• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Prez Candidates

Status
Not open for further replies.
taxes and tax code..
you are right.. a person has full rights to do what is legally to reduce their tax due..
so they can keep as much of their earnings as possible.

if a person makes 100,000,000 and only pay $1,000,000 in taxes. 1%
then I think he .. bent a few rules...
if he pays $0.. he broke a few rules...
if he gets money back from IRS.. he blew up the rules...

Trump as PORUS... he will find and make NEW rules/law to help the rich...
so they don't have to bend, break, or blow up any rules..
it all legal... great!

add in all the dumb ass policies.. to build walls... deport.. etc...
the Gov spending will go up...
someone will have to pay the check he writes...
if it is up to him.. it will not be him or the rich!
GUESS WHO WILL HAVE TO PAY IT?????
 
(Yawn)

Did I miss anything while I was asleep? The hard truth is, I no longer have the endurance of a woman past retirement age; Hope I don't get accused of malingering......

I haven't taken the time to read any subsequent posts since going to bed for the evening, I wanted to say something first.

I have a strong track record of always looking for at least one nice thing to say in any given situation; I seldom choose my words as deliberately as I ought, and often craft sentences which fail to live up to my own expectations.

In the spirit of all the above, it should be said that rootabaga (and others) are to be praised for speaking up in the first place, and for bringing more of himself to his posts than mere cut and paste. Thank's for speaking up at all, rootabaga.
Things like the use of the word weak are among the examples of occasions where I am not proud of myself, along with other examples of making things more personal than the discussion perhaps should be. There is of course more latitude afforded us in this section of the forum, but I'll repeat, as I look in the mirror, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

That said, I have yet to see an argument in favor of trump which rises much above the level of "weak", I'm still listening.
 
Despite best efforts, in a near toneless environment such as this, there are myriad opportunities to misunderstand one another, and precious little room to thoroughly explore ideas in any real depth (despite the tendency of some to gas on and on). And unfortunately short attention spans may lead some to perceive the woefully abbreviated, as somehow overwhelmingly excessive.
Any effort to revisit an issue may give the appearance of waffling or damage control, rather than clarification.
Any direct quote of another member may (or may not) be intended to be a shortcut to an indictment of an entire way of thinking, not the individual singled out. The term "you" may refer to an individual or the collective.
Such is the nature of an internet forum environment.

"Yet to see an argument....that isn't weak" was intended in this instance to be applied to the entire nationwide constituency, not an individual member here. I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that I have misidentified another's voting preference; What I believe I have correctly identified is a willingness to overlook highly questionable behavior, perhaps even uphold it as somehow admirable; That anyone would do so, in support of a man they claim to have no affinity for....... Is further telling.

rootabaga said:
Where is all the hatred against the other uber-rich that are doing the same thing?
Click to expand...
I suspect there may be plenty. Hatred of the uber-rich has little to do with our discussion. And there are certainly examples of uber-rich who see fit to "stupidly" make staggeringly large charitable contributions, perform countless acts of good for the larger society. It was my pleasure and privilege to work with and for any number of them, giant, admirable individuals. However, none of them are running for President of the United States.......Hard to imagine why donald alone comes in for some extra scrutiny, huh?
The real problem here, is that we are not being afforded the opportunity to know the facts; To see records which are routinely expected to be made public under these conditions. "Disproportionately-low" and criminally low are frighteningly close, when your entire game plan is based upon working the system to the utmost. No matter how much French you throw around.;) And I'll repeat; You must have far greater insight into his tax records than the rest of us, to say with such great confidence and authority that "All he's done is follow the law". Until he even tries to prove otherwise, I will think the worst of him; A conclusion I think not unreasonable to reach, based upon countless other patterns of behavior which can be documented.

If he could make it past square one of the smell test, without mountains of evidence piling up, suggesting that something fishy was going on; I guess I'd stick my head in the sand, succumb to his charms, and let him go about his business.

But not so much, in this case......I'm sure everyone will understand, :rolleyes: given the supremely precious nature of what he is asking us to entrust him with. "What have you got to lose", isn't a very compelling rallying cry, nor is "Don't blame me, blame the system".

We seem to have gotten funneled into talking primarily about his taxes; If his demonstrable failings involved only that one issue, a fellow might be excused for remaining neutral.
But the list of areas that any reasonable observer should be concerned with include: His finances, his business tactics, his "charitable" organizations and activities, his attitudes toward women and minorities, his recent handling of the birther movement, his simple lack of qualification, his temperament and attitude, his grasp of the concept of truth......Mountains of damning, interlinked evidence on all these fronts and more; Where should we start?

Since I have been identified as a lawyer here in the past, and we are discussing taxes, let's mash the two up in a tortured analogy.

If I were to kill my wife.......And had great wealth behind me to pay for the best defense money can buy, I would be stupid not to avail myself of that opportunity, right?
If that lawyer gets me acquitted, or the case dismissed on a technicality, there are many who would say that justice was served. And he was an honorable, admirable man. And according to the letter of the law, I suppose it may have been, and he might be.
If that lawyer (or accountant, in the parallel analogy) zealously looks out for my interests despite knowing for a fact that I had committed the crime.......He might be able to convince himself that he had done the right thing....... And his behavior would likely be within the law.
If that lawyer (or accountant) looks out for my interests without asking to know the facts, in order to preserve some veneer of respectability...... I'm sure they can rationalize that behavior as well.

But there are many, many instances in life where one could choose to live up to a higher standard than just the bare minimum one feels is required. Just because you can get away with something, doesn't mean you should. trump gives the consistent appearance that if he thinks he can get away with something, he will try; And that attitude is intimately linked to his finances.

And finally, I personally think no amount of sensible tax overhaul will fix the problem of "creative accountancy". Heck, I'm not even saying it's a problem that needs to be fixed, or discussed here. I'm saying he needs to satisfy some basic, reasonable questions about his tax filings. I welcome the effort to reform policy of course, but the sort of people who already can rationalize bending rules to the breaking point (and beyond); Will begin looking for ways to be one step ahead of what is legal, the very next day. On that day, should I take up the time honored cop-out, and once again blame the system? If there is a problem, it has far less to do with the system, far more with the relatively small percentage of the people who are the problem; And those who would defend them or choose to look the other way.

And on that day, I may be expected to continue conducting myself in the same foolish, financially irresponsible manner as ever, in the futile hope that some others will derive some benefit as a result. In the short time I have left on this earth, there are certain types of behavior I won't be engaging in, and with my last breath, I might well choose to speak out against those behaviors. Even if it means standing alone, back against the wall. No blindfold, I'll look the object of my trumped up scorn directly in the eye to the very end.
 
Last edited:
I made a vow not to post to any online forum political threads, but @basic 101 user you have smoked me out of my hidey-hole - thank you for some terrifically-written, balanced, intelligent posts. You alluded to writing for a living, and I sincerely hope that's the case as this is better commentary than most of the so-called "professional" work out there. (Granted, it's anonymous and not attached to any auspices, but you know what I mean).

Despite the American obsession with avoiding it, taxation is not inherently "bad"; it pays for things the country wants and needs (infrastructure, healthcare, and education being just a few small items on the list). Unfortunately, in the US, we often don't see any personal return on those taxes.... Not helped because so many people with the means are "smart" and not paying them. If I were fortunate enough to have several squillion lying around - literally more than I or my children could ever hope to spend while living a normal, middle class life - I would still have no problem paying taxes. In, fact, I'd be PROUD to be able to contribute. Sure, one wants to minimize one's burden and take advantage of deductions, but there's a difference between squeezing every penny out of a $50k a year salary so your family can live on it, vs clever-accountant manipulation of large estates leaving the balance sheet at $0.

So when a candidate, a wealthy candidate, who claims to support a disenfranchised working class, proudly proclaims that he is "smart" because he doesn't pay any taxes, my tolerance goes right out the window.All I hear when he talks is, "I'll be making decisions to benefit me and my businesses, and the rest of you can go f*** yourselves.". If "making America great again" means making it a more selfish, more xenophobic, more racist, more wealth-driven, dumbed-down society, count me out.

I find that he has demonstrated time and again that he is actually the Presidential Nominee version of Dennis Leary's (nsfw) song (written many years ago, and it has never seemed more relevant....!).

 
Last edited:
I don't understand ...

Drumpf has many times used Hillary's husband's adultery against her.
that is her husband's bad trait .. not hers! she is a forgiving person. (for what ever reason).

Drumpf has been divorced twice.. so he cant be in a Trusting relationship.
and on top of that...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-pleading-the-fifth_us_57ed79dee4b024a52d2de46d?

he cheated on his wife with a beauty queen, Marla Maples!
then he brags that he was able to use the LAW.. to screw his ex-wife out of her due share of the divorce.

and Drumpf has the gall to fling mud at Hillary??
what an idiot!
 
Heck; If I had lived ante bellum, I woulda' gotten me a dozen "assistants" to help out around the plantation.

All nice and legal, and clearly I'd be stupid to pass on any opportunity to help out my own bottom line.

Don't blame me, blame the system.

Is reductio ad absurdum a compact enough debate tactic? Perhaps a trump haiku would be welcome next, and make for an even more easily digested missive?
 
basic 101 user said:
Heck; If I had lived ante bellum, I woulda' gotten me a dozen "assistants" to help out around the plantation.

All nice and legal, and clearly I'd be stupid to pass on any opportunity to help out my own bottom line.

Don't blame me, blame the system.

Is reductio ad absurdum a compact enough debate tactic? Perhaps a trump haiku would be welcome next, and make for an even more easily digested missive?
Click to expand...
http://geoff.greer.fm/trump_poetry/
 
(Some) people will do whatever they think they can get away with; For as long as they are allowed to get away with it.

Sometimes it even requires "evil government" to step in and protect us from such deplorables.

Funny how often; The sort of people we need protection from the most, are also the type who are most vocal about reversing those very protections. And they spend significant amounts of money trying to fool enough of the populace into believing that somehow they will benefit as well.

Funny how the kind of people who would tie up government agencies for years in court cases......(Because they have the money to do so, and therefore would be stupid to not avail themselves of the opportunity to protect their financial bottom line)........(Jonathan Mahler and Steve Eder, NY Times, Aug 27, 2016)........Funny how that sort are often the kind who would then point to the "inefficiency and waste" of those (unnecessary, meddling, burdensome) agencies.

Or try this story.

And by the way, donald......The consent decree at the end, which I acknowledge does not include an admission of guilt......Is just a fig leaf offered to you at the last, to give you some shred of cover, and facilitate the long overdue conclusion of the entire unpleasant matter. You sign the document, because despite two years of machinations, you and daddy are moments away from hearing the little hammer thingie in the judge's hand come down on the bench. The moment that happens, you would be judged guilty, buried under the mountain of evidence brought against you, with no plausible denial. You sign the paper, the case goes away.....But the memory does not, nor the mountain of evidence. When you stand on a national stage and suggest that "no admission of guilt" is all that there is to the story, all I need to know...... You insult my intelligence (yet again). The last third, of the last page of the document is not all there is to the story, despite what your followers may be fooled into believing.

One notion of trickle down economics........You should tie up the courts again and again (and again) with nonsense, because you can,:rolleyes: (and would be foolish not to).......I'm gonna' feel privileged to pay the taxes, which provide the modest salaries, of the teams of good men and women who forego other more lucrative jobs....... In the pursuit of justice for all.
 
Last edited:
yet I see blacks ..as well as other minorities.. rooting for Drumpf? who plan to vote for him..
and thinking the man's past ...is his past .
he has grown and changed for the better.

would you put a suspected child molester in the same room as your child???
alone??

people .. see this man's past .. his behavior in the past and currently...watch him LIE..
hear him "SAY" he has changed..

they want to put him alone in a room with button to send nukes??
in position to shape the future to his wants?

I don't feel safe for us (non-rich), USA, and the world .. if he is POTUS.
Hillary is not great.. even bad... but I don't see such gloom future with her as POTUS.
she may get richer as POTUS.. but I also think she will do good too.
 
Last edited:
dan330 said:
yet I see blacks ..as well as other minorities.. rooting for Drumpf? who plan to vote for him
Click to expand...
Puzzling, I agree, but hopefully just anecdotal.
I can well imagine there would be some blacks and other minorities supporting trump, I hardly hold that against them. No group should be expected to behave as a single minded block, or condemned for the actions of a few within their block. All groups should be expected to have some members within, whose actions appear confounding, and their motivations likely run the gamut from perfectly reasonable to morally repugnant.
Perhaps in other areas of discussion, they are genuinely in ideological sympathy . Perhaps they are easily confused; Overly vulnerable to, and the hapless victim of a well crafted, but relentlessly deceptive message. Maybe they are unduly influenced by an overbearing spouse or parent. Maybe they are just gently psychologically warped....self loathing members of their group. Perhaps genuinely, unfortunately mentally disturbed; No laughing matter, and no fault of their own. Perhaps they simply are contemptible, deplorable, irredeemable.

You never know.

But at the end of the day, we aren't talking about any single black / white issue that might be expected to stick in an individual voter's craw, when judging trump. If you are (for instance) a black man who can forgive his overt racism..........Surely you will observe 15 or 20 other disturbing problems to select from, among the palette of 100+ reasons to be repulsed by this thing.

I admire bipartisanship and a willingness to compromise, that's how things get done in a system like this.

(As in): Yer' gonna' mindlessly, reflexively drag your heels, year after year, habitually opposing anything an opposition group in power proposes to do?.......And then you use the inevitable results of that intransigence to suggest the administration has "done nothing"........And then expect cooperation from the loyal opposition on those occasions when you have the reins, otherwise likely calling them obstructionist. How many different ways do you want to (further) insult my intelligence? How much longer do you intend to prove that you wish to be a part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution?

And by the way, only because it's so timely. NY Times Oct. 1, 2016. Front page, Patrick McGeehan story. Anyone remember "Read my lips"?
This is the story of an iron clad "no taxes" promise (ultimately broken) in order to finally resolve the kind of obstinance described above. And the new tax revenues are intended to go toward long neglected transportation infrastructure projects......Transportation systems which mightily benefit countless taxpaying citizens, and contributes immeasurably toward business. No small irony, in light of the "planned lane closure" scandal that scumbag Christie is currently embroiled in. I just hope that none tries to politicise the recent tragedy, that he is not seen as seeking cover from the appearance that the very neglect of that infrastructure caused the incident. Such allegations would in no way be good for political discourse. On the other hand, if it is ultimately found that such neglect was a significant contributing cause.....That would give us all something to think about. And if history reveals that a bad deal was struck here for political expediency, I hope someone will be held to account there as well. The only thing which is certain at the moment, is that Christie has again mindlessly promised....."OK, this one time......but not any more, never again."

Make a promise (for questionable, craven purposes), break a promise, then promise to never break a promise again. Nice....Courageous, thoughtful, intelligent, intellectually honest and consistent.......Nice.

I was no fan of Reagan, that's for sure; But he did understand the art of, and the wisdom in compromise; It's value in the pursuit of a larger good. And I have always admired on some small level any politician who has the courage to stand up, and say (something like) "This party, my party took a very bad turn when we forged an unholy alliance between intelligent, well meaning, responsible, fiscal and social conservatives, who generally feel XYZ..........And _____________ (fill in the blank)". Christian fundamentalists, "southerners", "second amendment first and foremost" types, etc......... take your pick.

There are good people in all three of those groups, and I have more in common with all three than you might imagine. But some of these are groups with single minded devotion to narrowly defined issues; And the party has placed itself in a position where the need to satisfy them all simultaneously has become a handicap.

The ugly face of the composite animal your party has created, requires a serious makeover to regain any appeal. This thing is a stitched up, Frankenstein patchwork quilt of.......all the reasons why donald should never be considered for the presidency. You clearly recognize the need to reinvent yourselves as a party, and trump is the direction you have chosen to follow this time?

The ugliest of the ugly, the worst of the worst.

I could respect the precious few Republicans who are willing to say "We went down the wrong path, it hasn't been good for our party, and we have a great deal of work to do, before we regain respectability in the eyes of many. Let's roll up our sleeves, get to work, and come back with a respectable platform in 4 years."

I have always held the secret ballot (at the individual level) to be sacrosanct; Essential to the process; One of the many blessings afforded us by this system of government. But I have begun to feel that in this instance, the long scope of history would be far better served if everyone was forced to stand firmly behind their decision, explain it to future generations. Prepared to receive the judgement of history, the political consequences of the present; And the black mark upon their very soul if they do not stand up against this walking affront to human dignity.
 
Last edited:
"You are entitled to your own opinions; You are not entitled to your own facts."

-U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

A heck of a resume, the better part of a lifetime devoted to public service. And I can't help but notice that he served under Nixon and Ford. Not just at the same time as them......But a Democrat working either directly in the White House, or some other position appointed by the white house......for a Republican administration.
I don't pretend to know the whole story, but have to wonder any number of things. Was there simply a far greater spirit of bipartisan cooperation and humility back then? "The Republicans are saying we have a helluva problem, and we do." - DPM (1994) Did the Republican party once upon a time simply see the wisdom of finding the people who truly were the best and brightest, party affiliation be damned? Was DPM once upon a time a registered Republican, and ultimately figured out a better way to go?

Hmmmmm.

"You are entitled to your own opinions. But if your opinions are based on lies, than your opinions aren't opinions; They are lies."

- Some woman whose name I don't recall, but could easily be researched and cited, if I weren't feeling so lazy.
^^^^^^^^Working on it, gimmie a minute.^^^

'Nuff said there, but what do we make of this?

Or this bit of Common Sense?

In the spirit of bipartisanship, and always trying to find the one nice thing to be said......Let's all acknowledge that trump is very, very very good at working the tax system to the limits. Perhaps the best that has ever lived, the brightest of all time. I personally don't admire what he is doing there, but have to say it is an area where he is clearly very, very smart, no snottiness or attitude intended. One of the only areas where I will say so, but there ya' go.

Having demonstrated that he clearly knows the system better than anyone else; And having said just this morning that this makes him the best man to repair the system, I would have no problem appointing him to a position in a Clinton administration. He would indeed be among the best and brightest, a welcome partner, a valuable team member, and a smart choice.

If he had spent the last few years saying something like "We have a problem, let's fix this problem, I'm your man." I would be on board with the guy........On that one issue alone. But beyond that, he is simply not qualified to be POTUS.

And nothing he has ever done demonstrates that he has any interest in helping to fix any problems for others. One of the central pillars of charity is helping to fix problems for others, people who can't do for themselves, with no expectation of any direct benefit to self. And his record of charitable actions, (one of the most extreme examples of selflessness), demonstrates a clear and egregious pattern of self involvement......"Self dealing" is the term much in the news lately, the legal concept he has been shown to have violated many times. He is almost by definition, the worst of the worst. The guy who should be absolutely last, in the line of men......... in the entire galaxy.........that we should follow.

And since it is clear that people like him feel that anything less than maximizing how much of the pile he keeps for himself....is stupid.....Why would we expect him to even want to fix the "problem". He's not stupid.

How stupid does he think I am? Wake up, trump supporters.
 
Might I suggest we simply close this thread? Everything since Trump became the nominee, is apparently off topic at this point. It's become nothing more than a thread to divide otherwise good friends. Just my humble opinion...
 
Father Guido said:
Might I suggest we simply close this thread? Everything since Trump became the nominee, is apparently off topic at this point. It's become nothing more than a thread to divide otherwise good friends. Just my humble opinion...
Click to expand...
Good point
 
why close it?

is this drumpf... I mean Trump.. still running for POTUS?
is the election over?

this thread is for discussion.. on a topic.. of a man.. the GOP Candidate for POTUS.
just because this man has a lot of crap .. and the crap is being discussed and pointed out..
some are not happy to see .. learn of suck crap.. or in denial..

does not make this tread off-topic.

I think it is NOT done .. and needs to be active till
end of election...
 
Actually the thread is titled:
GOP Prez Candidates
Note the plural. Since the party convention has chosen one, that particular point is now moot (and has been for quite some time). If one's post is ABOUT THE ONE CHOSEN (and not about anyone else) then I suppose it would be on topic. It just seems to me that this has turned into something completely different (Trump vs Clinton) than the intended discussion of choosing the GOP candidate. I'm fairly certain that the GOP supporters here are tired of people 'slamming' their chosen candidate.

I am guilty of off topic posts here myself and they may very well come across as inflammatory. This can cause ill will among otherwise good friends. If that is the case, I apologize. Should one wish to discuss Clinton vs Trump, then a new thread to discuss THAT would seem to be more appropriate.

Keep this going as long as you want. My "suggestion" to close the thread is just that, a suggestion. I can merely refrain from posting my opinions/beliefs here, leave the GOP supporters alone, and simply move along.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
By the letter of the law, it definitely could be seen as having gone off topic, it did as soon as the nominee was chosen, as pointed out above.

But one could spin things any number of ways; A post about trump, which invoked the name of a Republican candidate from 100 years ago as well......In the course of making an argument......Would qualify.

At some level, the most rigorous standard for what qualifies as discussion of "GOP candidates".......Would preclude any mention of Hillary.

If I appear to be playing both ends against the middle.....Yer' not wrong, It's what I do. Take both sides of an argument, wring the heck out of em' , in the hope of arriving at the best possible conclusion at the end of the day.

My argument for shutting it down has more to do with the fact that I can see it bringing out the worst in me. But that's yet another personal problem I should work on, it shouldn't affect the thread.;)
 
ok... either way.. ok

but if we close this out..
it only makes a new thread required..
and it will...

a new thread..
same participants will join the new thread..
will only make all of participating... repeat the same arguments and points
which will raise the level of frustrations.....
 
basic 101 user said:
By the letter of the law, it definitely could be seen as having gone off topic, it did as soon as the nominee was chosen, as pointed out above.

But one could spin things any number of ways; A post about trump, which invoked the name of a Republican candidate from 100 years ago as well......In the course of making an argument......Would qualify.

At some level, the most rigorous standard for what qualifies as discussion of "GOP candidates".......Would preclude any mention of Hillary.

If I appear to be playing both ends against the middle.....Yer' not wrong, It's what I do. Take both sides of an argument, wring the heck out of em' , in the hope of arriving at the best possible conclusion at the end of the day.

My argument for shutting it down has more to do with the fact that I can see it bringing out the worst in me. But that's yet another personal problem I should work on, it shouldn't affect the thread.;)
Click to expand...
Agreed, shut it down.
Father Guido said:
Actually the thread is titled:
GOP Prez Candidates
Note the plural. Since the party convention has chosen one, that particular point is now moot (and has been for quite some time). If one's post is ABOUT THE ONE CHOSEN (and not about anyone else) then I suppose it would be on topic. It just seems to me that this has turned into something completely different (Trump vs Clinton) than the intended discussion of choosing the GOP candidate. I'm fairly certain that the GOP supporters here are tired of people 'slamming' their chosen candidate.

I am guilty of off topic posts here myself and they may very well come across as inflammatory. This can cause ill will among otherwise good friends. If that is the case, I apologize. Should one wish to discuss Clinton vs Trump, then a new thread to discuss THAT would seem to be more appropriate.

Keep this going as long as you want. My "suggestion" to close the thread is just that, a suggestion. I can merely refrain from posting my opinions/beliefs here, leave the GOP supporters alone, and simply move along.

Peace.
Click to expand...
 
dan330 said:
ok... either way.. ok

but if we close this out..
it only makes a new thread required..
and it will...
Click to expand...
So be it. At least everyone will know what they are getting into. I may (or may not) be inclined to participate.

a new thread..
same participants will join the new thread..
will only make all of participating... repeat the same arguments and points
which will raise the level of frustrations.....
Click to expand...
While many will join a new "discussion," it will prevent many from thread crapping all over a topic meant for GOP suporters to discuss THEIR nominees and (now confirmed) candidate. The recent "arguments and points" are difficult to navigate here with > 600 posts to sort through, and much been repeated multiple times. Many people will only read the last few posts and "shoot from the hip" a diatribe that may have already been covered (i.e. their point having already been made). This statement isn't pointed at anyone in particular. Although I normally read an entire thread before posting (or at least searching for certain terms), I've been guilty of not doing so myself on occasion.

Should one decide to start such a thread, I would suggest to lay down a couple of ground rules:

First & foremost, being cordial and respecting the opinion of others. Remember that there is a PERSON at the other end and people have feelings. While I haven't really noticed any name calling (or intentional ill will) here, it can easily happen in the heat of the moment. Think about what you are saying and how it might affect the feelings of others. In many cases it's best to save your reply and read it again prior to actually posting it. Easier than waking up the next day only to say: "OMG, did I really say that?" Again, guilty myself...

Secondly, be factual. If unsure, then do the research to validate it or (minimally) include a link to the source(s) for others to review. Not everything you read is FACT. This (quite dated) article is just as (or more so) true today as ever.

A quote from the end of the article cited above: But as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

Regards & Best Wishes to all...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom