• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

PROBATION DISCUSSIONS
21 21

Started by alwaysbronze,

36,203 posts in this topic

1Cool

1Cool

Posted
Posted

Doesn't matter which one of the list he is on since the end result is the same. I won't buy or sell to anyone on either list so I don't care one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted
the bottom line is not everyone has to agree... your never going to get everyone to agree if HT should or shouldn't be in the HOF... that's why there's a vote. The vote last I checked before it was takes down was 100+ yes and 8 no.... so I think the numbers spoke for themselves. As for the people who say he never scammed any money my answer would be it's not for lack of trying! he tried to get me to send a check claiming his paypal wasn't working? (red flag) ... things were all good.. when it switched to me having family and we would exchange money for book same time THATS when the tales began. Again you may or may not believe he is or isn't worthy of HOS but that's why you vote.... I don't vote Obama but he's stilll the president... nowhere does it say we need 100% last I checked 90% seems overwhelming ... 51% maybe we debate but 90%+ is a slam dunk meh

I think you misunderstand the debate. It's not over whether or not the vote is overwhelming enough (it is by a long shot, heck 51% probably would be too) its wheter or not the "underlying charges" are enough to sustain the indictment. Those of us against it are saying there should have never been a vote because the actions don't meet the qualifications of a hos nomination and that this should have remaineda pl issue. Or that it shouldn't have been rushed and we had more material before nominating such as your pms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wombat

wombat

Posted
Posted (edited)
the bottom line is not everyone has to agree... your never going to get everyone to agree if HT should or shouldn't be in the HOF... that's why there's a vote. The vote last I checked before it was takes down was 100+ yes and 8 no.... so I think the numbers spoke for themselves. As for the people who say he never scammed any money my answer would be it's not for lack of trying! he tried to get me to send a check claiming his paypal wasn't working? (red flag) ... things were all good.. when it switched to me having family and we would exchange money for book same time THATS when the tales began. Again you may or may not believe he is or isn't worthy of HOS but that's why you vote.... I don't vote Obama but he's stilll the president... nowhere does it say we need 100% last I checked 90% seems overwhelming ... 51% maybe we debate but 90%+ is a slam dunk meh

I think you misunderstand the debate. It's not over whether or not the vote is overwhelming enough (it is by a long shot, heck 51% probably would be too) its wheter or not the "underlying charges" are enough to sustain the indictment. Those of us against it are saying there should have never been a vote because the actions don't meet the qualifications of a hos nomination and that this should have remaineda pl issue. Or that it shouldn't have been rushed and we had more material before nominating such as your pms.

 

So how does it get decided if there is enough evidence to even have a vote? If people disagree on that does it go to a vote?

Edited by wombat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
4comix

4comix

Posted
Posted
Leave politics in the water cooler please

 

I don't think mentioning Obama's name as part of a point about the mechanics of voting is political conversation, it's just a means to make a point.

 

 

exactly ... was only to make a point ... certainly not trying to debate the president here lol just saying all the people will never agree on any 1 thing (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
All the talk of putting him on HOS for things he might do is clouding the issue. He should be on it for things he's already done.

 

tumblr_mil8uoK8XE1qejlczo1_500.gif

 

 

 

Completely True.....

 

It's already happened and too many people are stuck on what might have happened or the size (in $$ of the offense), none of that matters to the heart of the issue...the heart of the issue is the 100% complete dishonesty in the course of a business transaction by the "seller". He displayed inability to he honest in the course of dealings, not by mistake, or error, or miscommunication, but by intentional deceit.

 

fraudulent misrepresentation

 

(1) representation made;

(2) representation was false;

(3) when made, the representation was known false or made recklessly without knowledge of truth;

(4) made with the intention that the buyer rely on it;

(5) buyer did rely on it; and

(6) buyer suffered damages as a result.

 

It's all there, it's pretty simple. I can't imagine why there's an ongoing discussion of anything beyond the complete dishonesty displayed here and how it has no place in our sales forum.

 

It took someone getting Hustrucked (or is it CGCBoy'd now) to drag me back to this forum, thanks a lot. :P

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
21 21
Go to topic listing