Diddy was once a solid business man. Guessing he kept receipts.
(09-18-2024, 09:32 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Diddy was once a solid business man. Guessing he kept receipts.
He was a high level handler for decades and his ego, age and lifestyle caught up to him.
The fed's have no choice now but to pull the plug on him. If it bleeds, it leads. He's on the verge of bleeding like a stuck pig.
To the slaughter house he'll go before he can squeal. It's really aggravating to watch really.
We still have no answers or justice from the Epstein Episode and there will be no answers or justice from this situation with Sean.
There's probably enough evidence to bring down a handful of crooked politicians, music executives, business owners and high profile investors and nothing will come out of it.
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Hugh Hefner was one of these guys too. When he died rumor had it his vault of tapes were dropped somewhere in the pacific ocean.
I think Kamala needs to be investigated..
![[Image: SAHSe.jpg]](https://s11.gifyu.com/images/SAHSe.jpg)
(09-18-2024, 08:37 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2024, 08:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, you want me to die for not supporting Trump, but God forbid the sheriff asks me who I'm voting for!
Die? No.. Thrown the [BLEEP] out of my country? Yes..
The country may be better off if I left.
Or not.
But it would definitely be worse off if it became the kind of place that deports citizens for verboten political ideas.
(09-18-2024, 10:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 08:37 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Die? No.. Thrown the [BLEEP] out of my country? Yes..
The country may be better off if I left.
Or not.
But it would definitely be worse off if it became the kind of place that deports citizens for verboten political ideas.
I believe you are missing the point. The issue is we fought a war to not have a king and Royalty that controlled everything and power was centralized. He would like to keep it that way. If you want or need this to be happy then China, Russia and closer to home Venezuela are options for you to be happy. Just my take not meant to offend.
(09-18-2024, 10:51 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 10:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The country may be better off if I left.
Or not.
But it would definitely be worse off if it became the kind of place that deports citizens for verboten political ideas.
I believe you are missing the point. The issue is we fought a war to not have a king and Royalty that controlled everything and power was centralized. He would like to keep it that way. If you want or need this to be happy then China, Russia and closer to home Venezuela are options for you to be happy. Just my take not meant to offend.
Bingo.. just didn't want to take the time.
Let them think about it..
(09-18-2024, 10:51 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 10:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The country may be better off if I left.
Or not.
But it would definitely be worse off if it became the kind of place that deports citizens for verboten political ideas.
I believe you are missing the point. The issue is we fought a war to not have a king and Royalty that controlled everything and power was centralized. He would like to keep it that way. If you want or need this to be happy then China, Russia and closer to home Venezuela are options for you to be happy. Just my take not meant to offend.
Everything you just said is wrong.
There is a common thread between the king of England in the 1770s and Putin, Xi, and Maduro today, but it's not centralization.
Think! Question!
(09-18-2024, 11:19 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 11:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Everything you just said is wrong.
There is a common thread between the king of England in the 1770s and Putin, Xi, and Maduro today, but it's not centralization.
Think! Question!
LOL !
He would not be missed.. Throw his [BLEEP] in a jungle somewhere, give him a parachute and push him out of a plane over some obscure third world country.
(09-18-2024, 11:19 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 11:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Everything you just said is wrong.
There is a common thread between the king of England in the 1770s and Putin, Xi, and Maduro today, but it's not centralization.
Think! Question!
LOL !
The American Revolution started out, well before 1776, as the colonial legislatures fighting to be equal to British Parliament. The only reason it became an effort to get rid of the King was the King openly decided to side with British Parliament in that battle and actually tried to prevent colonial legislatures from meeting. For a while the colonists thought that might be fine as long as they got to vote in members of British Parliament, but it became clear that they would not be allowed to do so.
After the colonists won they set up a centralized government, begrudgingly, that had most of the powers that Parliament was asserting.
The American revolution was sort of about central vs local. But it was more about elected vs unelected. And that's what the King has in common with Putin, Xi, and Maduro. None of those guys will step down if the people want someone else to lead. None of them are really elected by the people.
(09-18-2024, 11:27 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 11:19 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]LOL !
He would not be missed.. Throw his [BLEEP] in a jungle somewhere, give him a parachute and push him out of a plane over some obscure third world country.
Go ahead, but they'll come after you once they're done with me.
(09-18-2024, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 11:19 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]LOL !
The American Revolution started out, well before 1776, as the colonial legislatures fighting to be equal to British Parliament. The only reason it became an effort to get rid of the King was the King openly decided to side with British Parliament in that battle and actually tried to prevent colonial legislatures from meeting. For a while the colonists thought that might be fine as long as they got to vote in members of British Parliament, but it became clear that they would not be allowed to do so.
After the colonists won they set up a centralized government, begrudgingly, that had most of the powers that Parliament was asserting.
The American revolution was sort of about central vs local. But it was more about elected vs unelected.
Nobody cares..
(09-18-2024, 11:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 11:27 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]He would not be missed.. Throw his [BLEEP] in a jungle somewhere, give him a parachute and push him out of a plane over some obscure third world country.
Go ahead, but they'll come after you once they're done with me.
No, I'm pretty sure they'd thank me and throw me a [BLEEP] parade..
(09-18-2024, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 11:19 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]LOL !
The American Revolution started out, well before 1776, as the colonial legislatures fighting to be equal to British Parliament. The only reason it became an effort to get rid of the King was the King openly decided to side with British Parliament in that battle and actually tried to prevent colonial legislatures from meeting. For a while the colonists thought that might be fine as long as they got to vote in members of British Parliament, but it became clear that they would not be allowed to do so.
After the colonists won they set up a centralized government, begrudgingly, that had most of the powers that Parliament was asserting.
The American revolution was sort of about central vs local. But it was more about elected vs unelected. And that's what the King has in common with Putin, Xi, and Maduro. None of those guys will step down if the people want someone else to lead. None of them are really elected by the people.
LOL, multiple people multiple reasons. Not one. After it was formed the big issue was State's Rights vs Federal. These are defined in the constitution and Bill of Rights. It was the first bone of contention between Alexander Hamilton and Arron Burr. You do know how that eventually turned out right? Maybe not, history doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
(09-18-2024, 11:46 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The American Revolution started out, well before 1776, as the colonial legislatures fighting to be equal to British Parliament. The only reason it became an effort to get rid of the King was the King openly decided to side with British Parliament in that battle and actually tried to prevent colonial legislatures from meeting. For a while the colonists thought that might be fine as long as they got to vote in members of British Parliament, but it became clear that they would not be allowed to do so.
After the colonists won they set up a centralized government, begrudgingly, that had most of the powers that Parliament was asserting.
The American revolution was sort of about central vs local. But it was more about elected vs unelected. And that's what the King has in common with Putin, Xi, and Maduro. None of those guys will step down if the people want someone else to lead. None of them are really elected by the people.
LOL, multiple people multiple reasons. Not one. After it was formed the big issue was State's Rights vs Federal. These are defined in the constitution and Bill of Rights. It was the first bone of contention between Alexander Hamilton and Arron Burr. You do know how that eventually turned out right? Maybe not, history doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Burr shot Hamilton and his reputation was ruined. Hamilton's Federalist party had fallen apart by that point. Even so, President Jefferson was unable to get rid of the first Bank of the United States. The charter expired in 1811, but the Democrats set up a new one in 1816 that ran until 1841. So most of the pre civil war years had no national bank and little federal influence on the economy. You have a point, but the over-arching point is the colonists wanted influence over their government that the London Parliament would not yield to any of them.
(09-18-2024, 12:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 11:46 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]LOL, multiple people multiple reasons. Not one. After it was formed the big issue was State's Rights vs Federal. These are defined in the constitution and Bill of Rights. It was the first bone of contention between Alexander Hamilton and Arron Burr. You do know how that eventually turned out right? Maybe not, history doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Burr shot Hamilton and his reputation was ruined. Hamilton's Federalist party had fallen apart by that point. Even so, President Jefferson was unable to get rid of the first Bank of the United States. The charter expired in 1811, but the Democrats set up a new one in 1816 that ran until 1841. So most of the pre civil war years had no national bank and little federal influence on the economy. You have a point, but the over-arching point is the colonists wanted influence over their government that the London Parliament would not yield to any of them.
The balance between centralized government vs states right has been going on since we were founded. It will continue. The people fighting (on both side) just want power and control. That does not mean they are bad people. A good example was Roe v Wade. When it happened they didn't ban anything. Unlike some were moaning about. They just said it was a state issue. The people of that state decide not the centralized government. Why would that not be a good thing?
Do not believe Kamela on this issue she has no power to do anything. It would take a two-thirds vote for congress to make a change. I told a few of my friends it would be easier to get 3/4ths of the states to get the amendment in if that is what is desired. These safeguards are in place to protect the people, why it that not a good thing?
(09-18-2024, 11:46 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The American Revolution started out, well before 1776, as the colonial legislatures fighting to be equal to British Parliament. The only reason it became an effort to get rid of the King was the King openly decided to side with British Parliament in that battle and actually tried to prevent colonial legislatures from meeting. For a while the colonists thought that might be fine as long as they got to vote in members of British Parliament, but it became clear that they would not be allowed to do so.
After the colonists won they set up a centralized government, begrudgingly, that had most of the powers that Parliament was asserting.
The American revolution was sort of about central vs local. But it was more about elected vs unelected. And that's what the King has in common with Putin, Xi, and Maduro. None of those guys will step down if the people want someone else to lead. None of them are really elected by the people.
LOL, multiple people multiple reasons. Not one. After it was formed the big issue was State's Rights vs Federal. These are defined in the constitution and Bill of Rights. It was the first bone of contention between Alexander Hamilton and Arron Burr. You do know how that eventually turned out right? Maybe not, history doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Although they were in different political parties and those parties differed over states' rights, the duel had nothing to do with that. Hamilton and Burr's duel was personal. Hamilton insulted Burr one too many times, and Burr challenged him to the duel where Hamilton was killed.
The Burr vs. Hamilton duel happened on this day | Constitution Center
"The final straw for Burr was the publication of a letter in a newspaper that said Hamilton demeaned Burr’s character. Burr demanded Hamilton apologize for the insults or explain them. Hamilton stayed quiet, so Burr demanded a duel."
(09-18-2024, 12:32 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 11:46 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]LOL, multiple people multiple reasons. Not one. After it was formed the big issue was State's Rights vs Federal. These are defined in the constitution and Bill of Rights. It was the first bone of contention between Alexander Hamilton and Arron Burr. You do know how that eventually turned out right? Maybe not, history doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Although they were in different political parties and those parties differed over states' rights, the duel had nothing to do with that. Hamilton and Burr's duel was personal. Hamilton insulted Burr one too many times, and Burr challenged him to the duel where Hamilton was killed.
The Burr vs. Hamilton duel happened on this day | Constitution Center
"The final straw for Burr was the publication of a letter in a newspaper that said Hamilton demeaned Burr’s character. Burr demanded Hamilton apologize for the insults or explain them. Hamilton stayed quiet, so Burr demanded a duel."
Agreed that was the final straw. The first one was the states rights issue. They began slinging mud as each party had a different opinion on these matters. Also, on morals which came next. That made it personal. A lot has actually been written on this and like all academics opinions differ. It began the snowball, Burr was vice president at the time too.
(09-18-2024, 12:37 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2024, 12:32 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Although they were in different political parties and those parties differed over states' rights, the duel had nothing to do with that. Hamilton and Burr's duel was personal. Hamilton insulted Burr one too many times, and Burr challenged him to the duel where Hamilton was killed.
The Burr vs. Hamilton duel happened on this day | Constitution Center
"The final straw for Burr was the publication of a letter in a newspaper that said Hamilton demeaned Burr’s character. Burr demanded Hamilton apologize for the insults or explain them. Hamilton stayed quiet, so Burr demanded a duel."
Agreed that was the final straw. The first one was the states rights issue. They began slinging mud as each party had a different opinion on these matters. Also, on morals which came next. That made it personal. A lot has actually been written on this and like all academics opinions differ. It began the snowball, Burr was vice president at the time too.
No, I really don't think it had anything to do with states' rights. After all, Hamilton worked to get Jefferson elected, even though Jefferson was the ultimate states' rights guy and Hamilton was the strong-central-government guy. It was purely personal between Burr and Hamilton. Hamilton was extremely brilliant, but very abrasive, which is the reason that out of all the founding fathers, he never became President. He had strong support and strong enemies, and it was not because of his political philosophy, it was because of his personality. And the way he went after Burr personally is what led Burr to challenge him to the duel.