grinreaper

Wrong thread. Hijackers are frowned upon here.

I pointed out a specific misdeed by Obama in which he gained significant monetary benefit, in an underhanded way, in a deal with a criminal. To answer your question, I don't know if he was the last one but "Honest Abe" comes to mind

The first missiles launched circled the launching area so that they could synch up with the later missiles. They all hit their targets within a 2-3 minute period.

Not at all. I give Tom the respect he deserves, just like I give you the respect you deserve.

In her own words: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-explains-why-she-really-lost-to-trump/ar-BBzvnN0?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15 Almost four months after her stunning defeat, Hillary Clinton on Thursday primarily blamed her loss to President Donald Trump on four factors that were beyond her control. The former Democratic presidential candidate cited Russian meddling in the election, FBI Director James Comey's involvement toward the end of the race, WikiLeaks theft of emails from her campaign chairman, and misogyny. Clinton's comments came during her first post-election interview at Tina Brown's eighth annual Women in the World Summit in New York City. She was questioned by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times. She largely cited these factors for her defeat: - Russia. "A foreign power meddled with our election," she said, labeling it "an act of aggression." She called for an independent, bipartisan investigation into the Kremlin's involvement and said the probe should examine whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign. - Misogyny. "Certainly, misogyny played a role. That has to be admitted," she said. Clinton added that "some people — women included — had real problems" with the idea of a woman president. - Comey. Clinton cited as damaging to her campaign his unusual decision to release of a letter on October 28, less than two weeks before Election Day, that said he was looking at additional emails related to the FBI probe of the former secretary of state's use of a private server. - WikiLeaks. Weeks of disclosures of stolen emails from the personal account of then-Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, were particularly harmful, Clinton said, adding that it "played a much bigger role than I think many people yet understand." She said the combination of Comey's actions and the WikiLeaks' revelations "had the determinative effect."

I noticed the same thing. I've been watching MSNBC, CNN and FNC and it seemed as if they actually tried to be journalists.

I guess Trump took Obama's red line seriously even though Obama didn't.

Do you have any sense of how this came about?

That's not nearly enough. Rex alone is more than that.

It's disingenuous to say that it would be taken away. How many of that 24 million would voluntarily choose to not have insurance?

Who asked about you?

Well, if you aren't paying, who is?

The name on that should be the Harry Reid Memorial Option.

From CNN to MSNBC to the LA Times and most especially the New York Times…Everyone in the Democratic Party and their allies in the media thought it was a great idea to use Harry Reid’s “nuclear option” as a means to confirm liberal Supreme Court Justices…until now. Mitch McConnell warned the Democrats that their “nuclear option” would come back to bite them, but they didn’t listen. Hey Dems…can you hear us now? With Senate Republicans poised to use the “nuclear option” to confirm Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, will the liberal media hypocritically accuse them of a power grab? In 2013, when then-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did basically the same thing, he was cheered on in the studios of MSNBC and CNN. Back then MSNBC’s Chris Hayes hailed it as “an affirmative win for democracy,” while his colleague Rachel Maddow blurted “This is a huge freaking deal. This is like 3-inch headlines. This is like people who don’t even care about politics really ought to care about this.” Over on CNN, political analyst Paul Begala hailed the nakedly partisan maneuver by Reid as necessary, whining that Republicans had “so abused” the filibuster that Democrats “can’t take it anymore.” And Begala’s colleague Ron Brownstein approved of Reid’s decision as a forward-thinking move: “The idea of requiring a super majority for the president to appoint his nominees just is anachronistic.” But the cable network news hosts and analysts weren’t the only ones championing the nuclear option. On the pages of the Los Angeles Times, Reid’s move was celebrated in a November 22 editorial “Democrats bust the filibuster, and good for them.” The Times editorial board crowed: “We welcome this action not because it represents a comeuppance for arrogant Republicans but because filibustering presidential nominees is undemocratic and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, which says that the president shall appoint judges and other officials ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’ — not by and with a supermajority of the Senate.” The Times went on to call it “a victory not just for the Democrats but for good government.” http://100percentfedup.com/flashback-video-shows-leftist-media-members-praising-use-of-nuclear-option-to-confirm-liberal-supreme-court-justices/

Market forces should determine what the minimum wage should be in each area. $9 an hour isn't going get the Micky D's franchisee any help in Manhattan but it might work in Gowanda, NY.

No, I hinted at this situation in another thread and was going to edit that thread to include this, but then decided that this might receive more attention in its own thread. I don't expect a pissing contest with Meathead because he didn't like Obama either. Go practice your dickery on those that truly deserve it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stephen-bannon-removed-from-national-security-council/ar-BBzrlrp?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15 This from the Washington Post. The realities don't match the headlines. Two senior White House officials said Bannon’s departure was in no way a demotion and that he had rarely attended meetings since being placed on the council. They and others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. Bannon's place on the committee had been a subject of intense controversy when the move was announced in January. National security experts, including a former Obama administration official, characterized it as an elevation of a White House official with no national security experience, even while other national security officials in the administration were included on the NSC only when “issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise” were involved. The White House later added the director of the CIA to the NSC. The White House strongly disputed that characterization, saying that Trump chose to change the structure of the committee from the one in place during the Obama administration to reduce the number of meetings in which senior intelligence officials were required to participate if they did not pertain to their areas of expertise. Instead, one of the officials said, Bannon was put on the council early in the administration to guide and keep watch over then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was tasked with reshaping the operation. That official and a second official said Bannon did this from afar, attending one or two meetings of the group. Bannon was there to “de-operationalize” the NSC from its Obama-era setup, the official added, and he feels that has been accomplished with Flynn and his successor H.R. McMaster and no longer feels the need to be part of the NSC. “There was a concern when this administration came in that the national security council under the prior administration had grown too large and had taken on operational responsibilities that were not properly its role,” the second official said. Bannon was placed on the committee “to help return the NSC to its proper policy coordinating role.”

What if they are going into the family business or get drafted by the Cubs? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/chicago-mayor-no-high-school-diploma-without-acceptance-letter/ar-BBzrR8W?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15 Chicago high school students may soon need to create a plan for their future in order to graduate. Mayor Rahm Emanuel appeared on “CBS This Morning” on Wednesday to discuss his new proposal, which would require students to develop a post-high school plan before receiving a diploma. Chicago would be the first city to adopt such a requirement if the measure is approved by the city’s board of education. “We live in a period of time where you earn what you learn,” Emanuel said. “The school system of K through 12 is not applicable to the world and the economy and the world that our high school students are graduating to. So we’re moving to a pre-K to college model.” Under the proposal, all Chicago Public School students starting with this year’s freshman class would have to show an acceptance letter to a four-year university, a community college, a trade school or apprenticeship, an internship, or a branch of the armed services in order to receive their high school diploma.

Back in 2007 when he was a Senator from Illinois Obama, in cahoots with Tony Rezko bought a house. The media reported on the story and this is pretty much what they all said: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/rezko-connection-obamas-achilles-heel/story?id=4111483 "Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail. While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000. Obama denies there was anything unusual about the price disparity. He says the price on the house was dropped because it had been on the market for some time but that the price for the adjacent land remained high because there was another offer. Obama then expanded his property by buying a strip of the Rezko land for $104,5000, which the senator maintains was a fair market price." Back at the time it seemed suspicious to me that Obama would only buy a strip of the property next door. I checked into the zoning and the setbacks for that area and soon realized what Obama had pulled off. The lot was 60' wide which was the minimum requirements to build. Obama purchased 10' of the vacant land rendering it useless to anyone other than a neighbor. Rezko's wife had paid $625,000 for a lot 60' wide and sold 1/6 of it for 1/6 of the price. On paper it seems harmless but in reality Obama got a payoff from a soon to be convicted felon of $520,500. I wonder if Obama filed this gift on his income taxes?

There's a story behind how Obama got his Chicago house and Tony Rezko. It was a slick move that should have gotten Obama thrown in jail.

The LA Times is as bad as it gets. Here is a sample of some of their other editorials: The Problem with Trump A series of Times editorials I. Our Dishonest President II. Why Trump Lies III. Trump’s Authoritarian Vision IV. Trump’s War on Journalism V. Coming Thursday VI. Coming Friday

I put this in the file with "Romney didn't pay any taxes" and caused a woman to die from cancer. Not one shred of evidence showing Trump campaign collusion with the Russians. What I think we are going to find is that the Obama administration set this all up by using the NSA to spy on their political opponents via of the backdoor. Susan Rice then unmasked the Trump associates names and changed the rules in order to widely disseminate those conversations and allow it to be leaked to the press. There are way to many people involved to ever find out who leaked the info. Obama wanted to continue to have relevance in DC but he knew he couldn't with a strong Trump presidency, thus he wanted to weaken Trump right out of the gate. This is typical Obama m.o.

He's not that bright to frame anything, even poorly.

Yes. Again, what evidence?

What evidence?