(10-17-2023 02:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In honesty -- tennis *did* misstate #s position via mischaracterization.

I just came off a back and forth with a person who fundamentally ignored my comments to back their own continued incorrect broad statement on my position --- kind of have to point this one out.

You may not be, but I suspect you are speaking of me here... and this too is a mischaracterization.

I don't literally think you are out to 'get trump'...

For starters -- "He's okay with it because the target is Trump.." Post 776 in this thread.

Or

"Literally your excuse here is that the evidence that you have that the system is not unjust is that in your infallible opinion, Trump is guilty.." Post 812.

Ill be happy to carve out more, especially from out PMs if you wish.

The best one is here, in the post you type the above in -- "I think you too are 'okay with it', not because you generally support such things, but because it is Trump, whom you have a noted and at least somewhat personal distaste for." Bolded below.

Nothing but 'get Trump because a distaste for him'' The funny thing is that you put a torpedo in the above in your own post from the above. And you dont seemingly even notice it..... God, you really cant make that up.

Quote:I think the AG was though... and the judge seems to have played along.

Got it. Another cabal. Sounds fun.

Quote:I think you too are 'okay with it', not because you generally support such things, but because it is Trump, whom you have a noted and at least somewhat personal distaste for.

Quote: I think you've mentioned colleagues who have been 'cheated' by him.... and saying you are okay with it because it 'get's Trump' is vastly easier to type than some truly (given the forum) nuanced response.

And its nothing but revenge at any cost for me, that you opine above. Lolz.

Quote:LOTS of people are blind to their own biases. You would certainly not be the first... and I have absolutely no other explanation for why a conservative, limited government, individual liberty supporter would NOT be primarily concerned with a weaponized process.

Because there isnt much meat to the assertion of the 'weaponized process', Ham. In your mind, that ethereal construct is reality -- ergo anyone should see it. Actually -- change the last item to "Since you see it --- everyone *must* see it as an unending truth".

Fundamental process problem there Ham.

(10-17-2023 05:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 02:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In honesty -- tennis *did* misstate #s position via mischaracterization.

I just came off a back and forth with a person who fundamentally ignored my comments to back their own continued incorrect broad statement on my position --- kind of have to point this one out.

You may not be, but I suspect you are speaking of me here... and this too is a mischaracterization.

I don't literally think you are out to 'get trump'...

For starters -- "He's okay with it because the target is Trump.." Post 776 in this thread.

Or

"Literally your excuse here is that the evidence that you have that the system is not unjust is that in your infallible opinion, Trump is guilty.." Post 812.

Ill be happy to carve out more, especially from out PMs if you wish.

The best one is here, in the post you type the above in -- "I think you too are 'okay with it', not because you generally support such things, but because it is Trump, whom you have a noted and at least somewhat personal distaste for." Bolded below.

Nothing but 'get Trump because a distaste for him'' The funny thing is that you put a torpedo in the above in your own post from the above. And you dont seemingly even notice it..... God, you really cant make that up.

Quote:I think the AG was though... and the judge seems to have played along.

Got it. Another cabal. Sounds fun.

Quote:I think you too are 'okay with it', not because you generally support such things, but because it is Trump, whom you have a noted and at least somewhat personal distaste for.

Quote: I think you've mentioned colleagues who have been 'cheated' by him.... and saying you are okay with it because it 'get's Trump' is vastly easier to type than some truly (given the forum) nuanced response.

And its nothing but revenge at any cost for me, that you opine above. Lolz.

Quote:LOTS of people are blind to their own biases. You would certainly not be the first... and I have absolutely no other explanation for why a conservative, limited government, individual liberty supporter would NOT be primarily concerned with a weaponized process.

Because there isnt much meat to the assertion of the 'weaponized process', Ham. In your mind, that ethereal construct is reality -- ergo anyone should see it.

Fundamental process problem there Ham.

Its embarrassuing watching someone weird and dumb try to play the smart guy.

Stop please. Its cringy

(10-17-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The *facts* elicited tend to show just pure lies, through and through. Lying to DB about juiced values, explicitly lying through explicit statements saying no brand premium was included in the valuations. Those are the *facts* that have come out -- not suppositions about cash flow.

But if the cash flows from the properties, individually or as a whole, were sufficient to service the debt, then somehow, somewhere, the values were there. Either that or the Trump organization made the decision to pony up to service the debt, which clearly supports a lack of intent to defraud.

Suppose the Trump valuations were based on an assumption that the Trump organization would manage the properties to produce greater cash flow than other management would. And suppose the Trump organization does in fact manage the properties in a manner that does produce such cash flow. Is that brand premium or not?

(10-17-2023 01:02 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 01:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:51 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Again have never and will never owe you ****.

Retract your lies.

Don't bother. It's really not worth the effort.

Tennis is currently over in the other thread explaining to us how farmers need to replace their single 500hp 4 row potato harvesters with a fleet of 25 battery powered lawnmowers to cut back on emissions.

Electric future is coming and you dinosaurs will be lost.

You’re so cute shoe. You got on your crop top tonight?

(09-26-2023 03:33 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/...gT9sg&s=19

If I were former President Trump,I would appeal, but with so.many other cases going that might need appealing to the appeals courts, I might have to.let the kids appeal.

(10-17-2023 06:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The *facts* elicited tend to show just pure lies, through and through. Lying to DB about juiced values, explicitly lying through explicit statements saying no brand premium was included in the valuations. Those are the *facts* that have come out -- not suppositions about cash flow.

But if the cash flows from the properties, individually or as a whole, were sufficient to service the debt, then somehow, somewhere, the values were there. Either that or the Trump organization made the decision to pony up to service the debt, which clearly supports a lack of intent to defraud.

Suppose the Trump valuations were based on an assumption that the Trump organization would manage the properties to produce greater cash flow than other management would. And suppose the Trump organization does in fact manage the properties in a manner that does produce such cash flow. Is that brand premium or not?

Which is in place undercut when the actual testimony reveals (literally) internal messaging to "place a 'Trump' brand premium" on everything -- all the while stating on the SFCs also explicitly "There is no Trump brand premium included".

That is simply an out and out lie. Doubly in fact. First you gin up the value internally with a Trump-brand premium, then you explicitly state that 'no Trump premium was included', trying to induce the counterparty to consider an additional 'Trump-brand premium' on the back end.

(10-17-2023 01:02 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 01:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:51 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Again have never and will never owe you ****.

Retract your lies.

Don't bother. It's really not worth the effort.

Tennis is currently over in the other thread explaining to us how farmers need to replace their single 500hp 4 row potato harvesters with a fleet of 25 battery powered lawnmowers to cut back on emissions.

Electric future is coming and you dinosaurs will be lost.

Liberal delusion on display.

(10-17-2023 07:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 06:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The *facts* elicited tend to show just pure lies, through and through. Lying to DB about juiced values, explicitly lying through explicit statements saying no brand premium was included in the valuations. Those are the *facts* that have come out -- not suppositions about cash flow.

But if the cash flows from the properties, individually or as a whole, were sufficient to service the debt, then somehow, somewhere, the values were there. Either that or the Trump organization made the decision to pony up to service the debt, which clearly supports a lack of intent to defraud.

Suppose the Trump valuations were based on an assumption that the Trump organization would manage the properties to produce greater cash flow than other management would. And suppose the Trump organization does in fact manage the properties in a manner that does produce such cash flow. Is that brand premium or not?

Which is in place undercut when the actual testimony reveals (literally) internal messaging to "place a 'Trump' brand premium" on everything -- all the while stating on the SFCs also explicitly "There is no Trump brand premium included".

That is simply an out and out lie. Doubly in fact. First you gin up the value internally with a Trump-brand premium, then you explicitly state that 'no Trump premium was included', trying to induce the counterparty to consider an additional 'Trump-brand premium' on the back end.

The prosecutor said Maralargo was worth $25million.

(10-17-2023 08:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 07:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 06:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The *facts* elicited tend to show just pure lies, through and through. Lying to DB about juiced values, explicitly lying through explicit statements saying no brand premium was included in the valuations. Those are the *facts* that have come out -- not suppositions about cash flow.

But if the cash flows from the properties, individually or as a whole, were sufficient to service the debt, then somehow, somewhere, the values were there. Either that or the Trump organization made the decision to pony up to service the debt, which clearly supports a lack of intent to defraud.

Suppose the Trump valuations were based on an assumption that the Trump organization would manage the properties to produce greater cash flow than other management would. And suppose the Trump organization does in fact manage the properties in a manner that does produce such cash flow. Is that brand premium or not?

Which is in place undercut when the actual testimony reveals (literally) internal messaging to "place a 'Trump' brand premium" on everything -- all the while stating on the SFCs also explicitly "There is no Trump brand premium included".

That is simply an out and out lie. Doubly in fact. First you gin up the value internally with a Trump-brand premium, then you explicitly state that 'no Trump premium was included', trying to induce the counterparty to consider an additional 'Trump-brand premium' on the back end.

The prosecutor said Maralargo was worth $25million.

Amongst several valuations of MAL profferred, all of which fell at least 75% below the Trump claim, and all of which stated (correctly) the property rights that had been deeded away by Trump.

The same property rights that Trump conveniently forgot to note on his valuations. the same property rights that Trump offered as proof in his valuation evidence -- 'well, we *could* sue to negate the deed delivery'..... That is making a fairly tale 'it could be *if* this happens' valuation into a *current* valuation.

Those issues you talk about? Maybe for once address the nitty gritty in the facts instead of rather gross generalizations. Just a thought.

(10-17-2023 08:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 08:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 07:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 06:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The *facts* elicited tend to show just pure lies, through and through. Lying to DB about juiced values, explicitly lying through explicit statements saying no brand premium was included in the valuations. Those are the *facts* that have come out -- not suppositions about cash flow.

But if the cash flows from the properties, individually or as a whole, were sufficient to service the debt, then somehow, somewhere, the values were there. Either that or the Trump organization made the decision to pony up to service the debt, which clearly supports a lack of intent to defraud.

Suppose the Trump valuations were based on an assumption that the Trump organization would manage the properties to produce greater cash flow than other management would. And suppose the Trump organization does in fact manage the properties in a manner that does produce such cash flow. Is that brand premium or not?

Which is in place undercut when the actual testimony reveals (literally) internal messaging to "place a 'Trump' brand premium" on everything -- all the while stating on the SFCs also explicitly "There is no Trump brand premium included".

That is simply an out and out lie. Doubly in fact. First you gin up the value internally with a Trump-brand premium, then you explicitly state that 'no Trump premium was included', trying to induce the counterparty to consider an additional 'Trump-brand premium' on the back end.

The prosecutor said Maralargo was worth $25million.

Amongst several valuations of MAL profferred, all of which fell at least 75% below the Trump claim, and all of which stated (correctly) the property rights that had been deeded away by Trump.

The same property rights that Trump conveniently forgot to note on his valuations. the same property rights that Trump offered as proof in his valuation evidence -- 'well, we *could* sue to negate the deed delivery'..... That is making a fairly tale 'it could be *if* this happens' valuation into a *current* valuation.

Those issues you talk about? Maybe for once address the nitty gritty in the facts instead of rather gross generalizations. Just a thought.

JFC.... Just put Trump in jail so we can stop this inane rambling buy the obsessed TDR people.

(10-17-2023 08:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 08:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 07:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 06:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The *facts* elicited tend to show just pure lies, through and through. Lying to DB about juiced values, explicitly lying through explicit statements saying no brand premium was included in the valuations. Those are the *facts* that have come out -- not suppositions about cash flow.

But if the cash flows from the properties, individually or as a whole, were sufficient to service the debt, then somehow, somewhere, the values were there. Either that or the Trump organization made the decision to pony up to service the debt, which clearly supports a lack of intent to defraud.

Suppose the Trump valuations were based on an assumption that the Trump organization would manage the properties to produce greater cash flow than other management would. And suppose the Trump organization does in fact manage the properties in a manner that does produce such cash flow. Is that brand premium or not?

Which is in place undercut when the actual testimony reveals (literally) internal messaging to "place a 'Trump' brand premium" on everything -- all the while stating on the SFCs also explicitly "There is no Trump brand premium included".

That is simply an out and out lie. Doubly in fact. First you gin up the value internally with a Trump-brand premium, then you explicitly state that 'no Trump premium was included', trying to induce the counterparty to consider an additional 'Trump-brand premium' on the back end.

The prosecutor said Maralargo was worth $25million.

Amongst several valuations of MAL profferred, all of which fell at least 75% below the Trump claim, and all of which stated (correctly) the property rights that had been deeded away by Trump.

$25million. Nice job.

I hope y'all realize how stupid you look trying to carry water for a fraud.

(10-18-2023 06:47 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  I hope y'all realize how stupid you look trying to carry water for a fraud.

My God dude. The irony is too freaking thick to cut with a chainsaw, with your statement.

Aren’t you the guy that said the entire country is going electric?

You must be from another planet or something.

You sky screamed and sent mean PMs about the jury thing and even the judge says it wasn't an option.

Weirdo.

(10-18-2023 07:55 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-18-2023 06:47 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  I hope y'all realize how stupid you look trying to carry water for a fraud.

My God dude. The irony is too freaking thick to cut with a chainsaw, with your statement.

Aren’t you the guy that said the entire country is going electric?

You must be from another planet or something.

Where did I say entire country you're lying again.

(10-17-2023 01:02 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 01:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:51 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Again have never and will never owe you ****.

Retract your lies.

Don't bother. It's really not worth the effort.

Tennis is currently over in the other thread explaining to us how farmers need to replace their single 500hp 4 row potato harvesters with a fleet of 25 battery powered lawnmowers to cut back on emissions.

Electric future is coming and you dinosaurs will be lost.

For some things, sure. but not for plowing a 450 acre farm. There's a place for electric, but it won't replace the farm workhorses that farmers depend on, imo.

(10-18-2023 08:34 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 01:02 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Electric future is coming and you dinosaurs will be lost.

For some things, sure. but not for plowing a 450 acre farm. There's a place for electric, but it won't replace the farm workhorses that farmers depend on, imo.

Just get caught at the bottom of the pasture, a mile and a half from the house, when the battery gives out in the middle of July.

(10-18-2023 08:29 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-18-2023 07:55 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-18-2023 06:47 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  I hope y'all realize how stupid you look trying to carry water for a fraud.

My God dude. The irony is too freaking thick to cut with a chainsaw, with your statement.

Aren’t you the guy that said the entire country is going electric?

You must be from another planet or something.

Where did I say entire country you're lying again.

Are you smart enough to recognize a question from a statement? Apparently not. Maybe the electrical impulses in your brain need to be recharged.

(10-17-2023 01:02 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 01:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:51 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Again have never and will never owe you ****.

Retract your lies.

Don't bother. It's really not worth the effort.

Tennis is currently over in the other thread explaining to us how farmers need to replace their single 500hp 4 row potato harvesters with a fleet of 25 battery powered lawnmowers to cut back on emissions.

Electric future is coming and you dinosaurs will be lost.

(10-18-2023 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-18-2023 08:34 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 01:02 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  Electric future is coming and you dinosaurs will be lost.

For some things, sure. but not for plowing a 450 acre farm. There's a place for electric, but it won't replace the farm workhorses that farmers depend on, imo.

Just get caught at the bottom of the pasture, a mile and a half from the house, when the battery gives out in the middle of July.

I mean, electric cars that weigh nothing can only go a couple hundred miles without a charge. Imagine that with a 45,0000 pound farm combine. Yes, it'll have a different battery, but the concept will be the same.