Jump to content

Joe Biden's art selling for $500,000 to "Anonymous" buyers... WTF?!?!


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

i'm asking you

No it wouldn't be right and Hunter Biden selling his "influence" again is skeevy, and not all that surprising from him, but there really isn't anything to this yet until it's actually connected to Joe.

Edited by Warcodered
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I’d rather he did that than raise taxes like he is likely to do. 

I mean technically the implications of this is you'd rather have a less funded inefficient government than a better funded more efficient one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BillStime said:


I dunno - how much of our tax dollars has Joe spent at his golf courses and hotels?

 

But this is the paragraph of Ioffe’s report that went viral on Friday, that I found so triggering. In this example, and a few others, Ioffe, as she admits, lets some reporters stay off the record:

“Democrats in general have a much thinner skin,” observed the prominent White House reporter. “This is not unique to Trump but Republicans never expect a fair shake, so if you cover them fairly, you can have a good working relationship with them. Democrats de facto expect you to be on their side and are horrified when you hold them to account as you would any other administration. It goes back to the Obama years. [Obama staffers would be] like, ‘Don’t you realize that being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition?!’ And I would be like, ‘Yes, but I’m writing about why your website keeps crashing.’”

 

They will never cover your administration with any type of integrity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aristocrat said:

 

But this is the paragraph of Ioffe’s report that went viral on Friday, that I found so triggering. In this example, and a few others, Ioffe, as she admits, lets some reporters stay off the record:

“Democrats in general have a much thinner skin,” observed the prominent White House reporter. “This is not unique to Trump but Republicans never expect a fair shake, so if you cover them fairly, you can have a good working relationship with them. Democrats de facto expect you to be on their side and are horrified when you hold them to account as you would any other administration. It goes back to the Obama years. [Obama staffers would be] like, ‘Don’t you realize that being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition?!’ And I would be like, ‘Yes, but I’m writing about why your website keeps crashing.’”

 

They will never cover your administration with any type of integrity. 

 

 

Country is truly gone

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I mean technically the implications of this is you'd rather have a less funded inefficient government than a better funded more efficient one.


So to you more money for government equals a more efficient government. Boy have they pulled the wool over your eyes.  
 

In business more efficient typically means less waste. Something the government just doesn’t understand.  And you know why?  They are never ever held accountable. 

 

Let me ask you. Now much of the $1.2 trillion of our tax dollars for the infrastructure bill is going towards a more efficient government?
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chef Jim said:


So to you more money for government equals a more efficient government. Boy have they pulled the wool over your eyes.  
 

In business more efficient typically means less waste. Something the government just doesn’t understand.  And you know why?  They are never ever held accountable. 

 

Let me ask you. Now much of the $1.2 trillion of our tax dollars for the infrastructure bill is going towards a more efficient government?
 

 

No to me paying the President and the various people required so he can play golf is inefficient. Your statement before basically breaks down to you'd rather the government waste money on the President playing a bunch of golf than us funding it more but we don't waste as much money on golf. I mean I doubt that's specifically what you meant but that's vaguely what's implied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

No to me paying the President and the various people required so he can play golf is inefficient. Your statement before basically breaks down to you'd rather the government waste money on the President playing a bunch of golf than us funding it more but we don't waste as much money on golf. I mean I doubt that's specifically what you meant but that's vaguely what's implied.


No. The amount we as taxpayers spend on a President’s leisure is a pittance compared to the incredible waste found in all levels of government left/right/center.  
 

Money spent on a President’s leisure (any President) is not a waste.  Money spent to line politicians’, and their “posse’s” pockets or for pet projects is obviously a waste. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...