snafu

The three hairdos.

Sorry -- I took out the dominoes. They were making my eyes hurt! Sticking to China (and I hope you're right about the effects on Iran -- I don't see Russia's needle moving much with this, though). I just think that getting China on board in 15 months of this Presidency is unlikely. This is the "silk road" China who's pushing always into the Himalayas and India and even Pakistan. This China who's constantly complaining about their rights to the sea and building bases. This China who's trying to make colonies out of Australia and parts of Africa for their raw materials. This China who needs to feed and employ billions of people. They're going to let the U.S. come in and dictate what happens on the Korean Peninsula. I suppose my opinion is that the old paradigm won't die so easily. And if you're right that China is already on board then they have to have been given something really very big to agree.

I think it is a dog and pony show. I wonder how much Trump can accomplish without Congressional input, South Korean input, and Chinese input -- probably Japan, too (especially China and especially after he blasted China with steel and aluminum tariffs). Trump's got a long, loud history of making other countries "pay their fair share". I doubt he's going to concede to prop up the Kim regime solely at U.S. expense -- and if he does then he comes across as a hypocrite.

Maybe they are thinking that when there's a new stadium the demand will be higher and the policy will already have been in place for awhile?

N. Korea isn't the problem. China is the problem. This may end well short-term, but it will get ugly later on. Not ot only that, but Kim can't make agreements that China won't stand for.

Kooky conspiracy theory.

She never thought Trump would win, either, I guess.

First person I thought of is Derek Jeter. He could have taken some cues from Steinbrenner.

I'm not sure about anything else in this thread, but you kept the good piece for yourself, right?

Casting about for a catch?

Is it me or does that kid resemble a fish?

Happened with Grigorenko, too. And if they get Dahlen, people will want him up on day one (though he might be legit from what people say). I was all for patience when the actual tank went down. I shouldn't do this,but look at Vegas, who built a team with a bunch of middling castoffs. Eighth place would have been a big success. This team isn't even close and Rochester isn't providing a quick boost. The stupid decisions from the time between Regier and today is astounding.

I hope you're right, and I do like the emphasis on development. In any event, I've eliminated this minor concern from my mind, and someday I can be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong.

The worst drivers are generally located inside EITHER: Jeep Grand Cherokees OR: Rideshare cars, whatever make or model.

I'm not nervous because I gave up on him already.

Obviously.

Sure, Bernie drew huge crowds of people who like free stuff. Bernie is lucky he got as far as he did because he was able to stop his campaign before he had to explain how any of his agenda was going to work. I still estimate Bernie to be a below standard candidate. And the difference between the Democratic Committee and the Republican Committee in the primaries was that the R's made a promise to run with Trump (if he won the primaries) if he made a promise not to run as a third party candidate (if he lost the primaries). The R's severely underestimated Trump and by the time they figured that out, it was too late. On the other hand, the D's used super delegates, a fawning press corps and rigged tactics to prop up their pre-chosen candidate -- how nice. Bernie, in response, scowled through the D convention, and then after the election he joined the Democratic leadership! What a sellout, phoney-baloney move. He might win the nomination by becoming an insider (or the next chosen one), but he won't ever get to the White House.

All she probably had to do was go to Wisconsin once or twice.

Im curious to know which one of these state's witnesses is most important to prove what you think there is to prove - and why. I could use some convincing.

Actually, no. It wasn't a good joke. It was a mildly humorous add-on line to punctuate a conversation. Humor isn't your strong suit, is it?

I guess they just haven't programmed humor into your protocols yet, huh?

"I'll take 'crappin on harmless posts' for $400, Alex."

I really don't lean one way or another with this matter. I see that there are arguments to be made both ways. Sounds like a cop-out, maybe it is. I just want to put these three Thomas Jefferson quotes out there. I get that you quoted Jefferson to make the point that the Constitution was meant to grow and evolve with changing times. But there's a couple things you also need to note: (1) there's a process for changing the Constitution, and I don't think people on your side of this argument have enough votes to get any amendment to the constitution passed which will abridge gun ownership. (2) The Second Amendment was protection against a standing army -- which Jefferson hated the idea of. At the time that the Constitution was drafted, the US didn't have a standing army. So you can say that the Second Amendment was already included to change with the times. Here are the three quotes. Sorry I didn't give attribution to them. Lazy, I suppose: “There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation, and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors, that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot, but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.” “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.” “I will now add what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations.”

I'd rather go for whatever's behind curtain #2.

HaHa -- DR is two steps ahead of you, troll. He moved on from "Ya but Clinton" to "Ya but Brennan", and now he's on to "Ya but Obama". ...and he's looking more and more correct. Time will tell, and even someone with subnormal intelligence can see it coming.