Buffalo_Gal

He represents the highest bidder. And that ain't the American taxpayer or the average citizen of NYS. ?

She was lovely. Even now I'd love to know who her plastic surgeon is and who does her makeup. The only thing that makes me scratch my head about her appearance - which is old lady with lots of money (not a bad look at all) - is her dentures always seem to have issues.

I agree. He could discuss rationally and we could agree to disagree. I have no idea what happened to him.

Since the snowflake democrats cried about #orangemanbad

It becomes very difficult to discuss things with you when all you do is spout hyperbole (and use WaPo and NYT "fact checking"). Again, read the source documents. There are stats out there on illegals. You may have to dig for them, but they are out there on various government sites.

And now we wait for the MSM and D talking points (BIRM)

I can't watch Shep. I am done. I think President Trump did very well.

You don't hate the people on the outside, you love the people on the inside.

To the point. He is doing well. Drugs, human trafficking hit.

How much are the deductions? If you have $1m and have $0 in deductions, $300k is correct at a straight 30% rate (i.e. 30% on the first dollar to the last dollar). But if you have $500k in deductions you would pay the rate of tax on the remaining $500k (so $150k if it is still 30%). The deductions are key, and so is if there is a gradual tax rate or a tax rate that is the same first dollar to last dollar. As far as what raises more money? No idea.

This is the kind of information they redact: Issues and communications related to Ukrainian political events simply were not at the forefront of Mr. Manafort’s mind during the period at issue and it is not surprising at all that Mr. Manafort was unable to recall specific details prior to having his recollection refreshed. ? Are they just redacting simply to redact? To make things look sooper-seekret? To give the illusion that the crimes are graver than they really are?

Fairness, now there is a slippery slope. What is "fair"? What is "right"? What is "moral" and "just"? Those questions are the ponderance of philosophers and great legal minds - of which I am neither. (For what it is worth I am of the "if it doesn't hurt you (generic you), it should be legal" school of thought while recognizing that isn't always possible.)

If you are speaking of "human rights" they are based on the moral code of the day. However, I am speaking to "civil rights" which are fought for, earned, and can indeed be taken away or further expanded and granted.

That is a good question. And for me, it is earned... by blood in war and arguments in court.

If women have always had those rights, civilization and Roman law (full-citizen or not) and English law and (well, you get the idea) missed the memo. If you are speaking to the United States specifically, again women and blacks and even most men did not have those rights. Free white men who were property owners had them, but the rest of the people were pretty SOL. I guess everyone has come a long way! And I would hate to see the "civilized world" devolve.

What if you do not believe in a creator?

I must have missed the right to vote as always being there. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy) I must have missed the right to own property thing as always being there. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy) I must have missed the right for women to always be their own person. Link (yeah it is wiki, but it is fast and easy) Now if you mean me personally due to my age, yes, you are correct. But if you go back 100+ years? Not-so-much. I do not agree that "the rights were always there" as that is untrue for all men and women. At some point, those rights we take for granted today were "fought" for - whether by war or by argument (and it may have been longer than 100 years ago, it may have been 1000 years ago or 5000 years ago). And as you can see by some of the links above, some of those rights were indeed removed for women after being earned. I stand by my assertation that women have come a long way vis-à-vis rights, laws, and protections the last 100+ years in the United States. And I have no desire to go back to prior to that, nevermind live according to a religious law that predates the middle ages.

1) "merely accuse" - I do not think you followed my posts in the Kavanaugh thread. This lynching by social media needs to stop. 2) I am definitely pro-choice - and hope for every woman's sake she never has to make that choice. 3) I gave up alimony so I could get rid of my ex-husband faster. And yes, I think it is a good thing that women no longer have to stay in abusive relationships or stay in relationships where the husband cheats (boys will be boys!), and that she has a right to have primary custody of her children is the court decides she should. Better than the past when women were considered "property" could be beaten at will, and if her husband brought suit for divorce, she never saw her children again. But sure, all women in the United States have the same, homogeneous views - just as all men do. {insert huge sarcasm tag}

Well, I'd prefer not to give back the rights women have earned and been awarded the last 100+ years in the United States. I'd like to continue to vote, own a business, own property, not be subjugated to the whims of my husband/father/brother. I like going out in public alone. I'd prefer not to be stoned to death by mob-rule. I'd like to not have to worry about being raped as "repayment" for a crime against someone else's family. I am sure there are more but as a final thought... I have beautiful hair. Simply glorious (if I do say so myself). I'd like to share that beauty with the world and not have to cover my damn head because some religion says so. We've come a long way, baby.

Mexican Minister Talks About Securing Her Own Country's Southern Border, to Ensure ‘Legal and Orderly’ Entry <snip> As part of the new government’s migration policy, she said, anyone wanting to enter Mexico would have to provide information including reason for entry, biometric data, and an identity document. “Those who refuse to provide identity or biometric data will not be able to enter Mexican territory.” </snip>

Video at the link. I'm not sure I'd trust Lindsey Graham's newly fused spine, but we shall see. Lindsey Graham on Border Wall: "We’re not going to give in to this radical left, ever" "I’m not gonna negotiate with someone who calls the border patrol agents a bunch of Nazis when they’re trying to defend the border against a mob."

We have used VRBO (US and Europe), not Airbnb. We won't sign up with Airbnb because they want far too much information. I get why - heck, if I lived there and it was a room where I was in residence, I would too - but no. With VRBO we have stayed in houses (the whole house) and apartments (the entire apartment) without any other person staying there with us or seeing us. We've had to pick up keys at rental offices though, and also had rental agents meet us at the property. And, we have had access to a rental agent in case something broke or something went wrong (which happened once). VRBO for Asia .

OK, so this is the 2018 chart. It says 2.6% link The 2019 links say 2.6% too. Here is the pay history. The military times article said there is a minimum pay raise per year. Looks like President Trump should fire the staff member that gave him that incorrect figure (would that be enough for you?)

WTF is the headbang emoji!?