snafu

I’ve wondered whether the Stones would have developed they way they did if he hadn’t died. My addition to the thread: Bonn Scott (AC/DC).

Me too, unless it was a team I actively root for. Eff everyone else.

I say don't retire anything until you show me the baby.

https://images.app.goo.gl/2EAvTW3CoTULJ82x9

I ugree.

Better yet, Vanity Fair quoting NYT. The only question is whether they don’t want Biden running because he’s too centrist, or because he’s going to blow it against Trump. It can’t be because they want to get this story out of the way early, in ofder to move past it.

If only there was something they could have done in 2001 with that budget surplus. Like a box to lock the money in or something. Or too bad someone didn’t have the idea of personal accounts for individuals to privately contribute into. Hmmmmm.

The CF would still be going strong. There’d be zero investigations of it, just mutterings about it from people like me. If she had won, even if the Russians tried to use CF against her, their credibility would have been shot because they conspired to keep her out of office. Again, my opinion, but her comments about Trump not accepting the outcome is a motivator for her to hold up collusion as justification to counter what she thought was going to be Trump’s reaction to losing. Also, I don’t think she was going to let bygones be bygones. Not after all her dirty laundry got aired by the Russians — whether it was them or not. This has nothing to do with deep state. This is shallow state.

Not “not”, and. Because they wanted to catch Russians and who they believed the Russians were working with. And in doing so, spied on Trump’s campaign. Furthermore, IMO it wouldn’t have ended if Clinton won. She would have, IMO, kept the investigation going and prosecuted anyone she could have laid her hands on.

Just got a cut today. $16. Gave the guy $20.

I dunno. People aren’t stupid as much as distracted/lazy. If it doesn’t have a direct impact on their life, most time people want to have someone else do their thinking for them. They trust their usual information outlet and don’t want to be moved from believing what they’re told, because frankly they don’t care that much. Maybe it is stupid to allow others to the thinking, but people who are informed aren’t necessarily stupid.

https://www.apnews.com/fb6fc86cf2624f9aaf68837d1d0a220d NKorea shoots “projectiles” (waives hands, says we’re still here). President says there’s still a deal to be had.

Washington, D.C. No rules, no bottom line, and no deadlines. Edit: and no accountability.

Here, I googled UCC 1-308. Moron logic follows in the link... https://www.sicknesshope.com/node/610

I think he gives out the idiot flavor for free.

Sour and extra sour?

Weird trying to quote your post. I hope you're not infecting my computer. The idea of focusing on Trump's record can easily be turned around by responding that his record would likely be a helluva lot different if he wasn't de-legitimized for the past 2.5 years. It wasn't only liberal scum out to get him, it was mostly everyone, and he still got some things accomplished. You can't easily separate Trump's accomplishments from the fact that there's been an all-consuming distraction since his election.

Here’s a completely undeveloped idea: give the “wealthy” a tax cut that’s conditioned on them pledging 80% of their tax savings to fund entitlements. Everybody wins!

He said more after “no I don’t”. Motive does matter, by the way. Can you or anyone else say that Barr was answering in a way that would lead a fact-finder down the wrong road in order to hide the truth? Please stop bringing Trump into everything. Lying and hedging by witnesses have been around a lot longer than he has.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/fica-social-security-tax-2019.aspx I think you may be mistaken. These things aren’t really tied together.

Oh please...you could have written this during Reagan or Bush I or Bush Jr. (or Carter, Clinton and Obama).

^^^^^^^^^^ Not only will the issue of lying to Congress come down on Barr’s side (it will never get that far) the whole issue is transparent manufactured outrage. It has a chilling effect on witnesses, and it cheapens the goal of looking for truth. Who’d want to come before Congress to answer questions if they’re going to parse every phrase of answers they don’t want to hear. Congress shouldn’t be in the business of setting traps for witnesses at all. Not ever. And @plenzmd1 The fact that Barr’s letter says what the executive summaries said in fewer words makes the Mueller letter come across as whining. What was Barr’s motivation for lying? Was it to downplay the SC team’s reaction to Barr’s initial letter? Was it to cover up his intentional mischaracterization of the report’s conclusions? If those are the reasons, then this is all b.s. since the executive summaries were released as part of the report a week later. I haven’t heard any other explanations for Barr’s motivation in answering the way he did. Barr said it himself — once Mueller made his report, his job was done. Whining or complaining about what Barr does with the report is exactly just that. I’m not trying to get into why Barr answered that Q on 4/9, but sounds like to me he was talking like a guy who (a) didn’t give a rats ass about Mueller’s letter, and (b) knew that the summaries were in the report already.

I bet if they took a photo of Cohen's nameplate, it would have figurines of a dog and a pony on it.

Of all the transcripts Doug Collins released, hers absolutely struck me as the most evasive and squirrely.

Holy *****. Hillary has got to let it go. She won’t accept the results of the election.