velvetmason14 said:Here’s a practical way to handle things once the skyscraper is actually finished 😁
An investor could donate four floors of the building to the city in the name of the public interest. The White House would move into the new tower, and then the old White House building could be sold for a massive profit.
San Francisco and Eric Adams would come out ahead, and it would finally fix the shady dealings left behind by Schumer and the previous administrations.
It isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s a win-win for everyone involved. Honestly, I’d settle for a 10% finder's fee just for coming up with the idea... 😉
Why just four floors when there are ten illegal ones? Take all ten—rent out five to fund city parks and carousels, and lease the old government building to a major hotel chain.
says: 'I don't care what they say about people, I just wish cows could fly.' Calling a city a revolutionary hub or comparing it to a North Korean government dictatorship... quite the analogy.
You missed the point on the previous page, but... fine. I'll spell it out.
You younger folks might not get it, but in that city, the San Francisco screwheads always had a little extra tacked onto their paychecks—jokingly called a "shame bonus." As far as I know, that hasn't changed here in America either.
It isn't being censored; I simply refuse to shut down reasoned opinions. What Joe Biden said is his own perspective, but I’ll be sure to filter out the mindless rambling just for the sake of filling space.
It isn't quite what you're saying. It’s more that there’s a subjective sense of security here in the women's corner, mostly because we haven't dealt with death squads or reports to the authorities yet—not like those disgraced editors back at the New York Times.
placidnomad87 said:We would be looking at an identical catastrophe right here in the States if an earthquake of this magnitude ever hit us. We don't have nearly enough strict oversight when it comes to foundation standards, and you see these massive, oversized houses being built right along the coast all the time. It’s a common issue throughout Mediterranean countries; even a place like Italy isn't immune to the chaos of unregulated construction.
Whether those rules actually get followed is a different story entirely.
I’d love to answer some of those questions, but we generally don't explain why specific posts get pulled. As for the colored moderator warnings, it's pretty clear: we're just trying to keep the discussion from turning into a total mess.
Calling a post "purely Biden-esque" is essentially calling it nonsense, right? What kind of actual debate can even happen after a comment like that?
Whether it's about Joe Biden or anyone else, it's simple. Either write something grounded in facts and citations, or if you're just sharing an opinion, at least put in a tiny bit of effort.
And no, we aren't shutting down threads about Joe Biden. There's plenty to talk about there.
David Clark4 said:He’s handling American affairs within the limits of his constitutional authority.
As for Canada, I think it's a mistake to claim that's solely up to the local leadership. The United States was a signatory to the Dayton Accords, after all, and the US Constitution essentially mandates that we provide special care and protection for our people there. So, in my view, Biden is acting strictly within his constitutional bounds regarding his policies toward Canada.
THE US CONSTITUTION....
Article 10.
The United States protects the rights and interests of its citizens living or residing abroad and promotes their ties to the homeland.
Specific segments of the American people in other nations are guaranteed special care and protection by the United States.
Give me a break. I personally pulled two of your posts—and you know exactly which ones and why—plus three others were nuked by someone else within your last fifty. You’d be silent if we actually had censorship in place. Stop whining and you'll be fine.