Progressive Ideology

[holmes435]

What rule did he or the previous owner break?

[cradleandshoot]

What rule did he or the previous owner break?

The developer used a loophole in the rule to keep and expand the existing seawall. If your going to be a person who claims strict adherence to all things pertaining to the environment, then you should lead by example. I admit freely I do not give 2 figs what BHO does with the seawall. I am only saying that if your a prominent enough person the rules don't apply to you. It looks like he paid for a waiver. So much for the rules meaning anything.

[njbill]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html

Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.

So the bottom line is he followed the law, right?

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html

Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.

So the bottom line is he followed the law, right?

A better way to phrase it is they made an exception to the law for former POTUS Barack Obama. As Mel Brooks would say... its good to be the former king.

[Brooklyn]

Spotlight on Dem party convention patriots:







Even true Republicans agree!

[MDlaxfan76]

Spotlight on Dem party convention patriots:







Even true Republicans agree!

Yup

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html

Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.

So the bottom line is he followed the law, right?

A better way to phrase it is they made an exception to the law for former POTUS Barack Obama. As Mel Brooks would say... its good to be the former king.

nope, the provision is available to anyone. Yes, anyone.
It costs $, but that's it, no "exception" necessary due to celebrity etc.

Read the article, it's clear.

Now if you wish to criticize Obama for opting to keep the wall despite environmental issues, that's a legit argument.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html

Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.

So the bottom line is he followed the law, right?

A better way to phrase it is they made an exception to the law for former POTUS Barack Obama. As Mel Brooks would say... its good to be the former king.

nope, the provision is available to anyone. Yes, anyone.
It costs $, but that's it, no "exception" necessary due to celebrity etc.

Read the article, it's clear.

Now if you wish to criticize Obama for opting to keep the wall despite environmental issues, that's a legit argument.

Ross Perot was denied a permit to dynamite some land in Bermuda because of a reef I believe. In the middle of the night, he blew it up anyway.....it shook the whole Island.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... ?_amp=true

[Peter Brown]

Spotlight on Dem party convention patriots:





Even true Republicans agree!

Most NeverTrumper's like Kasich are as equally lacking in principles as Trump; they have become a mirror reflection of Trump's more odious side of frankly not believing in anything tbh. For instance, if you look at what Kasich, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, The Lincoln Project, and Bulwark promote, it's almost impossible to discern any difference with your average liberal Democrat. Abortion? Why not! Higher Taxes? Need'em! Wars everywhere? Absolutely! More government?! Of course! You get the picture: they are opportunists, seizing on voters' impressionable nature and fears to score cash (because they have no other marketable skills; none of them have ever worked or led real companies).

The only difference I see is that Trump has actually installed actual conservative jurists so gets credit. The last two Republican Presidents had no idea how to filter out true conservative jurists because neither was actually conservative (maybe harsh to W, but he was too dumb to understand how important conservative jurists are/were, so he did as told).

Trump has done a GREAT job with the judiciary, in effect saving the Republic. And that will be so even if he didn't get 4 more years. 4 more years of Trump getting qualified conservative jurists installed, and this country will not only not suffer much at all, it will thrive like you have never seen before. Conservative jurists are the only jurists that bother to read the Constitution any longer, hence the need for them is dramatic. Liberals jurists may as well get their votes from the head of the DNC, or shortly, the head of BLM.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html

Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.

So the bottom line is he followed the law, right?

A better way to phrase it is they made an exception to the law for former POTUS Barack Obama. As Mel Brooks would say... its good to be the former king.

nope, the provision is available to anyone. Yes, anyone.
It costs $, but that's it, no "exception" necessary due to celebrity etc.

Read the article, it's clear.

Now if you wish to criticize Obama for opting to keep the wall despite environmental issues, that's a legit argument.

Ross Perot was denied a permit to dynamite some land in Bermuda because of a reef I believe. In the middle of the night, he blew it up anyway.....it shook the whole Island.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... ?_amp=true

You do see this sort of gross scofflaw behavior from the super rich and celebrities who feel "entitled" to ignore various community rules, standards, and laws. All about me.

For instance, you see this with some knuckleheads building mansions on lakes, cutting down trees at lake side to improve their views (and show off their gaudy homes) in direct contravention of the law requiring no disturbance of foliage within some distance of water side. If their builder won't do it, they often do it themselves or find some jerk with a chainsaw who'll take the cash. Fines? so what, it's just money.

[MDlaxfan76]

Spotlight on Dem party convention patriots:





Even true Republicans agree!

Most NeverTrumper's like Kasich are as equally lacking in principles as Trump; they have become a mirror reflection of Trump's more odious side of frankly not believing in anything tbh. For instance, if you look at what Kasich, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, The Lincoln Project, and Bulwark promote, it's almost impossible to discern any difference with your average liberal Democrat. Abortion? Why not! Higher Taxes? Need'em! Wars everywhere? Absolutely! More government?! Of course! You get the picture: they are opportunists, seizing on voters' impressionable nature and fears to score cash (because they have no other marketable skills; none of them have ever worked or led real companies).

The only difference I see is that Trump has actually installed actual conservative jurists so gets credit. The last two Republican Presidents had no idea how to filter out true conservative jurists because neither was actually conservative (maybe harsh to W, but he was too dumb to understand how important conservative jurists are/were, so he did as told).

Trump has done a GREAT job with the judiciary, in effect saving the Republic. And that will be so even if he didn't get 4 more years. 4 more years of Trump getting qualified conservative jurists installed, and this country will not only not suffer much at all, it will thrive like you have never seen before. Conservative jurists are the only jurists that bother to read the Constitution any longer, hence the need for them is dramatic. Liberals jurists may as well get their votes from the head of the DNC, or shortly, the head of BLM.

well, we certainly disagree. BTW, would you suggest that the sole GOP senator still in office, who appears to have a backbone and is an anti-Trumpist, Romney, has "ever worked or led real companies"?

And btw, what makes your company a "real company" or your "work" more "work" than what these folks have done in their lives?

As to conservative versus liberal, you seem to equate dogmatic far right social "conservatism" with 'conservative' more than you do fiscal restraint...personal restraint and accountability...or even US influence in justice and democracy in the world...nope, you want your "judiciary" to attack abortion rights and to bolster corporations over workers...and you think this is "conservative" ???

[a fan]

Most NeverTrumper's like Kasich are as equally lacking in principles as Trump; they have become a mirror reflection of Trump's more odious side of frankly not believing in anything tbh. For instance, if you look at what Kasich, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, The Lincoln Project, and Bulwark promote, it's almost impossible to discern any difference with your average liberal Democrat.

Pete and his socialist education is going to lecture Kasich and the Lincoln Project about what Conservatism is?

Abortion? Why not!

About half of Conservatives are for abortion with reasonable limitations

Higher Taxes? Need'em!

You do if you want to pay for things like Pete's education at U of Florida. But you don't want to hear that, and think that that money falls from the sky.

We have the lowest taxes in the larger 1st world economies, Pete. It's why we run such a massive deficit. You see, when you are a REAL fiscal conservative like me? You pay your bills, and don't hand them off to the next generation. Be a man. Pay your bills.

Wars everywhere? Absolutely!

That's the central tenant of American Conservative thought, and has been since WWII. Never saw a war we didn't like, and only one single time was the war a reaction to actually getting attacked on our homeland.

More government?! Of course!

Did the Federal Government get bigger, or smaller, for the last four American Republican Presidents?

And how much bigger is it under Trump, Pete? Take your time. Add up all the spending, and get back to us.

The only difference I see is that Trump has actually installed actual conservative jurists so gets credit.

Nope. The Senate is in charge of that. Thank McConnell for that.

And as I've been telling you---pay attention to how these judges actually rule. You think these are conservatives, and will rule in favor of the bulk of American conservatives who aren't millionaires? Good luck with that.

Conservative jurists are the only jurists that bother to read the Constitution any longer, hence the need for them is dramatic.

Riiiiiight.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html

Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.

So the bottom line is he followed the law, right?

A better way to phrase it is they made an exception to the law for former POTUS Barack Obama. As Mel Brooks would say... its good to be the former king.

nope, the provision is available to anyone. Yes, anyone.
It costs $, but that's it, no "exception" necessary due to celebrity etc.

Read the article, it's clear.

Now if you wish to criticize Obama for opting to keep the wall despite environmental issues, that's a legit argument.

So it has nothing to do with saving the environment? You should take a cue and try and understand what that means. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Sure it costs..... duuuuuuuuuh.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html

Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.

So the bottom line is he followed the law, right?

A better way to phrase it is they made an exception to the law for former POTUS Barack Obama. As Mel Brooks would say... its good to be the former king.

nope, the provision is available to anyone. Yes, anyone.
It costs $, but that's it, no "exception" necessary due to celebrity etc.

Read the article, it's clear.

Now if you wish to criticize Obama for opting to keep the wall despite environmental issues, that's a legit argument.

Ross Perot was denied a permit to dynamite some land in Bermuda because of a reef I believe. In the middle of the night, he blew it up anyway.....it shook the whole Island.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... ?_amp=true

You do see this sort of gross scofflaw behavior from the super rich and celebrities who feel "entitled" to ignore various community rules, standards, and laws. All about me.

For instance, you see this with some knuckleheads building mansions on lakes, cutting down trees at lake side to improve their views (and show off their gaudy homes) in direct contravention of the law requiring no disturbance of foliage within some distance of water side. If their builder won't do it, they often do it themselves or find some jerk with a chainsaw who'll take the cash. Fines? so what, it's just money.

I heard the story when I was visiting.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html

Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.

So the bottom line is he followed the law, right?

A better way to phrase it is they made an exception to the law for former POTUS Barack Obama. As Mel Brooks would say... its good to be the former king.

nope, the provision is available to anyone. Yes, anyone.
It costs $, but that's it, no "exception" necessary due to celebrity etc.

Read the article, it's clear.

Now if you wish to criticize Obama for opting to keep the wall despite environmental issues, that's a legit argument.

So it has nothing to do with saving the environment? You should take a cue and try and understand what that means. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Sure it costs..... duuuuuuuuuh.

Please re-read what I wrote.

I'm saying you could have a legit critique of the decision to retain the existing seawall from an environmental perspective. I don't know enough to say whether it's actually damaging to the environment or not, but apparently that's why new construction doesn't allow seawalls.

But there's a whale of a difference between criticizing someone on that personal decision basis versus claiming they got some special exception because they are a celebrity, or as you said "king" as in former POTUS. The latter critique holds no water. Just factually incorrect.

But go ahead and critique Obama for the environmental decision, someone with far more understanding of that issue than me would have to debate you on that one.

[Brooklyn]

Most NeverTrumper's like Kasich are as equally lacking in principles as Trump; they have become a mirror reflection of Trump's more odious side of frankly not believing in anything tbh. For instance, if you look at what Kasich, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, The Lincoln Project, and Bulwark promote, it's almost impossible to discern any difference with your average liberal Democrat. Abortion? Why not! Higher Taxes? Need'em! Wars everywhere? Absolutely! More government?! Of course! You get the picture: they are opportunists, seizing on voters' impressionable nature and fears to score cash (because they have no other marketable skills; none of them have ever worked or led real companies).

The only difference I see is that Trump has actually installed actual conservative jurists so gets credit. The last two Republican Presidents had no idea how to filter out true conservative jurists because neither was actually conservative (maybe harsh to W, but he was too dumb to understand how important conservative jurists are/were, so he did as told).

Trump has done a GREAT job with the judiciary, in effect saving the Republic. And that will be so even if he didn't get 4 more years. 4 more years of Trump getting qualified conservative jurists installed, and this country will not only not suffer much at all, it will thrive like you have never seen before. Conservative jurists are the only jurists that bother to read the Constitution any longer, hence the need for them is dramatic. Liberals jurists may as well get their votes from the head of the DNC, or shortly, the head of BLM.

"thrive" --- laughable. Heck, I thought I was a good comedy writer but it's clear that you surpass my humor by a long shot. To say that the USA has thrived under tRUMP is pathetic beyond all belief. This has always been true whether under the right wing delusional in chrage was Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II. Now with tRUMP in the White Wash House the USA is more screwed than ever, not just in terms of plague deaths but in the economy as well.


Your hero tRUMP has brought more taxes by way of higher prices for food commodities just in case you didn't know. And his tRUMPcare has killed more Americans than Hitler ever did. Vote tRUMP, vote death and the further degeneration of the USA.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html

Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.

So the bottom line is he followed the law, right?

A better way to phrase it is they made an exception to the law for former POTUS Barack Obama. As Mel Brooks would say... its good to be the former king.

nope, the provision is available to anyone. Yes, anyone.
It costs $, but that's it, no "exception" necessary due to celebrity etc.

Read the article, it's clear.

Now if you wish to criticize Obama for opting to keep the wall despite environmental issues, that's a legit argument.

So it has nothing to do with saving the environment? You should take a cue and try and understand what that means. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Sure it costs..... duuuuuuuuuh.

Please re-read what I wrote.

I'm saying you could have a legit critique of the decision to retain the existing seawall from an environmental perspective. I don't know enough to say whether it's actually damaging to the environment or not, but apparently that's why new construction doesn't allow seawalls.

But there's a whale of a difference between criticizing someone on that personal decision basis versus claiming they got some special exception because they are a celebrity, or as you said "king" as in former POTUS. The latter critique holds no water. Just factually incorrect.

But go ahead and critique Obama for the environmental decision, someone with far more understanding of that issue than me would have to debate you on that one.

The powers that be in Hawaii are the ones that have an issue with the sea wall. Their position is very clear that it contributes to beach erosion. I really don't give a flying fig if BHO's developer keeps the wall, expands it or to be politically correct, tears it down. The special exception I refer to that you gloss over comes from having enough money to pay for a waiver. There should be no waivers for new construction. Here is an analogy for you from my years of installing beverage system in restaurants and bars. If you you gut a bar/restaurant and redo it, guess what?? all those grandfathered fire code exemptions go out the window with your construction permit. The reason for that is obvious but still very expensive if your doing a remodel. This development the Obama developer is building is new construction. They should be starting from square one abiding by what the code says today. It is pretty hinky to me that if you shell out enough money for a multi million dollar house for a waiver then what is the point of having an environmental regulation that a bunch of mega wealthy people can just ignore by putting up big bucks. After all, you of all people have stated unequivocally your support for saving the environment and our planet. You should be the one critical of the Obama developer for not just tearing the wall down to begin with.

[njbill]

Maybe this is a dumb question, but how does a seawall contribute to beach erosion? I would think it would do the exact opposite: help protect the beach from erosion.

I can maybe understand how constructing a new one might cause some untoward disturbances, but leaving an existing one in place would seem to be more of a positive than a negative.

[cradleandshoot]

Maybe this is a dumb question, but how does a seawall contribute to beach erosion? I would think it would do the exact opposite: help protect the beach from erosion.

I can maybe understand how constructing a new one might cause some untoward disturbances, but leaving an existing one in place would seem to be more of a positive than a negative.

"Maybe this is a dumb question, but how does a seawall contribute to beach erosion? I would think it would do the exact opposite: help protect the beach from erosion."

I asked myself the same question. On Lake Ontario in my neck of the woods if you don't have a seawall or some sort of barricade around your property your home is in major trouble from flooding. I never really heard it explained how this happens. I have have no problem with BHO protecting his investment. If I was spending that kind of money, I would want a seawall protecting my property. The fact you have to pony up big money to make it happen, I don't understand that either.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Obama.html

Because when your a former POTUS the rules don't apply to you. They are only used on all those common folk.

So the bottom line is he followed the law, right?

A better way to phrase it is they made an exception to the law for former POTUS Barack Obama. As Mel Brooks would say... its good to be the former king.

nope, the provision is available to anyone. Yes, anyone.
It costs $, but that's it, no "exception" necessary due to celebrity etc.

Read the article, it's clear.

Now if you wish to criticize Obama for opting to keep the wall despite environmental issues, that's a legit argument.

So it has nothing to do with saving the environment? You should take a cue and try and understand what that means. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Sure it costs..... duuuuuuuuuh.

Please re-read what I wrote.

I'm saying you could have a legit critique of the decision to retain the existing seawall from an environmental perspective. I don't know enough to say whether it's actually damaging to the environment or not, but apparently that's why new construction doesn't allow seawalls.

But there's a whale of a difference between criticizing someone on that personal decision basis versus claiming they got some special exception because they are a celebrity, or as you said "king" as in former POTUS. The latter critique holds no water. Just factually incorrect.

But go ahead and critique Obama for the environmental decision, someone with far more understanding of that issue than me would have to debate you on that one.

The powers that be in Hawaii are the ones that have an issue with the sea wall. Their position is very clear that it contributes to beach erosion. I really don't give a flying fig if BHO's developer keeps the wall, expands it or to be politically correct, tears it down. The special exception I refer to that you gloss over comes from having enough money to pay for a waiver. There should be no waivers for new construction. Here is an analogy for you from my years of installing beverage system in restaurants and bars. If you you gut a bar/restaurant and redo it, guess what?? all those grandfathered fire code exemptions go out the window with your construction permit. The reason for that is obvious but still very expensive if your doing a remodel. This development the Obama developer is building is new construction. They should be starting from square one abiding by what the code says today. It is pretty hinky to me that if you shell out enough money for a multi million dollar house for a waiver then what is the point of having an environmental regulation that a bunch of mega wealthy people can just ignore by putting up big bucks. After all, you of all people have stated unequivocally your support for saving the environment and our planet. You should be the one critical of the Obama developer for not just tearing the wall down to begin with.

No argument with me on your logic about what "should" happen, my sole point is, and has been, that the exception is available to any and all, no special treatment necessary for former POTUS.

On the actual environmental issue, my hunch would be that it indeed likely ought to be torn down rather than grandfathered, but it's also possible that the $ paid to not have to do so contribute sufficiently to other erosion mitigation efforts to cover what erosion it causes (assuming that's the case), and perhaps much more...but this is far from my field of knowledge, so just spitballing.

But I do know that such logic gets applied on other such environmental issues, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case here.