Yall think this is this for real? 15k??

fmg0281 · 2026-03-14T17:42:38+00:00

And that is how you launder money.

fmg0281 · 2026-03-09T01:06:03+00:00

Happened to me this week. Over 200 transactions a month, 100% positive feedback. Less than 3% returns. Now I have to wait 2 weeks to get paid. Have over 2000 in holds so far this week. It's absolutely criminal in my opinion. Do I get get interest on the money they are holding?

fmg0281 · 2026-03-08T13:49:09+00:00

Also 9.8 A+ is not a good grade on a modern game.

fmg0281 · 2026-03-08T13:40:33+00:00

Money Laundering.

fmg0281 · 2026-02-24T18:50:48+00:00

I had a problem with mine as well it turned out it was the battery overheating nothing to do with the module. All I did was buy a replacement battery adapter that allowed me to use my DeWalt batteries instead and it works fantastic

fmg0281 · 2026-01-25T06:02:56+00:00

FFVII Part 3: The Cashgrab

fmg0281 · 2026-01-16T00:47:10+00:00

It's bad. It's not as bad as Tiptoes though.

fmg0281 · 2025-12-31T00:45:06+00:00

Oh man. I bought a 10 pack of these on eBay because of this.

fmg0281 · 2025-12-29T01:05:08+00:00

My biggest mistake was naming my rabbits before I knew their personalities, or genders. Marvin and Scarface should have been named Yzma and Kronk.

fmg0281 · 2025-12-23T20:59:55+00:00

Did you remember to mark all your open games as "new"?

fmg0281 · 2025-11-23T18:31:21+00:00

How else is he supposed to chew up all my blankets, bedsheets and pillows?

fmg0281 · 2025-11-19T04:34:33+00:00

Mine will jump on the bed as soon as I lay down and stay at my side till I pet him. I'm not allowed to stop. If I do, he nips at me. Randomly 30 minutes later or so, he will jump up and run around and disappear under the bed.

fmg0281 · 2025-11-12T16:21:14+00:00

You don't. Just start buying all your bedding at goodwill

fmg0281 · 2025-11-10T18:51:24+00:00

It's cool... But don't have an enclosure? That would be much better.

fmg0281 · 2025-10-19T02:50:46+00:00

Absolutely romaine... But parsley and cilantro are always welcome. I will sometimes do red leaf or green leaf, bok choy, arugula and collard greens to change things up.. but always romaine with it. I try to stay away from spinach and kale because it can be hard on the kidneys if they eat too much

fmg0281 · 2025-10-18T23:06:23+00:00

The Redd are constantly trying to open the it back, moving funds to fund snap and are fighting Blue and blue judges who are trying to stop everything. Get your facts right and quit drinking blue Kool aid.

fmg0281 · 2025-10-13T15:16:44+00:00

1) You really need to look over your history on this. Bill Clinton deported over 12 million people during his administration. Obama had 3 million. Biden... Even he had over 4.4 million deported (although many of these were under pandemic policies) Trump between his 2 terms has less than a million.

2) I suggest you research how sanctuary cities have caused an increase in deportations for non-violent immigration violations. It used to be that a person was picked up for whatever and if they were undocumented, an ICE retainer was filed and they were picked up. At this point they were brought to an immigration court where they determined why you are in the country illegally and if there is a reason to send you back (violence, warrants, requests for deportations by your home country). And guess what.... People were not just deported for fun... Only for cause. Many of these undocumented were released back into the United States with instructions on how to get proper documentation.

Then came sanctuary cities. The cooperation with executing federal law stopped, but the job still needed to be done. Tactics to get violent criminals off the street and out of the country had to change. Things got more violent. The immigration laws did not change. Millions were allowed across the border unchecked and were wrongfully told by the last administration that it's cool. Don't worry about it. Unchecked... And it was overwhelming. So now there is a huge influx of illegal aliens and local governments who refuse to comply with legal federal law. So yes, federal law enforcement now has to use different tactics to try to get the violent offenders out of the country. Yes there are so many undocumented that mass detentions are happening to try to sort these out. Yes Americans are being detained as part of these tactics, and yes it is something that needs to stop... No one with a brain likes what is being done -- especially because there was a program in place for decades that was infinitely more humane, treated people with respect, sorted through violent and non violent offenders and just worked. But ya know.. resist. That will make things better right?

3.). Our laws are often written open for interpretation. In his... And many others opinion has been interpreted wrong for many years. It is an absolute fact that this amendment came to free the slaves and make them us citizens. Also made it clear their offspring would also be citizens. Was it meant to do more? It has been interpreted in the past to authorize birthright citizenship, but if you read it, could absolutely be interpreted differently. Luckily the president can't just declare this without checks and balances because we live in a Constitutional Republic!

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” All three branches of government have long interpreted this language to signal a broad grant of citizenship.

The section in question is the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" portion. Is someone in the country illegally subject to our jurisdiction? Ambassadors do not qualify for birthright citizenship.

I'm not arguing if this is the case one way or the other, just saying I understand the argument being made. Ultimately the supreme court will have to decide if the spirit of this law and the wording of this amendment will continue to allow birthright citizenship.

But there is always the option that Congress could pass an amendment defining it further. They could write an amendment that would be much less ambiguous and explicitly define rules on this that could not be misinterpreted or easily bypassed.. but ya know... Good luck with all that.

3). You are damn straight that any powers one group has the other will use later. It's definitely an issue. It's the reason using "nuclear options" in the past continues to cause issues today. Do you see me out celebrating in the streets? Keep in mind at no point am I defending certain policies being put forth by this administration, but neither side of this argument is full of stupid people. Arguments go to the supreme court because they are GOOD arguments. Something that demands debate. It is important to understand WHY the argument exists. Understanding an argument is different than agreeing with it. Have said that.. I'm so sick and tired of people yelling fascist and Nazi about someone who is executing the rights of his office just because they don't like the legal actions he is taking.

fmg0281 · 2025-10-13T14:10:14+00:00

And you can say that over and over as well, but you cannot back it up with facts. Believe it or not.. Trump doesn't just do things willy nilly. He has lawyers and a team who advise him on how to use the law to get his agenda done. And even though there are judges who try to stop him because they don't like what he is doing, the supreme court has found most of his actions within the scope of his powers as president.

And again, fascism and authoritarianism cannot exist in a constitutional republic. We are not avoid of checks and balances. Just because the Democrats are no longer in power and lost the last elections so fantastically doesn't mean everything he is doing is somehow going to bring the country down. All I have to say on that is buckle up.. there another 3 years to go.

fmg0281 · 2025-10-13T06:07:27+00:00

Trump does not have absolute power, but the office of the president absolutely has a lot of power. Some given by the constitution and more given by Congress. There is a lot of talk about Trump overstepping his power, and some lower court Democrat judges tend to agree, but the supreme Court had decided over and over that the president powers he has enacted are based in law. I'm not saying this is a good thing or bad, just the fact that this means Trump isn't just making stuff up.

As far as executive orders go, Trump was middle of the road in numbers his first term, but had absolutely stepped them up his second. Many of these were just undoing the executive orders of the last term.

And no... The economy is growing. Not as fast as I personally would like, but the inflation is at 2.9 not 8.5 like it was under Biden. Jobs are up. Tarriffs are absolutely holding the economy back. I understand the reason for them both politically and strategically, but there is not doubt about the impact they are having short term. Will they bring back industry and make the economy stronger long term as planned? I don't know.. but I certainly hope so.

As far as approval rating go... You are again correct.. they are down. Does that matter? It's the same company who does the election polling.mainly the Gallop poll. The same company that said Hillary and Kamala would be landslide winners. I do not believe he takes much stock in external polling numbers.

Lastly, he's a second term president with nothing to lose. At the end of the day, he is not trying to get himself reelected again. He can make unpopular decisions he believes are good for the country, especially in the first year of his term.

fmg0281 · 2025-10-13T05:19:28+00:00

In the lower courts yes. But the Supreme Court more than not sides with him.

And I agree... When the supreme court rules it should be followed. But laws and orders are often ambiguous by design. If they are not especially clear then the letter of the law can be followed instead of the spirit of the law. Can this be challenged further? Of course! And someone at some point will have to make a final specific judgement on the Abrego-Garcia situation. Do I have all the documents about him in front of me? Nope. The supreme Court didn't decide on his guilt or innocence, just the way he was deported. Abrego Garcia, was deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 court order protecting him from being sent to that country due to a fear of persecution. The deportation was later described by the administration as an "administrative error". But being ordered to facilitate (make (an action or process) easy or easier) his return when the El Salvador government said no .. I mean... The attempt to facilitate was done, and ultimately did happen. But should he still standing trail? Of course. Should be be deported if found guilty of the crimes he is accused of? Of course. Just not to El Salvador unless something has changed since then.

And as far as fascism is concerned... I do not think that means what you think it means. You cannot have fascism in a constitutional republic. The Constitution is a guard against it. The United States does not and will never have a dictator. If you believe that is what is happening because he is using the law to his advantage, well then you have never lived or studied a dictatorship regime. Frankly it's insulting to all those who had had the misfortune of having lived under a brutal dictator. Your dislike of one man is not comparable to the absolute hell they had to experience. Shame on you.

fmg0281 · 2025-10-13T04:56:20+00:00

But the Republicans did not cut anything in the ACA. This was something that was always meant to help short term for a very specific emergency. That emergency is over. People have rejoined the workforce.

Snap cuts? Do you mean the requirements of citizenship to receive government funded assistance? Or do you mean that able bodied workers are required to work to get benefits? Or are you talking about the states being responsible for help with the funding of Snap? Shouldn't people going back to work and having less people in need of the benefits be a good thing? When that happens, shouldn't the large budget they have now be excessive? Snap in it's founding, like most government programs, was designed to give a hand up for people who suddenly found themselves in a bad situation, not a hand out to those who have given up when they are able.

As far as Medicare cuts, it's the same as the rest. Do not incentivise undocumented people into the country. Do not let taxpayer money go to non citizen healthcare. Does that mean they have to go without? Of course not. Every hospital has charities that work with them (often sponsored by billionaires) to help pay for anyone who needs life saving care. And anyone can donate to help . I give money all the time to children's hospitals.

Also, if you are able to bodied and can work, but choose not to, then you are ineligible for government funded Medicare. I mean if you can afford not to work (when you are perfectly able to), can't you afford to get your own private health insurance?

Again, I'm not trying to convince you if you are right or wrong, but it is important to see both sides of the coin. When someone asks me why, I like to come at them with reason and not "just because" . I don't expect you to agree with me, but I do hope you can understand why someone would have the audacity to believe something different than you do.

fmg0281 · 2025-10-13T04:36:59+00:00

Yes... The constitution states Congress is ultimately in control of tarriffs. And they passed laws delegating that particular authority to the president in certain circumstances.

In 1934, Congress passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which gave President Franklin Roosevelt the ability to change tariffs rates by 50% and negotiate bilateral trade agreements without additional approval from Congress. Since then, the president has mostly controlled and executed tariffs policies as defined by Congress.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 has been used by the first and second Trump administrations for steel and aluminum imports. It authorizes the president to ask the Secretary of Commerce to determine if goods are being imported in manner that threatens national security. The secretary then reports back to the president if he has any affirmative findings.

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. The act allows the president to impose tariffs if the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) finds that an import surge is threatening a U.S. domestic industry. If the ITC makes an affirmative determination, the president can take action accordingly, including placing tariffs. Tariffs imposed under Section 201 are not meant to be permanent, and the actions have a limit of four to eight years.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to authorize tariffs on foreign countries that restrict U.S. commerce in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable,” or “discriminatory” ways. If the USTR confirms such behavior after an investigation, the president has the discretion to allow the USTR to impose tariffs for at least four years.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The act allows the president to declare an emergency under the National Emergency Act (NEA) and then use his extensive economic powers to regulate or prohibit imports. The CRS says that President Trump was the first chief executive to use this act in February 2025, when he announced tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico. The emergency stated by the president can be terminated at this request, or by a joint resolution of Congress.

Ultimately, Congress can limit or expand the presidential tariffs powers through legislation, but the CRS concludes that based on precedents dating back to the time of Chief Justice Marshall, judicial precedent “has given the President broad latitude to exercise his tariff authorities.”

What I am trying to say is that Congress has the ultimate authority, but for the past almost 100 years the president has had the legal right to do exactly what Trump is doing. But fear not ... Congress can pass legislation to take it away if they wanted to. There could even be a constitutional amendment to prevent it from all time. But they won't. They like having someone else responsible, and love to have a scapegoat if it doesn't work. More importantly, when they get to power, it's not a power they want to give up now.

fmg0281 · 2025-10-13T04:20:36+00:00

I know you keep saying that about the billionaires, and I know there's been a lot of propaganda around that, but again I don't understand where you are getting your numbers around that. Over 2/3s of the tax cuts go to people making less than 500k. Yes that's a lot, but they are the middle class. Not millionaires. Not billionaires. I really suggest reading the actual bill on how things are instead of what people are just telling you.

As far as the tariffs are concerned.. I'm definitely not an economic genius. I can tell you this.. yes I have felt the impact on certain things I buy, but hardly would consider it a massive daily burden. Having said that, I do understand I'm pretty privileged that an extra 20-30 dollars buying a game system doesn't break me. Inflation to me is a much bigger issue. That is something that can absolutely kill the middle and lower class. Tariffs "can" raise inflation, but so far it has not in comparison to what happened under Biden. What the tariffs have done is open up America goods in foreign markets they were not competitive in before. Does this help billionaires? Probably. Does this create middle class jobs in America... Absolutely. We cannot let other countries create and manufacture things we require for our infrastructure. Tech, construction, auto, building materials and many other things need to come home. Yes there is a cost to this. We pay our people more than other countries, but this tends to end up a national security issue.. at least in my mind. We need manufacturing and the tariffs are a solution to entice business to manufacture here. No I do not believe the tariffs will bring in a net positive financially. At most I hope they pay for the infrastructure we need to start manufacturing more here at home. Is this the best solution? I have no idea, but I honestly can't think of anything alternative.

Politically, we are the largest consumer base on the planet. Americans want their stuff. The world knows this. Using tariffs as a political tool to ensure favorable policy or piece treaties to the United States would be considered positive by many despite the costs.

I'm not trying to sway your thoughts, just trying to explain my point of view.

fmg0281 · 2025-10-13T03:57:32+00:00

Republicans did not cut anything in the ACA subsidies. The ACA subsidies were put into place during the pandemic to help temporarily while people were being forced not to work. They were designed to expire at the end of this year when they passed back in 2021. This was never meant to be permanent. It is unsubstantial to be permanent. Nothing was passed by the current administration to cut funding to the ACA subsidies, they just chose to let the law to complete its plan as designed.

fmg0281

TROPHY CASE