- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:04 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:so what do you think about the gutting and reconstruction of the White House Truman did..... Yes he got congressional approval because he wanted them to find it... And they did. But they did not approve the Truman Balcony....which he private funded and built... Sooooo is this I'm different?
eta-Anyone capable of addressing this?
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:06 pm to udtiger
quote:
The whole fricking argument is retarded. All this over the removal of an ADDITION from FDRs tenure.
Nothing to do with FDR. It’s just pure TDS from the activist bench.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:19 pm to Barstools
quote:
Wait? You think they need an actual reason? They will just make up bullshite like the last two times. This is such a loser mentality.
Hell, Al Green tried to file an impeachment against Trump before he'd even been in office for a month. You're right. Those bastards don't need a legitimate reason to go after Trump.
If they take back Congress impeachment papers will be filed in January of 2027. What's even more pathetic is that corrupt Republicans like John Thune will be happy about it.
America's #1 problem is our corrupt Political Establishment.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:37 pm to CarRamrod
quote:"Anyone capable” of addressing this would start by not switching categories mid-argument.
so what do you think about the gutting and reconstruction of the White House Truman did..... Yes he got congressional approval because he wanted them to find it... And they did. But they did not approve the Truman Balcony....which he private funded and built... Sooooo is this I'm different?
Truman gutting and rebuilding the White House is exactly the point, that was major structural work, so it went through Congress. That’s the category large construction belongs in.
The Truman Balcony actually proves the opposite of what you’re implying. It wasn’t part of the main reconstruction, it was a separate addition that went through design review and approval but did not require a standalone act of Congress. It was controversial, debated, and still ultimately handled within the normal administrative process.
Obama putting hoops and paint on an existing tennis court is not that category. Trump adding flagpoles and making changes to the Rose Garden isn’t that category either. Those are routine modifications to the grounds that every administration makes without congressional approval.
So no, it’s not the same, and you already know it’s not the same.
If you want to stay consistent, compare:
basketball court mod
flagpoles
Rose Garden
If you want to talk Truman, then you’re talking full reconstruction, which puts you in the same lane as something like a new ballroom, not a painted court.
Pick one category and stick to it.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:58 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:WTF are you talking about ......are you saying adding that balcony isn't structural? Well I would say it is... It is an addition. Just like then new ballroom. What design reviews are you referring to? Are you saying the new ball room didn't get designed or reviewed? Are you dumb? The balcony didn't need Congress because it wasn't publicly funded....neither does the ballroom.
The Truman Balcony actually proves the opposite of what you’re implying. It wasn’t part of the main reconstruction, it was a separate addition that went through design review and approval but did not require a standalone act of Congress. It was controversial, debated, and still ultimately handled within the normal administrative process.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 11:16 pm to CarRamrod
quote:You’re still mixing categories and then dodging the actual comparison.
WTF are you talking about ......are you saying adding that balcony isn't structural? Well I would say it is... It is an addition. Just like then new ballroom. What design reviews are you referring to? Are you saying the new ball room didn't get designed or reviewed? Are you dumb? The balcony didn't need Congress because it wasn't publicly funded....neither does the ballroom.
You're doing that because you're not capable of even understanding, much less engaging, the argument.
Yes, the Truman Balcony is structural. That’s not the issue. The issue is why it didn’t need a separate act of Congress, and the answer is simple: it was a smaller, discrete project handled within existing authority and funding, not a full reconstruction or a brand new standalone building requiring new appropriations. That’s exactly why Truman’s full gut renovation went through Congress, but the balcony itself didn’t. Same property, different scale, different category.
Which puts it in the same lane as:
Rose Garden changes
flagpole additions
and Obama’s basketball setup
All of those are modifications to an existing property handled under normal administrative authority. No one went to Congress for any of them, and no one expected them to.
Now here’s the part you keep avoiding:
Explain why Obama adding paint and hoops to an existing court is somehow a bigger or different category than Trump installing permanent flagpoles or modifying the Rose Garden.
You haven’t touched that comparison once, because you can’t. You aren't capable.
Instead you jumped to Truman’s full reconstruction and now a ballroom, which are clearly a different category of project entirely.
And honestly, I welcome the “are you dumb” shite on this board. For anyone reading along who isn’t a dumbass like yourself. it just makes it more obvious you’ve got nothing to say about the actual point.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 11:28 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:lol... Right out the gate with labels and name calling . Typical lib.
You're doing that because you're not capable of even understanding, much less engaging, the argument.
Why are you focusing on those 3 examples. Why could a swimming pool be built in 1933 with private donations....or a bowling alley in the 70s or a movie theater in the 40s. All of this has been done.....to this scale....maybe not but it doesn't put it in a different category. But continuing to focus on Obama and his basketball court is hilarious.
Please keep telling people they are incapable. It really focuses on your self righteousness.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 11:34 pm to CarRamrod
quote:Before I do my full response, you're aware you started with the personal attacks, or are you going to go with the pussy route and claim "are you dumb?" was just a question? Own your comments. Don't be a bitch.
lol... Right out the gate with labels and name calling . Typical lib.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 11:45 pm to CarRamrod
I’m focusing on the basketball court because that’s the claim being made in this thread. If you want to defend it, then defend it. Saying “why are you focusing on it” is just dodging the actual point (like a bitch).
Now to your examples.
Yes, the Truman Balcony is structural. That’s not the issue. The reason it didn’t need a separate act of Congress is because it was a smaller, discrete addition handled within existing authority and funding, not a full reconstruction or a brand new standalone building requiring new appropriations. That’s why the full White House gut job went through Congress, but the balcony itself didn’t. Same property, different scale, different category.
Which puts it in the same lane as:
Rose Garden changes
flagpole additions
and Obama’s basketball setup
All of those are routine modifications to existing property handled administratively. No one went to Congress for any of them.
Now here’s the part you keep dodging:
Explain why Obama adding paint and hoops to an existing court is somehow a bigger or different category than Trump installing permanent flagpoles or modifying the Rose Garden.
You haven’t addressed that once. You just keep jumping to bigger or unrelated examples to avoid it.
So again, either they’re all the same category, or you need to explain why Obama’s was somehow bigger than Trump’s.
eta- and he logs off. Shocker. Another dumbfrick maga politard completely incapable of defending the idiotic shite he says with total confidence. If the people I agreed with were so consistently bad at justifying or even articulating my position, I'd give a little thought to the question of why my position consistently aligns with the beliefs of retards, but I guess that's just me.
downvotes with no response:
Now to your examples.
Yes, the Truman Balcony is structural. That’s not the issue. The reason it didn’t need a separate act of Congress is because it was a smaller, discrete addition handled within existing authority and funding, not a full reconstruction or a brand new standalone building requiring new appropriations. That’s why the full White House gut job went through Congress, but the balcony itself didn’t. Same property, different scale, different category.
Which puts it in the same lane as:
Rose Garden changes
flagpole additions
and Obama’s basketball setup
All of those are routine modifications to existing property handled administratively. No one went to Congress for any of them.
Now here’s the part you keep dodging:
Explain why Obama adding paint and hoops to an existing court is somehow a bigger or different category than Trump installing permanent flagpoles or modifying the Rose Garden.
You haven’t addressed that once. You just keep jumping to bigger or unrelated examples to avoid it.
So again, either they’re all the same category, or you need to explain why Obama’s was somehow bigger than Trump’s.
eta- and he logs off. Shocker. Another dumbfrick maga politard completely incapable of defending the idiotic shite he says with total confidence. If the people I agreed with were so consistently bad at justifying or even articulating my position, I'd give a little thought to the question of why my position consistently aligns with the beliefs of retards, but I guess that's just me.
downvotes with no response:
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 1:01 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:41 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
Before I do my full response, you're aware you started with the personal attacks, or are you going to go with the pussy route and claim "are you dumb?" was just a question? Own your comments. Don't be a bitch.
fricking martyr, you have a posting history
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:26 am to BrianKellysbuyout
quote:
Thats what they want. That way they can impeach him and ignore judges when a Democrat is President again.
At some point when judges clearly are making personal political decisions and only pretending that they are following the law, they must be ignored.
If you don't then you will have fallen into their trap of a make believe legality.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:06 am to Ailsa
quote:
because no law “comes close” to giving Trump legal authority to build such a structure at the White House without authorization by Congress.
Is there a law that says he can't build it?
Seems that would be the most logical argument...if there is such a law.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:12 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
That won't hold up. I'm convinced many of these judges just live to be overturned on appeal.
This is the only method they have of resisting Trump. They think they're much more important than they are.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:05 am to loogaroo
Needs his arse beat.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:04 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
You’re still mixing categories
There are only two…
Privately funded
Publicly funded
The rest of your diatribe is arbitrary.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:44 am to lepdagod
Spent weeks making that chit up didn’t you?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:52 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
downvotes with no response:
quote:at 1am? haha loser.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 1:01 am
quote:Shoocker? it was 1130... yea i went to bed like a normal person.
eta- and he logs off. Shocker.
back to topic.
quote:funding.... THATS why it didnt need congress approval.... Who has the power of the purse... not much to do with scale... you can think of it in that reguard but tell me what limits him from doing it on a legal stand point... Ill wait..
Yes, the Truman Balcony is structural. That’s not the issue. The reason it didn’t need a separate act of Congress is because it was a smaller, discrete addition handled within existing authority and funding,
quote:and movie theaters and bowling allys and swiming pools....... and...... ballrooms....
Which puts it in the same lane as:
Rose Garden changes
flagpole additions
and Obama’s basketball setup
quote:what am i dodging? I dont care about basketball courts or flag poles..... im talking ballrooms, swimmingpools and movie theaters.
Now here’s the part you keep dodging:
Explain why Obama adding paint and hoops to an existing court is somehow a bigger or different category than Trump installing permanent flagpoles or modifying the Rose Garden.
quote:bigger.... I wonder why....... because the ballrooms scale is more like swimming pools and movie theaters than flagpoles and basketball lines. gosh you are a genius.
ou haven’t addressed that once. You just keep jumping to bigger or unrelated examples to avoid it.
quote:no i dont.... i never said obamas was bigger..... doofus.
So again, either they’re all the same category, or you need to explain why Obama’s was somehow bigger than Trump’s.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 4:09 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I’m focusing on the basketball court because that’s the claim being made in this thread. If you want to defend it, then defend it. Saying “why are you focusing on it” is just dodging the actual point (like a bitch).
Here is a problem as I see it:
The court is stating that it is "public land" and therefore every single thing needs congressional approval.
EVERY SINGLE THING!
My problem is congress only having the power of the purse so if they are not funding what purpose is it to decide?
Cant have it both ways. I also assume the design board approved this.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 4:24 pm to dafif
quote:
I also assume the design board approved this.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News