User Profile: KJGreen

KJGreen

Member Since: July 03, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [27] August 23, 2016 at 9:10pm

    Bongino is completely correct when he says some donors do not wish to be “itemized” (myself included). While a campaign can’t arbitrarily report or not report contributor information, most states prescribe a threshold which must be exceeded before the campaign must report. For example, I might contribute $249 in a given state vs. $250 just so the campaign does not disclose my personal information. A campaign that will not respect this does not get my contribution.
    Bongino could put this to bed by providing a summary of contributions by zipcode but I don’t see why he should, especially since it probably wouldn’t be sufficient for the MSM to back off. They’re on a mission …

    All that said, Bongino could have been a bit more tactful in his dealings with this reporter.

    Responses (3) +
  • [12] August 23, 2016 at 4:35pm

    Clinton campaign spokesman Fallon: ‘… the standard set by the Clinton Foundation’s ethics restrictions was “unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics.”’

    You guys just don’t get it, do you? You expect accolades about your sudden pang of morals and ethics when you’ve already pilfered and pillaged? This is like the bank robber who, after robbing a bank, wants to get mercy because he says he is resigning from bank robbery.

    You want accolades? Put the genie back in the bottle, give back all your ill-gotten gains, and unwind the deals that were part of this enterprise. Maybe you can start with the Uranium One deal.

  • August 22, 2016 at 3:05pm

    They processed each of the paperwork individually …
    Probably with the same level of attention as the mortgage factories processing loans before the banking crisis.

    Time for a FOIA request regarding the process they used.

  • [10] August 19, 2016 at 4:26pm

    Just let your uninformed friends who vote only for the sake of voting that Election Day is November 9th.

    Responses (2) +
  • [13] August 19, 2016 at 1:29pm

    ‘“My stomach was down to my thighs. My chest was hanging down here,” he said. “I was disgusted.”’

    Watch out Pat — SADFAT (Society Against Defamation of Fat) will be coming after you for being so judgmental.

    Seriously, congrats on taking personal ownership of your destiny and making it happen. You are truly a role model for your son.

    PS. Please don’t take the same path as Subway Jared

  • [5] August 19, 2016 at 12:15pm

    It was a happy moment a few years ago when Michigan enacted their right-to-work legislation. No longer did I have a portion of my salary taken, purportedly to cover my “share” of the costs in negotiating my employment arrangements. I never asked for, nor needed, anyone’s assistance in making these arrangements — if I didn’t like what I was being offered/paid, I didn’t have to take the job.

    Even if I did want this representation, I can never shake the feeling that “fair-share” paying is just another shell game with limited accountability ensuring that the fair-share dues are not commingled with the political side of the union business. Kind of like Planned Parenthood and their non-abortion government funding.

    On the other hand, it was interesting to see the communications from the union — I never knew how many brothers and sisters I had and how much solidarity we shared (was expected?).

  • [5] August 18, 2016 at 7:02pm

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Way to go in demonstrating your commitment to transparency. Of course as the dem VP candidate noted yesterday, the voters don’t want to hear about past issues, so you probably don’t have any comment on past influence peddling, do you?

    How about a definitive comment about whether you satisfied both the letter and spirit of the constraints you agreed to prior to Hillary becoming Secretary of State (like clearing contributors through the State Department). No comment you say?

  • [1] August 18, 2016 at 4:34pm

    And in related news … http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/08/18/another-american-arrested-by-iran-n2206897?utm_source=TopBreakingNewsCarousel&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingNewsCarousel

  • [7] August 18, 2016 at 4:29pm

    Another State Department story that evolves as time passes and more facts come out.

    Seems eerily similar to another one that’s been in progress for some time: “I did not send classified material via my personal server”; “I did not send or receive classified material via my personal server”; “I did not send or receive classified material that was marked classified at the time”; “I turned over all my emails”, etc.

    I wonder what the next “drip” of facts will be. Unfortunately, I know it won’t be anything related to how Congress finally grew a pair and did something about this conduct.

  • [5] August 18, 2016 at 12:01pm

    I only wish the pushy, in-your-face, press were as obnoxious and aggressive with our political class as they are with people like Phelps.
    While I normally look at situations like this with Phelps and say it’s part of the territory if you want to be in the spotlight, it is not unreasonable for him to get that “space” he was asking for especially after being subjected to interview after interview over the last few weeks.

    Responses (1) +
  • [10] August 17, 2016 at 9:12pm

    ‘“Past controversies aren’t really important to the voters. They want to know what we are going to do tomorrow,” he added.’

    Hey Timmy … are you making the same admonition to your campaign partner and surrogates? Doubt it. But then again, I’m sure you believe that talking about Trump’s past controversies (or issues you want to make into controversies) is a different matter.

    Regardless, past conduct is a valid issue for the present. It is a good predictor of how someone will behave in the future.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] August 16, 2016 at 8:13pm

    From Merriam-Webster:

    A simple definition of “thug”: A violent criminal.

    Isn’t that what these people are?

  • [158] August 13, 2016 at 2:13pm

    There seems to be lot of effort going on to humanize Clinton.

    This is kind of like putting wallpaper atop a moldy wall. It looks prettier, but the underlying rot is still there.

    Responses (24) +
  • [3] August 12, 2016 at 4:41pm

    Best comment of the week.

  • [14] August 12, 2016 at 12:39pm

    “Manuel hopes she can just be a swimmer and a champion without her race being a factor.”

    Obama: “If she were my daughter she wouldn’t be talking such nonsense.”

    Responses (1) +
  • August 9, 2016 at 12:02pm

    I have mixed feelings about this. I hate the idea of how we have to legislate common sense since it reinforces how our society has devolved in some aspects and because it marches us further down the path of the nanny state. However, prescribing this kind of content makes a heck of a lot more sense than some of the Common Core gobbledygook. It doesn’t seem to be anything more than a curriculum adjustment with limited, if any, cost impact.

    Of course the devil is in the details. If they present a pragmatic, safety-oriented approach, then it sounds good to me. If, on the other hand, it uses a “police are evil” springboard to segue into a discussion on how to stay safe in a traffic stop, then all it will be is another item for the community organizer (and/or progressive teachers) to use to agitate with against “the man”.

    I would recommend they include a segment about what is going through a policeman/woman’s mind in response to various actions/motions a driver might make, and as @Hail_Victory noted, what the rights of the driver are as well.

    Unrelated, but a cranky older guy whining … maybe they can reintroduce a smidgen of understanding of the car mechanics back into drivers’ ed. It blows my mind how many drivers’ ed “graduates” have no idea about how to even change a tire.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] August 6, 2016 at 3:11pm

    The aggrieved class making a big scene to help support their narrative. Unfortunately, showing how damn stupid you are doesn’t help your cause.

  • [3] August 5, 2016 at 1:29pm

    ‘Legal Voice counsel Janet Chung, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said in a statement provided to Seattle’s KING-TV that, “We know all too well the importance of protecting the privacy and safety of clinicians and researchers involved in controversial issues, such as fetal tissue donation.”’

    Interesting that when the shoe is on the other foot that you don’t hear a peep from the likes of Janet Chung. How is this different from the left’s tactics related to their advocacy issues? Exhibit #1: Brendon Eich resigning from Mozilla in 2014 due to harassment related to his contribution to the “against” gay marriage ballot proposition committee. Exhibit #2: Lisa Madigan, AG of Illinois, declaring that names of gun permit holders can be publicly disclosed (later overridden by legislation). Exhibit #3: IRS targeting of conservative advocacy groups and demand for entire donor lists of those organizations.

    Also curious if Janet Chung is related to Johnny Chung … just askin’.

  • [1] August 2, 2016 at 6:35pm

    I did not state Trump did anything illegal. I have no evidence to support that. There is plenty of evidence, however, to support that he does in fact operate on the fringes. For example, ask all the people who signed up for a condo in his Chicago development with his “friends and family” discount. When property values skyrocketed and it wasn’t such a good deal for him, he forced buyers out of their discount, claiming because buyers were getting an automatic profit that he could tear up the contracts. You can bet if the market crashed he wouldn’t have let the buyers tear up the contract due to the automatic loss they would suffer.

    Legal? Must have been — he seems to have prevailed. Unsavory? Any thinking person would say yes.

    You mentioned working in business law. At the risk of incorrectly assuming you took some law classes, you must have missed the class where they discussed the concept that “legal” does not always equal “ethical”. By the same token, “unsavory” does not mean “illegal”.

    As to your ad hominem attack regarding my lack of business acumen, nice try. I was in fact part of an ownership/management team that grew a company from 100 to 4000 employees. Not Trumpian, but enough experience to know we avoided doing business with companies run by bullies like Trump. It wasn’t worth it.

    Obama has been unpresidential from day one; Hillary would be as bad. I only wish I and many of my friends were excited to be voting FOR Trump as opposed to voting AGAINST Hillary.

  • [11] August 2, 2016 at 11:48am

    The more I see of Trump’s behavior, the more I believe this story line. However unsavory some of his business practices have been, he has always done what it takes to get what he wants in personal and business life. Doing what it takes to become elected would mean not saying or doing stupid things and not picking unnecessary battles along the way. While that might get you a few votes, it will lose you a lot more.

    Trump is either a) completely inept and unable to control himself, b) truly thinks his type of behavior is the way to garner, not lose, votes (which means he is inept), or c) really doesn’t want to win the election.

    In 2012, Clint Eastwood’s chair should have been able to beat Obama based on his negatives. We are in the same boat in 2016 and destined to lose again.

    Responses (4) +
123 To page: Go