Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its almost as if some people nowadays look down on people who worked hard when they were young, made the right and responsible decisions in life, and became successful.
Wow, for calling people snowflakes your conservatives sure are a bunch of ****ing crybabies. Please show me where I looked down on anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Informed Info
LOL!
Hardly.
Illegals do menial work & hide in the system while taking advantage of it all & cost LEGAL US tax payers billions of dollars EVERY year.
Just for existing in this country, illegally.
How do you not understand that simple fact?
Whatever Donald. Looks like NJ could be a sanctuary state soon. Guess you better GTFO.
If a Goldman Sachs affiliation on someone's resume automatically makes him/her "suspect", then why are so many of the people in this thread not protesting our (temporary) POTUS's appointment of so many Goldman Sachs people to his administration in Washington?
Or, in other words, why is a Goldman Sachs affiliation supposed to be poisonous on one's resume for the post of Governor of NJ, but it is somehow a positive attribute when it comes to positions filled by our (temporary) POTUS?
Why do we see such a totally illogical disparity in opinions on the topic of Goldman Sachs affiliations ?
If a Goldman Sachs affiliation on someone's resume automatically makes him/her "suspect", then why are so many of the people in this thread not protesting our (temporary) POTUS's appointment of so many Goldman Sachs people to his administration in Washington?
Or, in other words, why is a Goldman Sachs affiliation supposed to be poisonous on one's resume for the post of Governor of NJ, but it is somehow a positive attribute when it comes to positions filled by our (temporary) POTUS?
Why do we see such a totally illogical disparity in opinions on the topic of Goldman Sachs affiliations ?
Goldman alum have a demonstrated record of failure in elected and appointed political positions, from Jon to Tim 'the tax cheat', who was appointed head of the treasury by obama. Jon, of course was able to purchase a senate seat and governership, and as Biden said, Jon was their go to man for economic advice.
In 2008 hillary planned to have Jon head the treasury. too bad her the popular vote didn't count in 2008.
Obama had the treasury dept filled with GS alum. Not a peep out of the media.
The treasury dept under timmy, mucked with Dodd's bill at the last minute and without his knowledge, if we can believe him, and stuck in a clause that ensured the AIG execs would get their bonuses. What a co ink a dink, they set up the AIG execs as straw dogs for the obama admin, the NY ag and of course the media and wall st protesters, to have a guaranteed target upon which to protest and divide the country using wealth as the wedge.
Libs and dems, HRC, obama and the media propaganda machine has always been attacking the wealthy wall st bankers and investors. And like a good propaganda machine, go silent to cover the sins of their masters, while berating political opponents for the same 'crimes'.
So basically, ask why democrats are attacking goldman, while democrats hire all the golman alum they can find. then perhaps the question posed, will hint at an answer.
If a Goldman Sachs affiliation on someone's resume automatically makes him/her "suspect", then why are so many of the people in this thread not protesting our (temporary) POTUS's appointment of so many Goldman Sachs people to his administration in Washington?
Or, in other words, why is a Goldman Sachs affiliation supposed to be poisonous on one's resume for the post of Governor of NJ, but it is somehow a positive attribute when it comes to positions filled by our (temporary) POTUS?
Why do we see such a totally illogical disparity in opinions on the topic of Goldman Sachs affiliations ?
Do you like idea of NJ becoming a sanctuary state?
I don't.
Good questions re Trump, Goldman and illogical disparity, but that's not the thread's topic.
By the way, ALL President and Governors (to the best of my knowledge) are temporary regardless of whether they make us deranged or swoon.
I am not for removing immigrants that came here when they were young and have maintained a solid life. I have no problem with removing those immigrants that have not acted as responsible citizens by committing crimes. I believe that DACA should protect the first group and if that defines NJ as a sanctuary state so be it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
