On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>> >The next
>> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>
>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>
>I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
>https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>

Oh, and here's the definition of anacdote, Dummy.

Definition of anecdote

: a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdote

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> >> >The next
> >> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
> >> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
> >> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
> >> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
> >>
> >> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
> >
> >I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
> >https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
> >
> >Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
> >
> >> > > Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
> >> >
> >> >I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
> >> >constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
> >> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
> >> It
> >> >is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
> >> >hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
> >> >room rate.
> >> The security people select their own hotels.
> >
> >oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?

Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion "The security people select their own hotels." They simply don't.

> > This is what Rolf is referring to:
> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
> the funeral in the UK.
>
> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>
> Biden was in London for one night.

That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk cost us 3.5 million
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.

> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
> >I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
> at his own hotels?

<snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?

On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 7:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it
>>>>> is stated up front where the money comes from. I have a
>>>>> sneaking suspicion that too much of this is not going to
>>>>> campaign but into the pockets of the people asking for it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>>>
>>>
>>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or
>>> to the
>>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>>
>> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I
>> suspect "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me
>> money" are both legal. The problem arises when someone gives
>> to the defense fund, but the money ends up in the suspect's
>> pocket.
>>
>
> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
> unregulated money.

That's an overly legalistic answer.

Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
signed.

Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
immoral, even if no contract was signed.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 3:31:50 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:13:30 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> <ne...@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
> >Am 19.10.2022 um 02:34 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> >> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up
> >>>>> front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that
> >>>>> too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of
> >>>>> the people asking for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
> >>>>
> >>>> And there was this, closely related:
> >>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
> >>>
> >>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
> >>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
> >>
> >> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I suspect
> >> "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me money" are both legal.
> >> The problem arises when someone gives to the defense fund, but the money
> >> ends up in the suspect's pocket.
> >
> >In Germany, we have the rule that donations to charity give you a tax
> >benefit, and that political parties count as charities.
> >
> >Our of these steps, it is clear that donations going into a candidate's
> >private pocket would be seen as embezzlement.
> >
> >On the other hand, personal donations to 'contribute to my defense'
> >would be seen as personal gift, taxable by the receiver (IIRC with 50%)
> >if the gift is above €10,000 and he's not a relative.
> >
> >Rolf
> Face the facts... Politicians are crooked, at least the vast majority
> of them and it doesn't matter what party endorses them. The further up
> the ladder of political power they climb, the more crooked they
> become. The longer they've been politicians, the more crooked they
> become. Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>
> The Founding fathers made a critical mistake by not constitutionally
> dictating term limits for all Federal elected officials. Too late
> now.
While difficult it is not "too late" to force term limits upon any political office.

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:12:52 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> >> >The next
> >> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
> >> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
> >> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
> >> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
> >>
> >> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
> >
> >I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
> >https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
> >
> Oh, and here's the definition of anacdote, Dummy.
>
> Definition of anecdote
>
> : a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdote

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 8:07:47 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> >> >The next
> >> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
> >> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
> >> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
> >> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
> >>
> >> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
> >
> >I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
> >https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
> >
> >Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
> >
> >> > > Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
> >> >
> >> >I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
> >> >constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
> >> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
> >> It
> >> >is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
> >> >hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
> >> >room rate.
> >> The security people select their own hotels.
> >
> >oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
> > This is what Rolf is referring to:
> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
> the funeral in the UK.
>
> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>
> Biden was in London for one night.
> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
> >I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
> at his own hotels?

They also say that the actual fact of him funding his own campaign was crooked. Of course they rely upon distance and anonymity to make such statements.

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:12:52 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> >> >The next
> >> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
> >> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
> >> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
> >> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
> >>
> >> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
> >
> >I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
> >https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
> >
> Oh, and here's the definition of anacdote, Dummy.
>
> Definition of anecdote
>
> : a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdote

LOL...did you really think I didn't know the definition of anecdote? Try this one on kitty - what's the different between an anecdote and a fact?

On 10/19/2022 10:51 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 10/18/2022 7:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it
>>>>>> is stated up front where the money comes from. I have a
>>>>>> sneaking suspicion that too much of this is not going to
>>>>>> campaign but into the pockets of the people asking for
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And there was this, closely related:
>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or
>>>> to the
>>>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>>>
>>> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I
>>> suspect "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me
>>> money" are both legal. The problem arises when someone gives
>>> to the defense fund, but the money ends up in the suspect's
>>> pocket.
>>>
>>
>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up
>> to $16,000 per year with no tax consequences to either.
>> Unless there's a contract, the receiver can do whatever he
>> damned well pleases with that, or any other unregulated
>> money.
>
> That's an overly legalistic answer.
>
> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food
> money," then spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral,
> even if no contract was signed.
>
> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then
> spending it on golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or
> whatever is also dishonest and immoral, even if no contract
> was signed.
>

I agree with that.

I'll note here that after a disaster, such as the recent
hurricane in Florida, news outlets admonish
readers/listeners/viewers to contribute only to registered
legitimate charities (advice which goes unheeded enough to
make disaster scams a healthy industry)

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
> > year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
> > receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
> > unregulated money.
> That's an overly legalistic answer.
>
> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
> signed.
>
> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
>

Was this OK andrew?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>> >> >The next
>> >> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>> >> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>> >> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>> >> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
>> >>
>> >> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>> >
>> >I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
>> >https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>> >
>> >Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
>> >
>> >> > > Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>> >> >
>> >> >I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
>> >> >constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
>> >> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
>> >> It
>> >> >is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
>> >> >hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
>> >> >room rate.
>> >> The security people select their own hotels.
>> >
>> >oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
>> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
>> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
>> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
>> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
>> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
>
>Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion "The security people select their own hotels." They simply don't.

The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay close to the
president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the current
President's security?

>> > This is what Rolf is referring to:
>> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
>> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
>> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
>> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
>> the funeral in the UK.
>>
>> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
>> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
>> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>>
>> Biden was in London for one night.
>
>That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk cost us 3.5 million
>https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.

Protecting the President costs big money.

>> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
>> >I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
>> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
>> at his own hotels?
>
><snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?

There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
whatever the place charges for his security detail.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:58:02 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 3:31:50 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:13:30 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>> <ne...@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>> >Am 19.10.2022 um 02:34 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>> >> On 10/18/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:02:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 10/18/2022 4:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I have no problem with campaign donations as long as it is stated up
>> >>>>> front where the money comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that
>> >>>>> too much of this is not going to campaign but into the pockets of
>> >>>>> the people asking for it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes, that has happened! It's been done by ... guess who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/02/05/trump-shifted-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business-after-losing-the-election/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And there was this, closely related:
>> >>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/donald-trump-donor-scheme
>> >>>
>> >>> Legally are political donations made to the candidate? Or to the
>> >>> political party? Or "to the candidate for the purpose of"?
>> >>
>> >> I suppose it depends on how the begging is phrased. I suspect
>> >> "Contribute to my defense fund" and "Just give me money" are both legal.
>> >> The problem arises when someone gives to the defense fund, but the money
>> >> ends up in the suspect's pocket.
>> >
>> >In Germany, we have the rule that donations to charity give you a tax
>> >benefit, and that political parties count as charities.
>> >
>> >Our of these steps, it is clear that donations going into a candidate's
>> >private pocket would be seen as embezzlement.
>> >
>> >On the other hand, personal donations to 'contribute to my defense'
>> >would be seen as personal gift, taxable by the receiver (IIRC with 50%)
>> >if the gift is above €10,000 and he's not a relative.
>> >
>> >Rolf
>> Face the facts... Politicians are crooked, at least the vast majority
>> of them and it doesn't matter what party endorses them. The further up
>> the ladder of political power they climb, the more crooked they
>> become. The longer they've been politicians, the more crooked they
>> become. Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>>
>> The Founding fathers made a critical mistake by not constitutionally
>> dictating term limits for all Federal elected officials. Too late
>> now.
>While difficult it is not "too late" to force term limits upon any political office.

Don't hold your breath.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:08:30 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:12:52 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>> >> >The next
>> >> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>> >> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>> >> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>> >> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
>> >>
>> >> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>> >
>> >I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
>> >https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>> >
>> Oh, and here's the definition of anacdote, Dummy.
>>
>> Definition of anecdote
>>
>> : a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident
>>
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdote
>
>LOL...did you really think I didn't know the definition of anecdote? Try this one on kitty - what's the different between an anecdote and a fact?

Sometimes, they're the same... Case in point. If you disagree, present
your case.

BTW, If you keep your laces tied you might not stumble like that..

On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
>>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
>>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
>>> unregulated money.
>> That's an overly legalistic answer.
>>
>> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
>> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
>> signed.
>>
>> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
>> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
>> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
>>
>
> Was this OK andrew?
>
> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>

Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
true but I'll wait to decide.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands

It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W. C. Fields

You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that people sent
money to (and in some cases are still sending money to) despite all the
scandals they've been involved in.

On 10/19/2022 11:55 AM, sms wrote:
> On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>>
>
> It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W.
> C. Fields
>
> You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that
> people sent money to (and in some cases are still sending
> money to) despite all the scandals they've been involved in.

Did you mean Patrisse Cullors or someone else?

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 10:04:46 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/19/2022 11:55 AM, sms wrote:
> > On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
> >>
> >
> > It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W.
> > C. Fields
> >
> > You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that
> > people sent money to (and in some cases are still sending
> > money to) despite all the scandals they've been involved in.
> Did you mean Patrisse Cullors or someone else?

Don't you get a laugh over "alleged to have" followed by his actual set of beliefs?

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:43:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
>>>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
>>>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
>>>> unregulated money.
>>> That's an overly legalistic answer.
>>>
>>> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
>>> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
>>> signed.
>>>
>>> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
>>> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
>>> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
>>>
>>
>> Was this OK andrew?
>>
>> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>>
>
>Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
>true but I'll wait to decide.

+1

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:55:21 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>
>It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W. C. Fields
>
>You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that people sent
>money to (and in some cases are still sending money to) despite all the
>scandals they've been involved in.

+1

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:55:21 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
> >On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
> >
> >It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W. C. Fields
> >
> >You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that people sent
> >money to (and in some cases are still sending money to) despite all the
> >scandals they've been involved in.
> +1

Scharf uses past errors to accuse present players. This is the way he acts. It would have been perfectly easy to name these "televangelists" 9if he had the slightest idea who some crooked one was that had been charged and was being prosecuted on these grounds. He prefers to allege things rather than show any real crimes. Gee, am I surprised.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:55:21 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>> >
>> >It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W. C. Fields
>> >
>> >You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that people sent
>> >money to (and in some cases are still sending money to) despite all the
>> >scandals they've been involved in.
>> +1
>
>Scharf uses past errors to accuse present players. This is the way he acts. It would have been perfectly easy to name these "televangelists" 9if he had the slightest idea who some crooked one was that had been charged and was being prosecuted on these grounds. He prefers to allege things rather than show any real crimes. Gee, am I surprised.

I used to volunteer at assisted living homes. I knew of people who had
almost nothing but insisted on sending money to religious scammers. It
wasn't their fault. They were raised in a time and system where crooks
and scammers weren't that dispicable.

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:55:21 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
> >> >
> >> >It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W. C. Fields
> >> >
> >> >You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that people sent
> >> >money to (and in some cases are still sending money to) despite all the
> >> >scandals they've been involved in.
> >> +1
> >
> >Scharf uses past errors to accuse present players. This is the way he acts. It would have been perfectly easy to name these "televangelists" 9if he had the slightest idea who some crooked one was that had been charged and was being prosecuted on these grounds. He prefers to allege things rather than show any real crimes. Gee, am I surprised.
> I used to volunteer at assisted living homes. I knew of people who had
> almost nothing but insisted on sending money to religious scammers. It
> wasn't their fault. They were raised in a time and system where crooks
> and scammers weren't that dispicable.
Or very common. Religion in general has been under violent attack and while there are certainly many problems that is not the fault of religion but those trying to use it. This didn't used to be the case. Especially here in California we have been having constant attack on religion because they do not believe in the cold blooded murder of children in the womb and EVEN AFTER BIRTH.

Can you simply imagine a doctor saying that they deliver a child and put him in a very cold room and ask the mother if she really wants that child and at just the point when a woman is most vulnerable if she says no they let the child FREEZE TO DEATH? Do you find it odd that religious people don't like that? Or also the belief that you shouldn't kill old people if they can't afford to stay in an old folks home?

Do you realize that every single day for the next 20 years that 10,000 people are turning 65 and neither the government nor the present Woke generation want to support them? If you can't pay your own way, expect for the government to call for your death. The only people that believe that death is a sin are religious people.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:02:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:55:21 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>> >> >
>> >> >It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W. C. Fields
>> >> >
>> >> >You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that people sent
>> >> >money to (and in some cases are still sending money to) despite all the
>> >> >scandals they've been involved in.
>> >> +1
>> >
>> >Scharf uses past errors to accuse present players. This is the way he acts. It would have been perfectly easy to name these "televangelists" 9if he had the slightest idea who some crooked one was that had been charged and was being prosecuted on these grounds. He prefers to allege things rather than show any real crimes. Gee, am I surprised.
>> I used to volunteer at assisted living homes. I knew of people who had
>> almost nothing but insisted on sending money to religious scammers. It
>> wasn't their fault. They were raised in a time and system where crooks
>> and scammers weren't that dispicable.
>Or very common. Religion in general has been under violent attack and while there are certainly many problems that is not the fault of religion but those trying to use it. This didn't used to be the case. Especially here in California we have been having constant attack on religion because they do not believe in the cold blooded murder of children in the womb and EVEN AFTER BIRTH.
>
>Can you simply imagine a doctor saying that they deliver a child and put him in a very cold room and ask the mother if she really wants that child and at just the point when a woman is most vulnerable if she says no they let the child FREEZE TO DEATH? Do you find it odd that religious people don't like that? Or also the belief that you shouldn't kill old people if they can't afford to stay in an old folks home?
>
>Do you realize that every single day for the next 20 years that 10,000 people are turning 65 and neither the government nor the present Woke generation want to support them? If you can't pay your own way, expect for the government to call for your death. The only people that believe that death is a sin are religious people.

Whereas, I do not approve of abortion after three months or so, I'm
not opposed to leaving it up to the popular vote in each state. If I
have to vote on it within the state, (I don't) I would go for banning
it after the aforemantioned three months. It's not a hill I choose to
pitch a battle on.

I also very much doubt that we'd ever get to where mandate death at
any age.

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:02:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:55:21 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W. C. Fields
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that people sent
> >> >> >money to (and in some cases are still sending money to) despite all the
> >> >> >scandals they've been involved in.
> >> >> +1
> >> >
> >> >Scharf uses past errors to accuse present players. This is the way he acts. It would have been perfectly easy to name these "televangelists" 9if he had the slightest idea who some crooked one was that had been charged and was being prosecuted on these grounds. He prefers to allege things rather than show any real crimes. Gee, am I surprised.
> >> I used to volunteer at assisted living homes. I knew of people who had
> >> almost nothing but insisted on sending money to religious scammers. It
> >> wasn't their fault. They were raised in a time and system where crooks
> >> and scammers weren't that dispicable.
> >Or very common. Religion in general has been under violent attack and while there are certainly many problems that is not the fault of religion but those trying to use it. This didn't used to be the case. Especially here in California we have been having constant attack on religion because they do not believe in the cold blooded murder of children in the womb and EVEN AFTER BIRTH.
> >
> >Can you simply imagine a doctor saying that they deliver a child and put him in a very cold room and ask the mother if she really wants that child and at just the point when a woman is most vulnerable if she says no they let the child FREEZE TO DEATH? Do you find it odd that religious people don't like that? Or also the belief that you shouldn't kill old people if they can't afford to stay in an old folks home?
> >
> >Do you realize that every single day for the next 20 years that 10,000 people are turning 65 and neither the government nor the present Woke generation want to support them? If you can't pay your own way, expect for the government to call for your death. The only people that believe that death is a sin are religious people.
> Whereas, I do not approve of abortion after three months or so, I'm
> not opposed to leaving it up to the popular vote in each state. If I
> have to vote on it within the state, (I don't) I would go for banning
> it after the aforemantioned three months. It's not a hill I choose to
> pitch a battle on.
>
>
> I also very much doubt that we'd ever get to where mandate death at
> any age.

You are already there. California Prop 29 makes it illegal to run a diabetes dialysis center without an MD on the premises. There isn't nearly enough money in the treasury since diabetes is largely an old people condition if this passes all of the dialysis centers will be closed. If they are trying today they will get it tomorrow.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:51:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:02:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:55:21 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W. C. Fields
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that people sent
>> >> >> >money to (and in some cases are still sending money to) despite all the
>> >> >> >scandals they've been involved in.
>> >> >> +1
>> >> >
>> >> >Scharf uses past errors to accuse present players. This is the way he acts. It would have been perfectly easy to name these "televangelists" 9if he had the slightest idea who some crooked one was that had been charged and was being prosecuted on these grounds. He prefers to allege things rather than show any real crimes. Gee, am I surprised.
>> >> I used to volunteer at assisted living homes. I knew of people who had
>> >> almost nothing but insisted on sending money to religious scammers. It
>> >> wasn't their fault. They were raised in a time and system where crooks
>> >> and scammers weren't that dispicable.
>> >Or very common. Religion in general has been under violent attack and while there are certainly many problems that is not the fault of religion but those trying to use it. This didn't used to be the case. Especially here in California we have been having constant attack on religion because they do not believe in the cold blooded murder of children in the womb and EVEN AFTER BIRTH.
>> >
>> >Can you simply imagine a doctor saying that they deliver a child and put him in a very cold room and ask the mother if she really wants that child and at just the point when a woman is most vulnerable if she says no they let the child FREEZE TO DEATH? Do you find it odd that religious people don't like that? Or also the belief that you shouldn't kill old people if they can't afford to stay in an old folks home?
>> >
>> >Do you realize that every single day for the next 20 years that 10,000 people are turning 65 and neither the government nor the present Woke generation want to support them? If you can't pay your own way, expect for the government to call for your death. The only people that believe that death is a sin are religious people.
>> Whereas, I do not approve of abortion after three months or so, I'm
>> not opposed to leaving it up to the popular vote in each state. If I
>> have to vote on it within the state, (I don't) I would go for banning
>> it after the aforemantioned three months. It's not a hill I choose to
>> pitch a battle on.
>>
>>
>> I also very much doubt that we'd ever get to where mandate death at
>> any age.
>
>You are already there. California Prop 29 makes it illegal to run a diabetes dialysis center without an MD on the premises. There isn't nearly enough money in the treasury since diabetes is largely an old people condition if this passes all of the dialysis centers will be closed. If they are trying today they will get it tomorrow.

I though dialysis was for kidney problems. Yeah, I know diabetes can
lead to kidney problems, but I doubt it's common enough to cause the
problems you describe.

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 1:05:34 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:51:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:02:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:55:21 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W. C. Fields
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that people sent
> >> >> >> >money to (and in some cases are still sending money to) despite all the
> >> >> >> >scandals they've been involved in.
> >> >> >> +1
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Scharf uses past errors to accuse present players. This is the way he acts. It would have been perfectly easy to name these "televangelists" 9if he had the slightest idea who some crooked one was that had been charged and was being prosecuted on these grounds. He prefers to allege things rather than show any real crimes. Gee, am I surprised.
> >> >> I used to volunteer at assisted living homes. I knew of people who had
> >> >> almost nothing but insisted on sending money to religious scammers. It
> >> >> wasn't their fault. They were raised in a time and system where crooks
> >> >> and scammers weren't that dispicable.
> >> >Or very common. Religion in general has been under violent attack and while there are certainly many problems that is not the fault of religion but those trying to use it. This didn't used to be the case. Especially here in California we have been having constant attack on religion because they do not believe in the cold blooded murder of children in the womb and EVEN AFTER BIRTH.
> >> >
> >> >Can you simply imagine a doctor saying that they deliver a child and put him in a very cold room and ask the mother if she really wants that child and at just the point when a woman is most vulnerable if she says no they let the child FREEZE TO DEATH? Do you find it odd that religious people don't like that? Or also the belief that you shouldn't kill old people if they can't afford to stay in an old folks home?
> >> >
> >> >Do you realize that every single day for the next 20 years that 10,000 people are turning 65 and neither the government nor the present Woke generation want to support them? If you can't pay your own way, expect for the government to call for your death. The only people that believe that death is a sin are religious people.
> >> Whereas, I do not approve of abortion after three months or so, I'm
> >> not opposed to leaving it up to the popular vote in each state. If I
> >> have to vote on it within the state, (I don't) I would go for banning
> >> it after the aforemantioned three months. It's not a hill I choose to
> >> pitch a battle on.
> >>
> >>
> >> I also very much doubt that we'd ever get to where mandate death at
> >> any age.
> >
> >You are already there. California Prop 29 makes it illegal to run a diabetes dialysis center without an MD on the premises. There isn't nearly enough money in the treasury since diabetes is largely an old people condition if this passes all of the dialysis centers will be closed. If they are trying today they will get it tomorrow.
> I though dialysis was for kidney problems. Yeah, I know diabetes can
> lead to kidney problems, but I doubt it's common enough to cause the
> problems you describe.

Yes, I was wrong, this is for Kidney dialysis. This is the THIRD election they have attempted to close dialysis labs down. Think that they don't want to kill old people?