republicans are every bit as giving (and as the stats show, more giving) as Democrats are; the huge difference between Republicans and Democrats being about choice. Republicans would apparently prefer freedom to give away more of their disposable income than Democrats do, but would like to do so without politicians and others choosing whom they give to.

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2020 20:06:35   #
Larry Joe
 
TexaCan wrote:
Yep! We know you Liberals give more than conservatives! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Always ready to serve those in need! Just ask any one of you! 😇 Angels......yes you are!

According to Times columnist Paul Sullivan, “Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democrat-dominated blue counties.” Sullivan was referencing a study published last month in the academic journal, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. The study was a creation of four research professors “who set out to explore how political differences affect charitable giving.” As Sullivan noted in his analysis of the report, the “more Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions.”

Further about the study, it should be said up front how the researchers acknowledged that in analyzing itemized tax returns in over 3,000 counties, “they were looking at a more affluent slice of donors.” This rates mention given the presumed desire among some to suggest an economic slant to the study’s findings. More realistically, any study of charitable giving is going to have an affluent slant to it when it’s understood how charitable the rich are. As Arthur Brooks showed in his 2006 book Who Really Cares, U.S. households in the top 10 percent of income accounted for at least a quarter of all money donated, while U.S. households with net worths of over a million dollars were the source of over half of all charitable gifts. Brooks’s study also confirmed what the more recent one did: Republicans give more than Democrats do to charity, and do so at all levels of income. READ THIS AGAIN! ALL LEVELS OF INCOME.......emphasis mine!

Taken together, the two studies mentioned exist as inconvenient t***hs for those who equate wealth with a lack of charity and/or overall stinginess. America’s rich are plainly quite generous, and then America’s Republican rich are statistically quite a bit more generous than are Democrats. The latter is particularly inconvenient for a left desperate to paint a picture of “rich” and “Republican” as something that’s indicative of haughty disdain for the poor and unwell. READ AGAIN! WHO HAS NO HAUGHTY DISDAIN FOR THE POOR?

More importantly, it speaks to a crucial difference in philosophy that should have economic implications. Up front, it’s a known quantity that Republicans tend to v**e for politicians expressing a desire to reduce tax rates. Democrats on the other hand v**e for politicians promising to raise tax rates. At least in the past, these v****g patterns were used by some to create the narrative that the Democrats are more giving in light of their desire to pay more in taxes. Such a viewpoint fails in two ways, and realistically many more.

For one, it’s now a known quantity that red counties are much more charitable than blue counties. What this reminds us is that Republicans aren’t not compassionate as much as they think giving should be a personal choice, as opposed to something coerced through taxation. Republicans are clearly big givers, but think they can more expertly give sans governmental oversight.

Second, readers need only consider the entertainment industry. It’s arguably the most monolithically Democratic sector in the U.S., but also one of the most sk**lful when it comes to avoiding taxes. If anyone doubts this, they need only Google “movies made in Georgia.” Needless to say, voluminous production in the Peach State isn’t an effect of better scenery than California. It’s a tax thing. Those still in doubt should then buy Michael Ovitz’s excellent new book, Who Is Michael Ovitz, only to read about why good agents secure for their clients a percentage of “gross” over “net profits.” Without going into detail, sk**lful entertainment-industry accountants can make seemingly any film unprofitable….

Third, it's never been explained what's at all compassionate about arrogating precious resources to Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi over Jeff Bezos and Fred Smith (FedEx). Government wastes, while private actors relentlessly make our lives better when matched with capital.

Hall of Fame quarterback Roger Staubach once quipped that he liked women every bit as much as noted ladies’ man Joe Namath, but chose to stick with one woman. Applied to charity, Republicans are every bit as giving (and as the stats show, more giving) as Democrats are; the huge difference between Republicans and Democrats being about choice. Republicans would apparently prefer freedom to give away more of their disposable income than Democrats do, but would like to do so without politicians and others choosing whom they give to.
Yep! We know you Liberals give more than conserva... (show quote)


Why would anyone be surprised? L*****t believes that if there is a problem, the government needs to take care of it. Conservatives still believe we are our brother’s keeper. It is a difference in philosophy of the function of government.
Larry Joe

Reply
May 24, 2020 22:10:25   #
4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory
 
Kevyn wrote:
To honor our fallen warriors and in a reverent reflection on the loss of of a hundred thousand Americans to his bungled plague Trump acted in a way no other president would or has. He treated himself to a taxpayer funded round of golf.


Were as outraged when Obama played golf as you are with Trump ?

Reply
May 25, 2020 02:44:50   #
bggamers Loc: georgia
 
JFlorio wrote:
He wouldn't care. kevy's some kind of troll or bot. probably Russian


If they are real they must get paid to spout so much BS drivel

Reply
May 25, 2020 09:25:04   #
promilitary
 
Kevyn wrote:
To honor our fallen warriors and in a reverent reflection on the loss of of a hundred thousand Americans to his bungled plague Trump acted in a way no other president would or has. He treated himself to a taxpayer funded round of golf.


WOW, Kev, you've been wrong before but you've NEVER been this wrong!
Read on; we will all be awaiting your retraction.....and an apology might be in order.



(CNSNews.com) -- President Obama was recently criticized for playing golf immediately after giving a speech about the brutal beheading of American journalist James Foley by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). But a close look at his presidency shows that Obama’s behavior was part of a pattern.

At times of crisis throughout his presidency, Obama has often left the White House to go golfing, vacationing or fundraising.

Even sympathetic members of the media have noticed the trend.
"It’s understandable that Obama would want to get away from it all, but for a president struggling to build support for his foreign policy, vacationing during a crisis is no day at the beach," wrote Washington Post opinion writer Dana Milbank.

“Playing a round at the Farm Neck Golf Club was appropriate. Giving a speech after the murder of James Foley was necessary. It is the immediate juxtaposition of beheading and golfing that should have raised questions,” Michael Gerson remarked in a Post oped.

Although Obama called Foley’s parents to convey his condolences, neither the president nor anyone from the White House attended the journalist's memorial service in New Hampshire, even though three White House aides were dispatched to Ferguson, Missouri to attend the funeral of a black teen k**led by a police officer.

Earlier this month, the commander-in-chief was also playing golf at Martha’s Vineyard during the funeral of Major General Harold Green, the highest-ranking U.S. officer k**led in battle since the Vietnam War, who was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

In fact, few international or domestic emergencies have diverted the president from his pre-planned activities.
As The New York Times noted, “with some rare exceptions, the public relations team around the president has remained consistently stubborn about refusing to let the never-ending stream of political, economic or international crises affect Mr. Obama’s daily schedule.”

For example, shortly after Ukrainian separatists shot down the commercial airplane Malaysian Flight 17, which resulted in the death of 298 people, including one American, the president gave a brief speech before leaving the White House to eat lunch at a barbeque restaurant in Delaware and attend two fundraisers in New York.

When reporters asked White House spokesman Josh Earnest if going ahead with political events in light of the tragedy was a mistake, Earnest defended Obama, saying that the president had all the tools he needed to do his job on the road.

Pressing national issues have often had to compete with fundraisers for the president’s time and attention.
In early July, President Obama traveled to Dallas, Texas for a fundraiser but decided not to witness the mass influx of i*****l a***ns then pouring over the Mexican border, saying, “I’m not interested in photo-ops.”
But that claim rang hollow to many who had observed his activities earlier that very same week.

“It’s not like the president is averse to all photo-ops,” CNN’s John King remarked. “We showed you yesterday he was fist-bumping with a guy in a gorilla suit, a guy in a horse head showed up, he was drinking beer with the governor of Colorado. So it is hard for him to say he doesn’t do photo-ops when he’s doing a lot of photo-ops.”

Obama attended several Democratic fundraisers around the country before publicly addressing the scandal of veterans who died waiting for treatment at Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals.
On May 21, three weeks after the story first broke, the president finally gave a speech about the VA misconduct, saying, “If these allegations prove to be true, it is dishonorable, it is disgraceful, and I will not tolerate it -- period.”

But the next day, he was off attending two more fundraisers in his hometown of Chicago.
In the fall of 2013, Obama similarly failed to comment on major problems with the Healthcare.gov website until three weeks after it was launched.

“There's no sugarcoating it. The website has been too slow. And I think it's fair to say that nobody's more frustrated by that than I am,” Obama finally said on October 2--a day after he played a round of golf.

The Obamacare website’s serious glitches continued until mid-November, during which time the president played four more rounds of golf and attended at least 10 more fundraisers.
In 2012, Obama continued on the campaign trail the day after the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in B******i, Libya. After visiting the State Department, Obama flew to Las Vegas to speak at a boisterous campaign rally.

He thanked Nevada Congresswoman Dina Titus and responded “I love you back” to a cheering audience member before addressing the situation in B******i, where four Americans were murdered, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

"No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America,” Obama said.

In April of 2010, the president of Poland and other top-ranking Polish officials died in a plane crash on their way to Russia. Obama had originally planned to attend the funeral, but volcanic ash in the atmosphere from an erupting volcano in Iceland prevented him and several other world leaders from flying.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.