snafu

So, ethnic cleansing and/or using race as a motive in moving residents out of a particular area is dependent on population density? Lots of land populated by few farmers is okay to take, but gunning down thousands in a city is bad?

Like scooter Rizzuto used to do when he saw traffic building up on the GW Bridge.

I'm squinting into my phone (with no sound) and it looks like Allen put together a nice drive there. Murphy made up for a drop with two sweet runs.

Was it a video conference? Did she not have an emergency trash can in her office? Where's the creative thinking on Linda's part? To me, that's her failure. She could have made it through. She needs to be told to keep an extra roll of t.p. in the bottom drawer of her desk.

They know. It isn't under the MSM radar. They just refuse to report it unless they have to. It would have been if all those people weren't fired. Dude, I'm sure she's "trained" to "do things".

I'm trying to figure out if it was a soft coup or a systemwide cya ("****, we lost and now we're !@#$ed!"). I buy both at this point.

I'm no hunter, but that seems like the frikkin easiest way to shoot them. Just roll up in a boat and knock one in the head.

I can sing Carbona from the top of my head. ?

I see that side, I do. On the other hand, I'm just seeing a Pandora's Box. I don't trust politicians (or their supporters) to maintain the 2016 campaign in its own capsule. I think (again, this is just my opinion) that is is better to shed sunlight on it and let the public decide at the polls. I think the voting public is honest enough to figure out who to keep out of office, and I think that if the recrimination/reprisal cycle gets too bad, then the only candidates we will ever have will make Clinton/Trump look like a good choice/ comparatively speaking. And that's the most hopeful outcome. It could get much worse. Or let me put it another way: sometimes, you've got to eat **** to keep the peace.

Actually, I agree with this, but my opinion is that we will EXACTLY be doing this forever until one political side eviscerates the other.

I am saying that this politically motivated, high level, highly public use/abuse of the judicial system needs to be checked before it spirals out of control. Because (looking into the future a bit) our country is going to have a repeating cycle of political nastiness that we haven't seen before in our lifetimes. People are already extremely polarized and things won't get less volatile unless quite a bit of restraint is self-imposed. The match that sets off the powderkeg will be an economic downturn like 2008. This part of my post: "Public opinion and voting results would be a better way of handling the reaction to the dirt of the 2016 campaign" (a political solution to a political problem) is the better way of outing -- and ousting -- whatever elements have tainted the system. Pretty simple to me. Perhaps I could be a bit more clear.

Politically-motivated retaliatory prosecutions isn't a good look for anyone, even if they are well deserved. It is ironic that if Trump had lost, there probably would be no persecution of his campaign efforts. There also wouldn't be any light shed on the shenanigans of the prior administration and Hillary's campaign efforts. In my opinion, nobody ought to have the stomach to prosecute the more obvious illegal activity. Public opinion and voting results would be a better way of handling the reaction to the dirt of the 2016 campaign -- even with what appears to be a mostly biased press tamping down information. I would also argue that if Trump's administration goes forward with criminal charges against people high enough in Obama's administration, and/or Hillary, and/or the DNC, then he legitimizes any accusation they've made against him as an authoritarian despot. I can also see a future of never-ending accusations and lawsuits by winners against losers, all with only political motivations. People need to tread lightly. Political systems don't take well to "jump conditions".

I can't say that I have a top 5, and the list would have changed over the years, but these are what I've listened to the most: Ramones -- Leave Home Elvis Costello & The Attractions -- My Aim is True The Clash -- Sandinista Rolling Stones -- Let it Bleed The Cramps -- Songs The Lord Taught Us

It is the new enigma.

Supercilious, but not approaching anal orifice status. Are you in a good mood?

Haha, look at that photo. Winds aloft and alow!

I know. I was a Steak. In Salisbury. I knew it going in. I took one for the team.

Just for you I had a steak in Salisbury tonight. I took a photo of the Henry Fawcett Statue and my plate of food, but I can't attach the photos because of data limits here. BTW, the steak sucked. God bless American food quality.

Update: Disappointment!! I was on both sides of London Bridge today, and I was in that park where the Goldblum statue was supposed to be. He was a no show!! Effin Goldblum owes me one.

Gonna be in Salisbury, too, dodging nerve agent residue.

Im going to be right near there in a couple days! I may need to take a photo and post it here.

You used "treason" and "traitor" repeatedly and didn't back up your accusations with any objective fact, though you were asked and asked again by several people on this thread. It is a heavy assertion. If you're going to call the President a traitor then back it up or shut up. If you prove it to me then I will stand beside you. But if you can't, then don't call anyone here a Trump sycophant. You even cited the federal code provision to underscore your accusation. Trump's ass kissing was unsightly and stupid, yes, but it wasn't treasonous. ...and looking at what Trump does through any single lens is not wise -- why would I want to do that? Why would anyone do that other than to confirm a bias?

You didn't answer my question. It's okay. You don't have to if you don't want to.

Resembles Boston's album cover https://goo.gl/images/Kr6foa

I'm a day behind on this thread. What did Trump do (NOT say, but DO) that would make his meeting and press conference with Putin "traitorous"? Nobody knows what they actually discussed. There's no overt change in anything the US Government is doing right now. I'm just trying to get a handle on this. And, btw, I don't watch Fox News. When I listen to what Trum said and hear the descriptions of what he said in news outlets I've heard since then (CBS, NPR, BBC) the two don't align, at all. Edit: I see on page 21 you cited 18 U.S. Code § 2381. I think, if memory serves, you need one more person to lay the charge at the President's feet, so he can be tried and put to death. I'm sure you can find someone. You'll be considered a hero of our Country.