Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Joe Mammy

Bloomberg Pays Fines for 32,000 Florida Felons to Vote!

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, BroadwayG said:

Why was this Rights Restoration Coalition allowed to exist in the first place? We need Barr to get to the bottom of this.

Why wouldn't they be allowed to exist?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

wow the self justifications for this blows my mind

 

in the future remember this - this is buying votes from one the of the loudest haters of Trump plain and simple. GOP needs to get on this ASAP and start not-buying as many votes as they can. legally of course

Wait...what....start "not buying votes".   And what do you think that would entail?  Putting people in jail?  Making up fines so people can't vote.

 

No...this is not buying votes...the guy isn't paying people off...he donated (moreover, fundraised) to a fund that does this.  Does not appear they screen to see who people would even vote for.  So the fact that again the right is more worried that more people will exercise their right to vote is very telling.  WHy not just come out and say it...the right wants less people to actually vote.  They want less of an actual representation of America to cast votes.  That is downright sad.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

wow the self justifications for this blows my mind

 

in the future remember this - this is buying votes from one the of the loudest haters of Trump plain and simple. GOP needs to get on this ASAP and start not-buying as many votes as they can. legally of course

Are you implying that what Bloomberg did is illegal?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

well now wait a second

never has Bloomberg paid felons fines, he hasn't done it in any other state for any other felons at any time - and 6 weeks before an election he does it in Florida, where felons can now vote if their fines are paid and you're not calling that buying votes ?

you're intentionally being silly here - its clear what he's doing

Any similarity to GOP operatives trying to put Kanye on the ballot in multiple states to influence the election? I think both are legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

Here's an even worse joke

 

To this point 1/10 of 1% of Americans control 2/3 of the wealth in the United States

American Household Wealth Is At The ‘Highest Level Ever’: Here’s What's Really Happening

 

All this while Trump supporters celebrate his only accomplishment, giving more money to the richest people in the US.

Ok?

There can be more than one joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Zow said:

Are you implying that what Bloomberg did is illegal?

I'm not, would you say its racist?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

wow the self justifications for this blows my mind

 

in the future remember this - this is buying votes from one the of the loudest haters of Trump plain and simple. GOP needs to get on this ASAP and start not-buying as many votes as they can. legally of course

:lmao:

Make up your mind...do you want them to "buy votes" or do you want them to do what's legal?  Trump should match Bloomberg so he gets his share too...problem solved :shrug: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Oh, like passing another tax cut?

was that voted on by the House/Senate ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Wait...what....start "not buying votes".   And what do you think that would entail?  Putting people in jail?  Making up fines so people can't vote.

 

No...this is not buying votes...the guy isn't paying people off...he donated (moreover, fundraised) to a fund that does this.  Does not appear they screen to see who people would even vote for.  So the fact that again the right is more worried that more people will exercise their right to vote is very telling.  WHy not just come out and say it...the right wants less people to actually vote.  They want less of an actual representation of America to cast votes.  That is downright sad.

sure, keep saying that but really we all know what it is, why its happening right now and where its happening

 

If Bloomberg was doing this in Iowa where felons can't vote ... then I can see it as a good means gesture .... he's doing it where he's doing it at for a reason

what's the reason ? c'mon ... work with me here

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

what's the reason ? c'mon ... work with me here

These ex-felons are less likely to be African-American, and more likely to be Republican. That would be good for Trump.

So, despite all the talk about Bloomberg vowing spend money to defeat Trump, this move actually has an ulterior benefit for Bloomberg: if Trump wins, then it will almost certainly lower his tax bill. $16 million would be a tiny investment to avoid Biden's inevitable tax hike.

So, this is basically win-win for Bloomberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

sure, keep saying that but really we all know what it is, why its happening right now and where its happening

 

If Bloomberg was doing this in Iowa where felons can't vote ... then I can see it as a good means gesture .... he's doing it where he's doing it at for a reason

what's the reason ? c'mon ... work with me here

 

No...you think you know what it is...you claim it is what is happening...but have zero to back that up.

Yes...he is doing it where it is...so that people will go vote...more people voting is a good thing.  We should want that.  Seems one party does...one party would rather try to limit how many people vote.  Then that same party that tries to limit people from voting...claims to be America First and Patriotic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

You would be too if you've worked as hard as republicans have the last 20 years to suppress voting.

Suppress voting?  Must be doing a terrible job at it seeing as to how the democrats won the popular vote in 2016.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Suppress voting?  Must be doing a terrible job at it seeing as to how the democrats won the popular vote in 2016.  

Wait, do you think "suppress" means "completely eliminate"? Like, it only counts as suppression if there are literally zero Democrat votes?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zow said:

Are you implying that what Bloomberg did is illegal?

Apparently Florida thinks so.  Guess that language in their law saying "directly or indirectly" might be a big issue and its going to be looked at. 

Of course, nothing will happen to the billionaire. No big deal. He will be fine.  But he has inadvertenly painted his party in a bad way. He is either buying votes, discriminating against non-blacks, hispanics, attempting to circumvent the Florida spirit of the law, etc, etc.  Put on our "reality" glasses. As soon as anyone and everyone heard about this, everyone knows the scoop.  It is a play to get vote for democrats.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Wait, do you think "suppress" means "completely eliminate"? Like, it only counts as suppression if there are literally zero Democrat votes?

nope.  Just saying you'd think if it were a real thing, the objective would be to actually suppress the votes and make a difference in that area.  Its a ridiculous argument.  Using the logic that built it, I guess I could say Kamala Harris was attempting to suppress democrat votes because she put who knows how many black people in jail...which led them to them not being able to vote..which is historically a dominant democrat vote.  LOL. Harris probably suppressed more votes than the Republicans ever did. 

Edited by Shutout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shutout said:
6 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Wait, do you think "suppress" means "completely eliminate"? Like, it only counts as suppression if there are literally zero Democrat votes?

nope.  Just saying you'd think if it were a real thing, the objective would be to actually suppress the votes and make a difference in that area.

They did, and, they did.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Apparently Florida thinks so.  Guess that language in their law saying "directly or indirectly" might be a big issue and its going to be looked at. 

Of course, nothing will happen to the billionaire. No big deal. He will be fine.  But he has inadvertenly painted his party in a bad way. He is either buying votes, discriminating against non-blacks, hispanics, attempting to circumvent the Florida spirit of the law, etc, etc.  Put on our "reality" glasses. As soon as anyone and everyone heard about this, everyone knows the scoop.  It is a play to get vote for democrats.   

Florida doesn't....partisan hacks in the Florida legislature do.  It has no legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Florida doesn't....partisan hacks in the Florida legislature do.  It has no legs.

So the fact it is written law, specific to be citable in section 6.  Its just fluff?  Made up fairy tales?  Doesn't look funny at all?  Just curious. Whatever your honest thought is, that's cool.  I just wonder if people really believe that and, if so, how they got to that point.  We all have to know the intention and i bet if Trump did this, the pitchforks would be in the streets. 

Its kind of funny that the party that wants to push socialism is backed by all the insulated super rich. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Florida GOP retweeting misleading videos about Biden should be illegal. But it's not.

In English: https://mobile.twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1308840103855484928

In English & Spanish, video evidence that Biden wasn't using a teleprompter to give answers: https://mobile.twitter.com/jdbalart

And the head of the FL GOP still has the misleading retweet, along with the story about about the FL AG investigation into Bloomberg's pledge. 

 https://mobile.twitter.com/FloridaGOP/status/1308807124135350274

This isn't as bad as the Conway family, but Jose Diaz-Balart, who did the Telemundo interview and denied use of a teleprompter, is the brother of Mario Diaz-Balart, Republican congressmen from Miami. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Shutout said:

So the fact it is written law, specific to be citable in section 6.  Its just fluff?  Made up fairy tales?  Doesn't look funny at all?  Just curious. Whatever your honest thought is, that's cool.  I just wonder if people really believe that and, if so, how they got to that point.  We all have to know the intention and i bet if Trump did this, the pitchforks would be in the streets. 

Its kind of funny that the party that wants to push socialism is backed by all the insulated super rich. 

It’s kind of funny that the party that backs individual freedom doesn’t want everyone to vote and tries to block people trying to ensure that happens from doing so.  Why don’t they want people to vote?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shutout said:

So the fact it is written law, specific to be citable in section 6.  Its just fluff?  Made up fairy tales?  Doesn't look funny at all?  Just curious. Whatever your honest thought is, that's cool.  I just wonder if people really believe that and, if so, how they got to that point.  We all have to know the intention and i bet if Trump did this, the pitchforks would be in the streets. 

Its kind of funny that the party that wants to push socialism is backed by all the insulated super rich. 

Do you have a source to this law showing the  Florida Rights Restoration Coalitionpaying these fines is illegal?

In what way is it discriminating against non-blacks as you claimed earlier...or buying votes?

Because Gaetz and Desantis say so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SoBeDad said:

The Florida GOP retweeting misleading videos about Biden should be illegal. But it's not.

In English: https://mobile.twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1308840103855484928

In English & Spanish, video evidence that Biden wasn't using a teleprompter to give answers: https://mobile.twitter.com/jdbalart

And the head of the FL GOP still has the misleading retweet, along with the story about about the FL AG investigation into Bloomberg's pledge. 

 https://mobile.twitter.com/FloridaGOP/status/1308807124135350274

This isn't as bad as the Conway family, but Jose Diaz-Balart, who did the Telemundo interview and denied use of a teleprompter, is the brother of Mario Diaz-Balart, Republican congressmen from Miami. 

Some turd here on FBG was claiming the Biden teleprompter falsehood over and over again recently. Hilarious. I can’t wait for the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

It’s kind of funny that the party that backs individual freedom doesn’t want everyone to vote and tries to block people trying to ensure that happens from doing so.  Why don’t they want people to vote?

It has been said over and over that voting is desired. The only issue is voting needs to be done in a way that doesn't open itself up to fraud, as there have been significant examples in recent elections showing the potential.  Let's be realistic.  I go to vote and I already voted by mail.  oops. I go to mail and am told "we have a record you already voted". I say "I did not. i hereby choose to vote provisionally.  See You in court".  People live in states where mailing ballots are going to go to people who have passed, don't live where they used to, mail, etc.  Mail can't be received on time, delays, etc.  All these things open up to issues and the only thing that needs to happen is that we do it smartly.

The easy fix.  GO vote. If people can protest or go to multiple funerals for politicians, etc, they can go vote and secure their vote. We all know if you show up to vote, nobody is going to wheel you off in a car and never to be seen again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Do you have a source to this law showing the  Florida Rights Restoration Coalitionpaying these fines is illegal?

In what way is it discriminating against non-blacks as you claimed earlier...or buying votes?

Because Gaetz and Desantis say so?

Here is their law.  https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution  Florida lawmakers are calling for it to be looked into. I don't decide the law. They will.  So, yeah, there is a lot there to suggest people with law degrees think this is a no no.  We will see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shutout said:

It has been said over and over that voting is desired. The only issue is voting needs to be done in a way that doesn't open itself up to fraud, as there have been significant examples in recent elections showing the potential.  Let's be realistic.  I go to vote and I already voted by mail.  oops. I go to mail and am told "we have a record you already voted". I say "I did not. i hereby choose to vote provisionally.  See You in court".  People live in states where mailing ballots are going to go to people who have passed, don't live where they used to, mail, etc.  Mail can't be received on time, delays, etc.  All these things open up to issues and the only thing that needs to happen is that we do it smartly.

The easy fix.  GO vote. If people can protest or go to multiple funerals for politicians, etc, they can go vote and secure their vote. We all know if you show up to vote, nobody is going to wheel you off in a car and never to be seen again. 

So your answer to to deflect to a nebulous voter fraud talking points when we’re asking why a well meaning American ensuring other Americans can legally vote in the manner prescribed by Florida?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Here is their law.  https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution  Florida lawmakers are calling for it to be looked into. I don't decide the law. They will.  So, yeah, there is a lot there to suggest people with law degrees think this is a no no.  We will see. 

Ive seen it...the people who want it looked into are top republicans.  Why is that I wonder? 

The law prohibits offering direct or indirect payment for a vote...that does not appear to be what happened here...nor does it appear that the Coalition paying their fines is against that law.  Unless they are only offering it to people who would vote a certain way...as of now, there is zero evidence of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Florida lawmakers are calling for it to be looked into. I don't decide the law. They will.

"X is calling for Y to be investigated" is a pretty meaningless proposition. I mean, you may as well say "Many people are calling for it, believe me." :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Ive seen it...the people who want it looked into are top republicans.  Why is that I wonder? 

The law prohibits offering direct or indirect payment for a vote...that does not appear to be what happened here...nor does it appear that the Coalition paying their fines is against that law.  Unless they are only offering it to people who would vote a certain way...as of now, there is zero evidence of that.

I am going to go out on a limb and say because its their job and they are the ones elected right now.  Don't be that naive to not know what is going on here.  Everyone knows.  don't be the only one who doesn't.  That being said, I expect nothing to happen to Bloomie.  But I think it is the duty to be looked at because if it is occurring, we don't want that anywhere. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

"X is calling for Y to be investigated" is a pretty meaningless proposition. I mean, you may as well say "Many people are calling for it, believe me." :lol:

it absolutely means something. It is a real legal inquiry being requested. If it is frivolous, someone will decide that.  I didn't call the investigation, I just said what they reported. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Wait...what....start "not buying votes".   And what do you think that would entail?  Putting people in jail?  Making up fines so people can't vote.

 

No...this is not buying votes...the guy isn't paying people off...he donated (moreover, fundraised) to a fund that does this.  Does not appear they screen to see who people would even vote for.  So the fact that again the right is more worried that more people will exercise their right to vote is very telling.  WHy not just come out and say it...the right wants less people to actually vote.  They want less of an actual representation of America to cast votes.  That is downright sad.

Its bribery.   Not buying votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shutout said:

I am going to go out on a limb and say because its their job and they are the ones elected right now.  Don't be that naive to not know what is going on here.  Everyone knows.  don't be the only one who doesn't.  That being said, I expect nothing to happen to Bloomie.  But I think it is the duty to be looked at because if it is occurring, we don't want that anywhere. 

 

Im not naive...they are acting in a partisan manner...that is what is going on.

He made calls and donations to a coalition...again, is that illegal?

I think its being looked into to distract and make bogus claims of wrongdoing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, quick-hands said:

Its bribery.   Not buying votes.

How so?

Are they being forced to vote at all much less for any specific person?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shutout said:
7 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

"X is calling for Y to be investigated" is a pretty meaningless proposition. I mean, you may as well say "Many people are calling for it, believe me." :lol:

it absolutely means something. It is a real legal inquiry being requested. If it is frivolous, someone will decide that.  I didn't call the investigation, I just said what they reported. 

You are using the language of conspiracy theories.

When it becomes an actual real serious legal inquiry, then it might actually mean something.

But right now, as you have conceded, it is merely a request for an inquiry. A strenuous request, perhaps. But still just a request. And, thus, without meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

How so?

Are they being forced to vote at all much less for any specific person?

 

Bribe isn't force.

Definition of bribe

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trustpolice officers accused of taking bribes

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Im not naive...they are acting in a partisan manner...that is what is going on.

He made calls and donations to a coalition...again, is that illegal?

I think its being looked into to distract and make bogus claims of wrongdoing.

We have more than enough distractions to keep us busy in this election. Like i said, i expect nothing to come of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

Bribe isn't force.

Definition of bribe

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trustpolice officers accused of taking bribes

So you have evidence that it was to influence judgement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

You are using the language of conspiracy theories.

When it becomes an actual real serious legal inquiry, then it might actually mean something.

But right now, as you have conceded, it is merely a request for an inquiry. A strenuous request, perhaps. But still just a request. And, thus, without meaning.

No conspiracy. I simply said "this is what they are calling for and this is their reasoning". That is not conspiracy, that is "nature/reason for this inquiry".  If you personally think its crazy-talk or conspiracy then that is fine. You can have that opinion. But you should also be willing to say "ok, the guy posted what has happened. no need to post something to me spinning it like i am saying 'believe me'. It is not MY fight. It is going on in Florida. Nobody has to believe me. The lawmakers will decide if this is real or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

So you have evidence that it was to influence judgement?

Are u serious?

Do you actually think they did it to be nice?   My goodness.   I used to think you were a good poster.    Good luck brother.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

Bribe isn't force.

Definition of bribe

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trustpolice officers accused of taking bribes

You sure you copypasted the right definition, GB? Ex-Felons aren't exactly the "person in a position of trust" type. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [scooter] said:

You sure you copypasted the right definition, GB? Ex-Felons aren't exactly the "person in a position of trust" type. :lol:

Lol....bro.  they are voting.   The day before they couldn't.   I assume  you are having trouble with voters are persons of trust.   Is that a bit much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, quick-hands said:
2 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

You sure you copypasted the right definition, GB? Ex-Felons aren't exactly the "person in a position of trust" type. :lol:

Lol....bro.  they are voting.   The day before they couldn't.   I assume  you are having trouble with voters are persons of trust.   Is that a bit much?

It's not a bribe because an individual ex-felon is not in a position of trust.

It's also not a bribe because Bloomberg's action is not conditional upon a vote. That's basically the same reason why it's not illegal to give a free bus ride to a polling place: as long as you agree to let everyone ride, without condition, then it's perfectly legal.

Trump supporters should know this stuff by now. Remember the phrase "quid pro quo"?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

It's not a bribe because an individual ex-felon is not in a position of trust.

It's also not a bribe because Bloomberg's action is not conditional upon a vote. That's basically the same reason why it's not illegal to give a free bus ride to a polling place: as long as you agree to let everyone ride, without condition, then it's perfectly legal.

Trump supporters should know this stuff by now. Remember the phrase "quid pro quo"?

Your position  would be reversed if the Koch brothers did this.  

Id still call it bribery.    Cuz it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

Are u serious?

Do you actually think they did it to be nice?   My goodness.   I used to think you were a good poster.    Good luck brother.   

So no...zero evidence.  Ans yes, I think coalitions do such things because they believe in people’s rights.

No need  for the bs personal crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, quick-hands said:
8 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

It's not a bribe because an individual ex-felon is not in a position of trust.

It's also not a bribe because Bloomberg's action is not conditional upon a vote. That's basically the same reason why it's not illegal to give a free bus ride to a polling place: as long as you agree to let everyone ride, without condition, then it's perfectly legal.

Trump supporters should know this stuff by now. Remember the phrase "quid pro quo"?

Your position  would be reversed if the Koch brothers did this.  

Id still call it bribery.    Cuz it is.

Actually I'd be pretty impressed if the Koch brothers did this, considering that one of them is dead.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Actually I'd be pretty impressed if the Koch brothers did this, considering that one of them is dead.

Hilarious.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, quick-hands said:
7 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Actually I'd be pretty impressed if the Koch brothers did this, considering that one of them is dead.

Hilarious.  

But seriously: victim restitution is a pretty big issue for me, so if the Koch brother offered to pony up $16 million towards crime victims, I'd be pretty happy. I'm already on record with my belief that Bloomberg isn't getting much bang for his buck here, so I'd definitely rather see Koch take $16 million out of his campaign budget and donate it to crime victims and/or the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

But seriously: victim restitution is a pretty big issue for me, so if the Koch brother offered to pony up $16 million towards crime victims, I'd be pretty happy. I'm already on record with my belief that Bloomberg isn't getting much bang for his buck here, so I'd definitely rather see Koch take $16 million out of his campaign budget and donate it to crime victims and/or the government.

Fair enough.   I think ex cons should have all full citizenship  restored.   If this was in January.    Id be fine with it.   In sept.  Bribery 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

But seriously: victim restitution is a pretty big issue for me, so if the Koch brother offered to pony up $16 million towards crime victims, I'd be pretty happy. I'm already on record with my belief that Bloomberg isn't getting much bang for his buck here, so I'd definitely rather see Koch take $16 million out of his campaign budget and donate it to crime victims and/or the government.

Did he actually donate it?  The articles all seem to indicate he made fundraising calls (and did support among other pretty high profile celebrities...Lebron, Jordan...)

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

Fair enough.   I think ex cons should have all full citizenship  restored.   If this was in January.    Id be fine with it.   In sept.  Bribery 

The actual legality of the action (it's legal) is the exact same whether it be done in early January or late September. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ruffrodys05 said:

The actual legality of the action (it's legal) is the exact same whether it be done in early January or late September. 

No its not.  Its a bribe

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.