ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [495] -- Lost In Space

[ Posted Friday, August 10th, 2018 – 17:19 PDT ]

President Donald Trump, when speaking of his idea to create a "Space Force" branch of the U.S. military, invariably sounds like an adolescent boy raving about his favorite science-fiction film. Perhaps this is why he sent Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Defense James Mattis out this week to announce that the Pentagon will (reluctantly) be going along with Trump's idiocy. Trump even unveiled six prototype logos for the new Space Force, all of which look like they were designed by someone who had just woken up from a coma entered into at some time in the early 1960s.

Smarter minds (which used to include Mattis himself) have repeatedly pointed out that (1) we already have military units dedicated to defending space, and (2) making such units their own branch of the military would do nothing more than introduce a massive and expensive bureaucracy on top of what already exists. Not since Ronald Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative" was ridiculed as "Star Wars" has any idea been so thoroughly laughed at in Washington, in fact. But (hopefully) this cockamamie idea will explode on the launch pad, since Congress is the one who would have to actually authorize the creation of a new branch of the military. It's just one more reason to get out in November and vote for Democrats, in other words.

Oh, and remember when people were saying the "adults in the room" (or "Trump's generals") were supposed to be the last line of defense against inane and idiotic ideas from the president? Mattis was always one of the adults mentioned, whenever this line of thinking was brought up. But apparently those hopes were misplaced, as Mattis has now shown he is not capable of doing so when it comes to serious military matters.

In other news, Donald Trump's in-laws became U.S. citizens this week. They did so by using family ties, or as Trump likes to put it, "chain migration." In other words, chain migration is a bad thing according to Trump and must be halted, but his own family will use it in the meantime. Or, alternatively, perhaps Trump wanted to end the policy a while back precisely because his in-laws were about to use it to become citizens? Insert your own in-law joke here, we suppose. Either way, the hypocrisy is pretty stunning -- but that's never stopped Trump previously.

Let's see, what else is going on? We have to admit we're playing a bit of catch-up this week, since the column was on hiatus last week for us to attend the Netroots Nation conference in New Orleans (where the bon temps did indeed rouler). So we've probably missed a whole bunch of news from last week, but this week (as always) had plenty to comment upon as the neverending frenzy that is the Trump administration continues to whirl at top speed.

The juiciest news is that Omarosa's tell-all book about working in the Trump White House is about to drop, and the bombshells have already begun. Apparently, she's got tapes of conversations inside the White House, including conversations she had with Trump himself. While Trump was paranoid about Barack Obama secretly taping him, apparently both Michael Cohen and Omarosa were the ones he should have been worried about. Omarosa reports that she was approached by a Trump relative and offered $15,000 a month to stay quiet and sign a non-disclosure agreement, which she obviously refused. She'll be a guest on this week's Meet The Press, which should be entertaining. By this time next week, she'll have appeared on pretty much every television show that'll have her, so that's something to look forward to.

The Trump White House is already pushing back, calling Omarosa a liar. However, when it comes to lying, nobody can hold a candle to Trump himself, as the Washington Post pointed out last week. They've updated their count to show that Trump has lied 4,229 times in his first 558 days in office, which works out to 7.6 lies per day -- a rate that has only increased over time. So who are you going to believe, Omarosa or the king of lies himself? Should be fun to watch Trump's Twitter feed next week.

Speaking of Trump tweets, he continues to blow holes in his own legal defense on Twitter, tweeting last week that Jeff Sessions should end the Russia probe "right now," and then somehow trying to walk back his open and blatantly public attempt at obstructing justice. Trump then iced the cake by openly admitting that his son conspired with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election, in an extraordinary tweet that ended:

This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics -- and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!

Except that getting information on an opponent from a foreign government is actually seriously illegal, of course, and not "done all the time in politics."

Trump also used Twitter to attack various African-American professional athletes, and took the time to endorse a guy who wasn't even on the ballot in Ohio:

Congressman Steve Stivers of Ohio has done a fantastic job as Chairman of @NRCC. He is a great Congressman who is tough on crime & borders & and inspiration to our Military & Vets. Big on 2nd Amendment. Get out and vote for Steve on Aug 7th. He has my full & total endorsement!

Stivers is running for a different seat, and wasn't on any Ohio ballot this Tuesday, because he's already won his primary race. Oops!

Other Trump idiocy on Twitter this week included a tweet which proved there is yet another subject (California fires and water management) that Trump had to prove to the world he knows less than nothing about. He didn't utter a peep of support for the frontline firefighters, even though there have been several deaths fighting the blazes. Stay classy, Mister President!

John Bolton came out and admitted that North Korea hasn't taken the tiniest little step towards denuclearization, stating plainly on Fox News: "North Korea... has not taken the steps we feel are necessary to denuclearize." But... but... didn't Trump tell us all the nukes were gone forever and we could sleep safe at night? Sigh.

Devin Nunes didn't get caught lying this week, instead he got caught in a Washington gaffe -- or inadvertently telling the truth. He admitted at a fundraiser that the GOP majority in the House was dedicated to covering up anything and everything Trump does, rather than fulfilling its constitutional duty as a check and balance on the executive branch. This isn't all that surprising (since everyone knows that's what Nunes has been bending over backwards to do all along), but it was kind of shocking to hear him come out and admit it.

And finally, to wrap up the Trump news, we have Donald Junior, who was taken in by a really bad Photoshop job. CNN ran a story showing that Trump's approval rating (from Gallup) was indeed lower than Barack Obama's was at this point in his presidency (40 percent for Trump to Obama's 45), and the Trumpelstiltskins out there couldn't handle the truth. Somebody did a really poor job of editing a screen grab, by pasting a "50%" over the 40 percent spot in the graphic. Not only was the text misaligned, you can still see the "40%" underneath the new text. But this didn't stop Junior from tweeting the photo out, confident in his belief in things which are just not true. Oopsie!

Speaking of trolling, the woman who climbed up on the Statue of Liberty trolled Melania Trump this week during a court appearance, wearing a dress which had written on it: "I really care, why won't u? Be Best." Well done!

And someone mischievously realized last January that Maryland Republicans had changed their Twitter name, and parked a porn site ("Sexy Car Babes") on the old name. The national GOP.com website, however, didn't update its links, so for over half a year the national Republican Party site had a link to a porn account rather than the Maryland Republicans. Whoops!

And finally, some good news. Marijuana is being grown again at Mount Vernon. Weed historians know full well that George Washington grew hemp on his farm, but it wasn't until a few years ago that hemp cultivation was made legal once again. The horticulturalist at Mount Vernon was convinced to plant a crop this year, meaning that tourists can walk by a field of gently waving buds while exploring the historic home of our first president. Which is as it should be, really. You can even insert your own presidential "lost in space" joke here, if you'd like.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

One quick note, before we begin our awards segment. Normally, we'd hand Danny O'Connor one of our awards, for his close finish in Ohio's 12th congressional district this week (in a special election). But since we don't know the ultimate outcome of the race (O'Connor is behind, but has so far refused to concede until all the votes are counted), we don't know which category to put him in. Maybe next week, in other words....

Donald Trump's first supporter in Congress, Representative Chris Collins, was arrested this week and charged with insider trading. He sat on the board of a drug company whose main product failed a big test, so he warned his son and his son-in-law's family to dump their stocks in the company before the news became public. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, from everything reported so far. CBS even dug out film of what is quite possibly Collins making the actual phone call to his son, because at the time he was at a public event on the White House lawn. How appropriate!

The response was immediate from the Democrats, and leading the pack was Nancy Pelosi, who stated: "The charges against Congressman Collins show the rampant culture of corruption and self-enrichment among Republicans in Washington today. The American people deserve better than the GOP's corruption, cronyism and incompetence."

This is interesting for two reasons. The first is that Pelosi first became speaker by using almost the exact same language against Republicans in the 2006 midterms, which ushered in a Democratic takeover of the House. The second reason is that deciding to bang this particular drum again this time around makes even more sense now than it did then, because the swamp has only gotten swampier under Trump. Rather than "drain the swamp" (as he promised to do), he has in fact infested the swamp with his own cronies and fellow-travellers.

Here's just an abbreviated list, from within Trump's close circle: Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the F.B.I. and had to resign his job as national security advisor. Rob Porter had to quit his job as White House staff secretary after both his ex-wives accused him of physical abuse. Ronny Jackson withdrew his nomination for V.A. secretary after allegations of drinking on the job and handing out narcotics like candy. Michael Cohen, Trump's fixer, is under federal investigation for bank and tax fraud, and may soon be cooperating with Bob Mueller's investigation. George Papadopoulos is already doing so. And, of course, Paul Manafort's trial for bank and tax fraud has now gone to the jury.

In other words, it's a target-rich environment for Democrats to make some political hay out of. Was that metaphor mixed enough? Well, let's just double down and say that accusing the GOP of "corruption, cronyism, and incompetence" is now as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. And that's before the Manafort verdict, mind you.

Going after Republicans for corruption has worked before, and while it will not be the main focus of Democratic campaigns this time around, it still should be seen as a potent message to the voters: "Are you sick of all this? Elect us, and we'll end it."

For showing other Democrats how to get on top of the issue and hammer it home, Nancy Pelosi deserves at least an Honorable Mention this week.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week goes to what we believe is the youngest-ever winner of this award: a 14-year-old boy from Vermont.

Due to the vagueness of the candidate requirements (no stated age restriction), Ethan Sonneborn is running for governor of Vermont. There's a residency requirement, but Sonneborn easily meets this test since he's lived in the Green Mountain State his entire life. All 14 years of it. He has reportedly held his own against the adults in the race, "in several candidate forums."

That is pretty impressive. What were you doing when you were 14? We can bet that "running for governor" wasn't one of them (we certainly can't make such a claim ourselves). And not only running, but apparently doing well enough beside his other Democratic contenders.

We certainly have never laid down any sort of age requirements for our awards, which is why we don't even have to hesitate to give Ethan Sonneborn this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. And, at this stage in American history, it wouldn't even surprise us one bit if he actually won the race. Stranger things haven't just happened, they are happening right now -- so why not?

[As a rule, we do not provide links to candidate websites (and truth be told we'd have to come up with a new policy on providing links to minors as well), so if you'd like to congratulate Ethan Sonneborn, you'll have to search out his contact information yourself, sorry.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We have a (Dis-)Honorable Mention award before we get to the main one this week. Ben Jealous, who is running for governor in Maryland against a surprisingly popular Republican (for such a blue state). This week, he got a little frustrated with a reporter asking him whether he identified with the term "socialist," and responded: "Are you fucking kidding me?"

Now, Jealous did immediately apologize, but he has been in the public eye for a long time (he was previously the head of the N.A.A.C.P.), so he really should know better. But these days, it's hard to get too worked up about a single f-bomb (even when being interviewed on the record), because Trump and his ilk have lowered this particular bar so far that it's tough to clutch our pearls at such language anymore.

But there still are lines that shouldn't be crossed, and our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week certainly crossed a big one. Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee was appearing at a prayer breakfast and decided to make a joke about the Republican running for Senate, Marsha Blackburn. At a prayer breakfast, mind you, Cohen said the following: "The big orange president.... He's going to come down here and he is going to endorse Marsha Blackburn, because Marsha Blackburn, if he says, 'Jump off the Harahan Bridge,' she'll jump off the Harahan Bridge. I wish he'd say that."

Granted, the remark "was met with laughter," but even so....

We have always believed that there are unwritten rules politicians should all follow, and one of the biggest of these is to never, ever joke about the death of any other politician. You don't joke about assassination, you don't joke about suicide, you don't joke about an opponent's death, period. Even if you have no shred of human decency (many politicians admittedly lack this function), you should at least be aware of the inevitable political blowback such ill-thought-out statements provoke.

For breaking this cardinal rule of politics, Steve Cohen is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. We would have awarded this to him even if he hadn't made the joke at a prayer breakfast, but that just made it all that much easier.

[Contact Representative Steve Cohen on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 495 (8/10/18)

A mixed bag this week, which ends with two talking points served up by those on the right -- one of which compares Trump to Stalin, and one of which calls him "weak, petty, and impotent." Enjoy, as always, and use responsibly (and liberally).

 

1
   Manafort only the first....

It seems highly likely that the jury is going to convict Paul Manafort next week on the corruption charges in his first federal court case. So Democrats should be ready to respond.

"It doesn't surprise me in the least to see someone that Donald Trump trusted to run his campaign was just convicted of serious fraud charges. After all, Trump constantly surrounds himself with some of the sleaziest people in politics, so it really isn't all that big a shock to see the first of them go down for rampant corruption. From his ostrich jackets to his million-dollar Persian rug habit, it was pretty obvious that Paul Manafort wasn't exactly someone the jury could relate to. And please remember -- this is only the first of Manafort's federal trials. He's got another one coming up in a month or two. And also please remember, Manafort is only the first from Trump's campaign to get convicted of wrongdoing -- there will doubtless be plenty more such trials and sentencing hearings in the future."

 

2
   Why the economy isn't the political issue Republicans thought it would be

This is worth hammering home, precisely because some Republicans still think it is why they'll avoid a blue wave in November.

"The Republican Party was going to run their midterm campaign on the economy, and how wonderful the tax cuts they passed for millionaires were. But the reality is that the economy has been stagnant for most Americans who work for a living. Figures just released show that over the past year, under Trump's policies, wages have grown by 2.7 percent -- but inflation has been running at 2.9 percent, which not only wipes out the wage growth but actually leaves families worse off than before. This is why most Republicans have all but abandoned trying to convince voters that the economy is helping everyone, because the voters know that this just isn't true -- at least, not for those who aren't already millionaires or billionaires."

 

3
   Border policy also not working

Yet another issue Republicans thought would be a winner for them is not actually panning out.

"Donald Trump thinks his border control policies are making things better, but when you put aside his bluster and look at the numbers, you can easily see that this isn't true. More families with children have already arrived illegally in America in the first 10 months of the fiscal year than during any full year under President Obama. Trump isn't even deporting people as fast as Obama did at his peak. Trump's family separation policy was supposed to act as a deterrent to others attempting to enter, but figures show that the number of families taken into custody remained unchanged from June to July. Illegal border crossings did go down in Trump's first year of being president, but they've spiked back up again. So for all the mean-spirited things Trump both says and does, he's doing a worse job at controlling the border than his predecessor, Barack Obama. In other words, he's completely failing at the one thing he actually appears to care about as president. Oh, and he hasn't gotten a thin dime from Congress for his wall, either -- or, for that matter, from Mexico."

 

4
   Insert head in sand....

This might just come back to haunt them.

"Even though the intelligence community is unified in stating that not only did Russia attack the 2016 presidential election, they are also currently doing so again in advance of the 2018 midterms. Our country -- our elections -- are under attack from a foreign adversary. And yet the Republicans in the Senate, following the lead of the House Republicans, just voted against providing the states with more money to protect our election systems. Yes, you read that right -- in the midst of an ongoing attack against us, the Republicans are unified in hiding their heads in the sand in the hopes that it'll all go away somehow. They are shirking their sworn duty, there's just no other way to put it. They are absent without leave while America is under attack, simply because they fear what Donald Trump will say about them if they stood up and did the right thing. This shameful cowardice is nothing short of disgraceful, and history will not be kind to them, that's my guess."

 

5
   Surf's up!

Less than 100 days, and counting...

"In last week's election results, a Democrat almost flipped a Republican House seat in Ohio that they've held for over three decades -- a district that went for Trump by 11 points. The first Muslim woman ever was essentially elected to the House in Michigan, because the Republicans are too afraid to even run someone against her in her district (meaning the primary race was really the only contest). An anti-Union 'right to work' law was also scrapped by an overwhelming majority of the voters in Missouri. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham can see the blue wave coming, as this week he told the New York Times that there was 'a real likelihood' that Democrats are going to win the House 'by 10 or 12 more seats than they need.' He went on to state: 'If I was a House guy in an R+10 or less seat, I'd be getting on the phone and raising money and putting a sign on my dog.' In other words, as Washington state's governor tweeted this week, 'Surf's up!' for Democrats. Is it November yet? Can't get here fast enough...."

 

6
   Karl Rove is worried, too

Once again, the strongest denunciations of the president come from within his own party. First up, from Karl Rove:

"After President Trump this week tweeted out -- once again -- that the press is the, quote, enemy of the people, unquote, none other than Karl Rove weighed in on Trump's rhetoric, calling it 'over the top,' and warning him to rein it in, saying it 'just grates on me.' Rove then went on to add some historical perspective: 'I grew up during the time of the Cold War. That is a phrase used by Stalin against the enemies of the Communist regime. I think the president would be well advised to tone down the rhetoric.' The interviewer missed a chance at a great follow-up question, though, because what Rove should have immediately been asked was whether he thought Trump would have tried to make friends with Stalin or not."

 

7
   Even Trump voters are pushing back

No details were provided, so we have no idea who this guy is.

"Things have gotten so bad that Trump supporters are using their own money to place ads on television shows they know Trump watches, in a desperate bid for his attention. An ad ran this week on Fox & Friends, where a self-described Trump supporter begs the president: 'After eight years of President Obama’s weak leadership, I was ready for a tough leader. Now I hear you're thinking of firing Bob Mueller or [Rod Rosenstein,] the deputy attorney general. It makes you look weak, petty, and impotent to us Trump supporters. We don't want someone that's weak, petty, or impotent -- that's why we voted for you instead of those other guys.' Man, things have really gotten bad when Trump's own supporters are spending a whole lot of money to call him 'weak, petty, or impotent' on national television."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

192 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [495] -- Lost In Space”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    I forgot to note a milestone for this site, earlier this week. The column above is the 3,003rd column ever posted here, meaning the photos column was the one that rolled over the odometer to 3K.

    Woo hoo!

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: And, of course, Paul Manafort's trial for bank and tax fraud has now gone to the jury.

    There was a several hour delay today; however, I believe the Prosecution will rest next Monday, and the Defense is not required to say whether they will call any witnesses until after the government rests their case. Will they or won't they? Are there actually multiple witnesses lined up to swear under oath that it was all Gates's fault? Good luck with that.

    I do think the Defense is attempting to get a mistrial in order to stall; the one thing they have continually done is attempting to delay the proceedings... because the outcome is inevitable based on the mounds of documentary evidence. We'll see.

  3. [3] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [2] I do think the Defense is attempting to get a mistrial in order to stall;

    Of course, you're right about that, but the judge would have to grant it, and won't. It's not likely that there are going to be rich grounds for appeal, either.

    I think Manafort is done. All they need is one bank fraud guilty for him to be in jail until he's 80, with another trial to come. The nature of the bribe to the banker went in to the record today. On top of that, the jury heard he evaded sixteen million in taxes. Make that age 85 or 90.

    Whether it's proven or not, he's a mercenary who acted as an agent of a foreign power in a conspiracy against the US. He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    So the TV ad "Weak" is part of the "Swamp Accountability Project", whose lead strategist is Liz Mair, a #nevertrump-er. There is a lot of dark money behind this group (has Trump been pissing off any deep pocketed Republican money men recently? Hmm, **cough** Koch Brothers **cough** - note: this is pure speculation on my part).

    Anyway, your average Trump supporter is at Target buying Tiki Torches for the weekend, and I'm pretty sure Trump himself doesn't care what his "supporters" say to him unless he has fed them the line, so it looks like a big waste of money to me.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and remember when people were saying the "adults in the room" (or "Trump's generals") were supposed to be the last line of defense against inane and idiotic ideas from the president? Mattis was always one of the adults mentioned, whenever this line of thinking was brought up. But apparently those hopes were misplaced, as Mattis has now shown he is not capable of doing so when it comes to serious military matters.

    OR.....

    Or Mattis knows a LOT more about things than ya'all and has come to see the wisdom and forward thinking of President Trump's idea..

    "We can't discount a possibility just because we don't happen to like it."
    -Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

    Incidentially, it's a given that words like "wisdom" and "forward thinking" would be the words ya'all would use if Odumbo had put forth the idea..

    But ya'all already know that....

    In other words, chain migration is a bad thing according to Trump and must be halted, but his own family will use it in the meantime.

    I seem to recall a very wise Weigantian saying once that there is nothing wrong with using the rules to your advantage even if you are against the rules...

    But, of course, I guess that doesn't apply to people with -Rs after their names, eh? :^/

    Granted, the remark "was met with laughter," but even so....

    *GRANTED* the remark was met with laughter??

    That means everyone who laughed thought a joke about a political opponent dying was funny...

    That shouldn't be a mitigating factor, but rather a COMPOUNDING factor IE everyone who laughed should share in the MDDOTW award...

    I actually was hoping Oscasio-Cortez was gonna be the MDDOTW recipient for responding to a sincere debate request by playing the victim card..

    One of these days a Democrat is going to shock the hell out of this country and actually address issues rather than play various and sundry cards they play...

    Probably not in my lifetime... :^/

    And, of course, Paul Manafort's trial for bank and tax fraud has now gone to the jury.

    It has???

    Are we talking to a future CW who has traveled back in time 4-6 days???

    I have to admit, I am getting a kick out of Judge Ellis kicking the shit out of Mueller's team time and time again...

    Hopefully this conveys to the jury what a scumbag Mueller is for even BOTHERING with this case..

    This is an IRS prosecution.. NOT a Special Counsel Prosecution assigned to investigate Collusion With Russians In An Election...

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Smarter minds (which used to include Mattis himself) have repeatedly pointed out that (1) we already have military units dedicated to defending space, and (2) making such units their own branch of the military would do nothing more than introduce a massive and expensive bureaucracy on top of what already exists.

    I am also constrained to point out that we also have each branch of the military that has their own air corp...

    So why do we need a specific United States Air Force??

    Leave military issues to military experts, mmm kay??

    If General Mattis signs off on it, then no one has ANY cause to bitch and whine..

    Well, except for those who suffer from HHPTDS.... :^/

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Smarter minds (which used to include Mattis himself)

    So, let me see if I got this straight..

    Mattis was one of the "smarter minds" when he said what ya'all wanted to hear...

    Now that Mattis sees the wisdom of his Commander In Chief's actions, NOW Mattis is no longer one of the "smarter minds"...

    Well, I am SURE glad ya'all aren't basing your opinions SOLELY on which way the political winds blow.. :^D

    Cuz THAT would just be hypocritical, eh? :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    I seem to recall a very wise Weigantian saying once that there is nothing wrong with using the rules to your advantage even if you are against the rules...

    Can you say CITIZENS UNITED???

    Sure ya can....

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just in case the point eludes those suffering from HHPTDS..

    In other words, chain migration is a bad thing according to Trump and must be halted, but his own family will use it in the meantime.

    In other words, CITIZENS UNITED is a bad thing according to Democrats and must be halted, but Democrats will gladly and eagerly use it in the meantime to win elections.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh wait!! I know!! I know!!!

    "Er... Uh.... well... THAT's different!!"

    :^/

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    Incidentially, it's a given that words like "wisdom" and "forward thinking" would be the words ya'all would use if Odumbo had put forth the idea..

    But ya'all already know that....

    What does it say about a commenter who has proven time and time again how little he actually does know to continually prattle on and on ad nauseam that he knows what words everyone else "would use" and what everyone else "already knows." *laughs*

    But, of course, I guess that doesn't apply to people with -Rs after their names, eh? :^/

    The board troll would have a point here if "Communist" began with an "R," but it doesn't... so he doesn't.

    Hopefully this conveys to the jury what a scumbag Mueller is for even BOTHERING with this case..

    Mueller is doing his job, and you have conveyed quite nicely exactly the type of "law enforcement officer" you are if it's okay with you that the rule of law should be ignored when it doesn't suit the fancy of the Trump cultists and/or gullible minions that worship at the altar of Benedict Donald and his criminal ilk.

    This is an IRS prosecution.. NOT a Special Counsel Prosecution assigned to investigate Collusion With Russians In An Election...

    ORDER NO. 3915-2017

    APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
    TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
    2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

    By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

    (a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

    (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

    (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

    (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

    (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

    (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters....

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

    While the "wannabes" and Trump cultists whine incessantly in their ignorance, Mueller is indeed doing his job.

    Leave military issues to military experts, mmm kay??

    Leave law enforcement/legal issues to legal experts, mmm kay?? Mueller is both a military expert and a law enforcement/legal expert... while you have proven time and time again that you're neither... and nothing more than woefully uninformed with reading comprehension problems. :)

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    Rep. Chris Collins of My Ass Got Arrested fame... member of the Trump transition team and latest person in a long line of those associated with Treasonous Trump to feel the squeeze of the long arm of the law (tip of the iceberg, stay tuned)... announced today that he is suspending his reelection campaign in light of the charges of insider trading.

    "Everything Trump touches dies." ~ Rick Wilson

    "Trump didn't drain the swamp; he swamped the drain." ~ Bill Maher

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Talking Point 4A "It takes one to know one..."-

    "Even though 80% of citizens want the Big Money out of politics the Democrats are taking Big Money to finance their campaigns in the 2018 elections.

    Our country- our elections- are under attack form a domestic adversary. And yet Democrats, in the midst of an ongoing attack against us are not only hiding their head in the sand hoping it will go away- they are actively and openly consorting with the enemy.

    They are shirking their sworn duty, as are the media that enables the Democrats by not calling them out for this disgraceful behavior and not informing citizens aboot other options. There is just no other way to put it.

    Both the Democrats and the media are absent without leave while America is under attack simply because they fear what Big Money will do to them if they stood up and did the right thing. (this may be giving many of them too much credit as they could just be willing to sell out the rest of us for a seat on the gravy train.)

    This shameful cowardice (or the other reason) is nothing short of disgraceful.

    Whether or not history will be kind to them depends on who writes the history."

    And that depends on people like you, CW, doing the right thing and informing citizens aboot One Demand and the current opportunity to mobilize the 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential election cycles but do not vote in off year elections to take a stand against the Big Money interests attacking our elections instead of promoting the Democrats are the only alternative to the evil Republicans bullshit and giving honorable mentions to Nancy Pelosi for repeating the same bullshit she spouted in 2006.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi is the gift... to Republicans... that keeps on giving..

    Democrats need to hold onto Pelosi until she is nothing but a brainless husk..

    Which is likely any day now...

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi is the gift... to Republicans... that keeps on giving..

    It doesn't matter who leads the Democrats, the Republicans will try to make that person out as the worst thing to happen to America. Ever. Period. Completely. For ever. In perpetuity. Until the next person comes along.

    2018 is a disaster for Republicans when it comes to demonizing - the public only really care about the President or their challenger.

    I'd bet you could go onto the floor of one of the Redneck Nuremberg rallies and 90% of the suckers wouldn't know the basics about our political system.

    They'll have the "Two legs bad, four legs good" chants down (e.g. "Who's gonna pay for the wall?" - "MEXICO!") but Ill bet a vast majority don't know that Paul Ryan isn't running for re-election, and I'll bet an embarrassing percentage couldn't even point to Mexico on a map of the world.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    It doesn't matter who leads the Democrats, the Republicans will try to make that person out as the worst thing to happen to America.

    Yea, but the point is, Pelosi makes the Republicans look like the normal sane one and the Democrats look plumb-dumb crazy.. :D

    2018 is a disaster for Republicans when it comes to demonizing - the public only really care about the President or their challenger.

    blaaa blaaa blaaaa Ya'all said it all before 2 years ago...

    Yaaaawwwwnnnnnnn

    I just can't wait for 6 NOV 18 so I can gloat incessantly again.. :D

    I'd bet you could go onto the floor of one of the Redneck Nuremberg rallies and 90% of the suckers wouldn't know the basics about our political system.

    You mean like 45% of millennial Democrats couldn't name ANY First Amendment rights???

    When it comes to lack of brains, you shouldn't be pointing any fingers... :D

    I'm just sayin..

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yea, but the point is, Pelosi makes the Republicans look like the normal sane one and the Democrats look plumb-dumb crazy.. :D

    You do know that Donald Trump is in the White House, right?

    When it comes to lack of brains, you shouldn't be pointing any fingers... :D

    You know I was waiting for that one, don't you?

    The college educated in America voted 54% to 39% for Hillary, and Americans with post-graduate degrees voted 63%-31% in Hillary's favor.

    These numbers are more surprising since there is a distinct advantage for Republicans from richer voters - Republicans are more economically friendly to the $150K+ crowd, and many people vote their wallet.

    But, just as one example, watching an idiot bring a snowball onto the floor of the house and claim that this meant there was no global warming is just so embarrassing to educated Americans that most want rid of the dim wits that the Republicans currently cherish.

    Source: http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/2_6-10/

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    You do know that Donald Trump is in the White House, right?

    Yea.. I can tell by how awesome this country is doing. :D

    As to the rest..

    None of it changes the fact that 45% of Democrat Millennials cannot name a single First Amendment Right..

    So, you really shouldn't be pointing any fingers regarding lack of intelligence... :D

    But, just as one example, watching an idiot bring a snowball onto the floor of the house and claim that this meant there was no global warming is just so embarrassing to educated Americans that most want rid of the dim wits that the Republicans currently cherish.

    As opposed to Odumbo who claimed that glaciers melting in summer is proof of Global Warming???

    Like I said.. You REALLY don't want to be pointing any fingers.. :D

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    Doesn't it just eat you up Michale.

    People who get educated and are taught to think critically reject the current Republican Party.

    Let me show you. Can you provide a source for your 45% claim? Did it even occur to you to validate your argument with a source for the key point (you only get one link in CW land, but at least use it).

    I get why those who didn't have access to tertiary education for cognitive or economic reasons are pissed that their job market has been squeezed by globalization, but do they really think the Republicans are the union-supporting anti-globalists who have their backs? They have been lied to by Fox News to fight the labor movement, even though it is the strongest bulwark against the commoditization of American labor for the lower and middle classes.

    And always remember, 55% of Democratic millennials can name a first amendment right - but what % of Republican millennials can? Only 20%!*

    * Note: this statistic was pulled straight from my "Michale Fact Catalog" a dark place that gets no sunlight.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Doesn't it just eat you up Michale.

    People who get educated and are taught to think critically reject the current Republican Party.

    Not even a little bit..

    Because your "educated" Democrats are nothing but a bunch of James Hodgkisons...

    Let's compare notes on 6 Nov, eh?? It should be as much fun (for me) as the aftermath of the 2016 elections.. :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me show you. Can you provide a source for your 45% claim?

    Of course I can... I ALWAYS have my facts in order..

    I have just learned the hard way that it's foolish for me to waste time and energy posting them because they are *ALWAYS* ignored and NO ONE ever concedes that they were wrong..

    So the age old unanswered question is asked again..

    Why bother??

  22. [22] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Because your "educated" Democrats are nothing but a bunch of James Hodgkisons...

    translation: I'm losing this argument, time to pull out a go-to straw man.

    Let's compare notes on 6 Nov, eh?? It should be as much fun (for me) as the aftermath of the 2016 elections..

    translation: Can we change the subject to the time I won one? I'm much more comfortable with that.

    Why bother??

    translation: Well, if you're going to make me try to prove that point, I've got nothin'.

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    13

    And that depends on people like you, CW, doing the right thing and informing citizens aboot One Demand and the current opportunity to mobilize the 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential election cycles but do not vote in off year elections to take a stand against the Big Money interests attacking our elections instead of promoting the Democrats are the only alternative to the evil Republicans bullshit and giving honorable mentions to Nancy Pelosi for repeating the same bullshit she spouted in 2006.

    Translation: I'm expecting you, CW, to promote my failing and pathetic attempt at political activism by repeating the same bullshit I've spouted near daily for years and by whining about Nancy Pelosi for repeating the same bullshit she spouted in 2006, but if I had two brain cells to rub together, I might have at least realized that Nancy Pelosi is repeating what succeeded in the past, while I am merely spewing the same stale shit that has never worked and shall likely remain ever thus. :)

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why bother??

    All hat, no cattle.

  25. [25] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Hopefully this conveys to the jury what a scumbag Mueller is for even BOTHERING with this case..

    So much for your respect for law enforcement carrying out their necessary duties under the law. Why shouldn’t Mueller’s team address the criminal activities of those they are tasked with investigating?

    Our country should be going after white collar criminals like Manafort far more often than they do. According to a massive report put out by Syracuse University, we’re on track to have about 17.5 federal prosecutions of white-collar crimes per 1 million people in the population this year, which is half the average rate of prosecutions since 1986.

    The IRS has lost over a third of their enforcement agents (despite an increase in their case loads) since 2010 thanks to massive budget cuts.

    Manafort’s crimes went unchecked before this because our government had no urgency to look into his dealings. Doesn’t mean that he what he did should be excused. Just means he should have stayed out of the limelight if he didn’t want his actions detected.

  26. [26] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    A lot of fun around here yesterday with that stolen Horizon Air plane! They aren’t reporting this in the news, but I am pretty confident that plane did not “crash” on it’s own, it was shot down. The pilot refused to land and those two fighter jets that passed over it just before it crashed had hauled ass to get there and they were gone just as quickly. The video of the guy’s flight is pretty wild... doing barrel rolls in a passenger plane isn’t something you see everyday. The guy sounded manic on the radio — very excited and overly happy. He made it clear that he didn’t intend on just landing the plane, he was going to crash it, and he was in the perfect spot for them to shoot him down with very little risk to life on the ground.

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    22

    translation: I'm losing this argument, time to pull out a go-to straw man.

    Yes, sir... very much like Treasonous Trump having to pull out the go-to "taking a knee" bullshit... except that isn't going to work so well for Benedict Donald since the Helsinki summit and Benedict Donald "taking a knee" to Vladimir Putin.

    translation: Can we change the subject to the time I won one? I'm much more comfortable with that.

    Yes, sir... very much like a Cult45 rally where the morons relive the 2016 election and shout their tired slogans like "lock her up"... except that isn't going to work so well since the Trump ilk are the ones getting locked up and "My Ass Got Arrested" is their reality.

    translation: Well, if you're going to make me try to prove that point, I've got nothin'.

    I would wager that "nothing" is far more preferable to the gullible minions who fell for the Trump con versus the fact that it is indeed Trump who is the one taking a knee and disrespecting America and the Trump ilk that are the ones getting arrested and/or locked up. :)

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    24

    All hat, no cattle.

    Yes, sir... and all mouth, no trousers. :)

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (23)-
    If that's what you need to tell yourself.

    My attempt at political advocacy is not failing- it just hasn't succeeded yet.

    Yes, I am expecting CW to at least address One Demand. He is a journalist that claims to address reality and the reality is that if one third to one half of citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections participated in One Demand in 2018 instead of not voting it would total 10-20% of the total vote in 2018.

    This makes it a legitimate idea that should addressed by serious journalists that address reality and entered into the public debate.

    Nancy Pelosi did not succeed in the past on any long term changes for the better. If she had succeeded then Trump would not be president.

    As long as the Democrats keep spewing the same shit the solution will still be to not believe it and find another alternative so there is no need for me to change my message.

    All I can do is keep proving the option until people like CW are ready to listen, ready to understand and are ready to move on from the Bug Money Democratic Party establishment or at least provide the information to other people that are ready to move on and explore other options.

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    25

    So much for your respect for law enforcement carrying out their necessary duties under the law. Why shouldn’t Mueller’s team address the criminal activities of those they are tasked with investigating?

    Yes, sir... exactly right. Mueller was appointed as "special counsel to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters" and tasked via Order 3915-2017 in no uncertain terms regarding same. It only gets complicated when the easily conned gullible followers allow their worship at the alter of the cult of personality to get in the way of the rule of law and commence to trashing America and her institutions because their "My Ass Got Arrested masters told them to.

    Our country should be going after white collar criminals like Manafort far more often than they do.

    He resembles that remark... along with the Orange Blowhole. It's beyond pathetic when the so-called lawyers and law enforcement types are some of the worst offenders; it's like they're firmly entrenched in their belief that laws are made for other people and not themselves and their ilk.

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    29

    If that's what you need to tell yourself.

    I don't need to tell myself anything, Don; I'm telling you.

    My attempt at political advocacy is not failing- it just hasn't succeeded yet.

    You're making my point, Don, thank you.

    Yes, I am expecting CW to at least address One Demand. He is a journalist that claims to address reality and the reality is that if one third to one half of citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections participated in One Demand in 2018 instead of not voting it would total 10-20% of the total vote in 2018.

    Blah, blah, blah. Let me address some reality for you, Don: People don't have to participate in One Demand in order to vote in off-year elections... or any elections for that matter.

    This makes it a legitimate idea that should addressed by serious journalists that address reality and entered into the public debate.

    If you believe the above statement, then you best get busy becoming a "serious journalist" because you're failing/not succeeding doing what you're presently doing, and the definition of ignorance/insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Nancy Pelosi did not succeed in the past on any long term changes for the better.

    Is there anything we can't blame on Nancy Pelosi? They should give that disease a name... something like "male pattern stupidness."

    If she had succeeded then Trump would not be president.

    So you and Nancy have something in common. *laughs*

    As long as the Democrats keep spewing the same shit the solution will still be to not believe it and find another alternative so there is no need for me to change my message.

    Then congratulations, Don: You can carry on ever thus in your failing/having not succeeded. :)

  32. [32] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [31] Kick

    They should give that disease a name... something like "male pattern stupidness."

    Lol.

    "I'm not just President; I'm also a client." - Donald Trump

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    So much for your respect for law enforcement carrying out their necessary duties under the law.

    That's just it..

    Prosecuting a tax fraud case that took place LONG before the election is NOT Mueller's duty..

    It has NOTHING to do with President Trump, NOTHING to do with Russians and NOTHING to do with the election..

    Mueller is so stoopid and incompetent that he doesn't even know what his duty is..

    In HIS mind, his ONLY duty is to nullify a free, fair and legal election.

    Thank you for proving my point..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    All hat, no cattle.

    Exactly..

    No one ever addresses any of my points, ya'all ignore the facts that are presented and no one here can EVER admit when they are wrong..

    So, you are exactly correct. Ya'all are all hat, no cattle..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Our country should be going after white collar criminals like Manafort far more often than they do.

    EXCEPT if they are Democrats, right???

    Your Party bigotry is so blatant and obvious...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Podestas are as hip deep in this crap as Manafort is..

    Funny how none of ya'all advocate going after them...

    Oh, they have a -D after their names so their actions are acceptable..

    Nothing but Party slavery and bigotry...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    So much for your respect for law enforcement carrying out their necessary duties under the law.

    And, just for the record.. Mueller isn't LEO.. He is a lawyer and a politician...

    If he were truly a cop, if he bled cop blue, then he would support President Trump...

    He is nothing but an incompetent lawyer...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    2 dead, 18 wounded in Chicago shootings: 'Even I’m scared to walk to the corner store'

    It felt like a normal Friday night, until Hines received a call as she left work. Her son and nephew, two close friends, had been shot.

    The boys were standing on the sidewalk in the 1300 block of South Independence Boulevard in the West Side’s Lawndale neighborhood when they heard gunfire, police said. They were about a block from the gas station at Roosevelt Road and Independence.

    The 15-year-old was grazed in the head, and the 17-year-old was shot in the abdomen. They took themselves to Mount Sinai Hospital where they were both in good condition.

    “Chicago is a scary place to be,” Hines said. “Even I’m scared to walk to the corner store.”

    The boys were among 20 people shot Friday and early Saturday, two of them fatally. Three other juveniles were wounded in attacks in the city, including a 12-year-old girl.

    The shootings come as the department adds 600 officers to patrol the streets this weekend in the districts most affected by gun violence following the city’s most violent weekend in more than two years.

    At least 74 people were shot last weekend between 3 p.m. Friday and 6 a.m. Monday, 12 of them fatally.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-violence20180810-story.html

    Ahhhh Democrats and Gun Control...

    Obviously it equals a non-violent paradise.. :^/

    Another shot of reality that no one wants to address...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    They aren’t reporting this in the news, but I am pretty confident that plane did not “crash” on it’s own, it was shot down.

    Just like Flight 93...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    They aren’t reporting this in the news, but I am pretty confident that plane did not “crash” on it’s own, it was shot down.

    Just like Flight 93...

    I always found it excessively fortuitous that, in such a heavily populated area that is the east coast, that passengers, who likely had no idea where they were, were able to crash the plane in a wide open area with no casualties on the ground...

    Further, fragments of the plane were discovered several miles from the crash site, indicated an air impact...

    Of course, the official story is different, but I have my doubts...

    Just like the official story of the Horizon/Seattle hijacking is that the stolen plane crashed...

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ahhhh Democrats and Gun Control...

    Hey, did you know that Cincinnati, Ohio actually has a higher per capita murder rate than Chicago? So do eight other cities.

    https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/murder-rate-ranking-1280x0-c-default.png

    Didya notice which large US Cities aren't on that list? Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. That's because California has the toughest gun laws in the country, and doesn't border Indiana. Since California began enacting stricter gun laws in 1993, their gun murder rate has gone down by 67%.

    Some facts about Chicago:

    Chicago itself has some tough laws — there is an assault-weapons ban in Cook County, for example. But it's not true that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country. At one point, it did have much tougher laws — it had banned handguns in the city limits, but a 2008 Supreme Court ruling declared that ban unconstitutional, and a 2010 ruling reaffirmed that. The city also had had a gun registry program since 1968, but ended it in 2013 when the state passed a law allowing the concealed carry of weapons.

    The State of Illinois also doesn't require registration of firearms, and there is no restriction on the purchase of multiple firearms and it doesn't allow local jurisdictions to regulate firearms. In other words, Illinois could make its gun laws much more strict than they are.

    Moreover, the states that border Illinois have extremely lax gun laws. Neither Wisconsin nor Indiana requires licenses or permits to purchase a gun, for example, nor do they require waiting periods.

    A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of your whiny "Waaaa I wanna get rid of the 2nd amendment and take away everyone's guns" spewage ignores the salient point that you anti-gun fanatics constantly ignore..

    The anti-gun laws in Chicago DON'T WORK.. Obviously..

    So, WHY would any normal or rational person think that MORE ANTI-GUN LAWS are the answer??

    Anti-gun diva David Hogg hides behind a phalanx of armed security but he wants to insure that Joe and Jane Public are disarmed..

    Pure, unadulterated and unequivocal hypocrisy....

  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The anti-gun laws in Chicago DON'T WORK.. Obviously..

    That's my point: what anti-gun laws in Chicago? The Republicans took them all off the books.

  44. [44] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    One can only roll his eyes at Chris tut-tutting about a Rep congressman profiting from insider trading. It's common knowledge that damn near EVERY congressman is doing that at every opportunity!

    And he missed a golden opportunity to shoot down the "booming economy/tax cuts" Rep campaign issue by failing to mention that the indirect tax INCREASES resulting from the insane trade war/tariff nonsense will far exceed the benefits of the income tax cuts for normal people.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's my point: what anti-gun laws in Chicago? The Republicans took them all off the books.

    It's idiotic comments like this that make me wonder about your intelligence level, Balthy...

    But then I realize that NO ONE could be THAT stupid and your comments are simply borne of Party slavery..

    How could REPUBLICANS take **ALL** of Chicago's gun laws off the books??

    There hasn't been a Republican Mayor of Chicago since 1927...

    The slime and violence that is Chicago is ALL Democrats....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    Regardless of all of the afore, the simple fact is that the SCOTUS has ruled that owning a gun is a constitutional right, equivalent to the right to vote or the right to free speech..

    So, if you want your gun ban, you are going to have to get rid of the 2nd amendment and eviscerate the 1st, 4th and 10th amendments...

    When you have done all that, you can have your gun ban..

    It's that simple...

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Regardless of all of the afore, the simple fact is that the SCOTUS has ruled that owning a gun is a constitutional right, equivalent to the right to vote or the right to free speech..

    Yeah, and we know how much the GOP values the right to vote and the right to free speech. We value gun rights just as much.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    . That's because California has the toughest gun laws in the country, and doesn't border Indiana.

    But it DOES border, almost exclusively, Nevada and Arizona which are OPEN CARRY states..

    Sorry, Balthy.. Yer "theory" is nothing but anti-gun hysteria brought about by Party agenda slavery...

    The FACTS and the REALITY are quite different..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, and we know how much the GOP values the right to vote and the right to free speech.

    Really?? *YOU*, a Democrats, want to point fingers at the GOP about being against FREE SPEECH??? *YOU*??

    Yea right...

    Democrats have been doing nothing but trying to kill free speech for the last 2 years...

    Alex Jones... Ring a bell??

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Most of your responses are unrelated to the statement that you are responding to and are just avoiding addressing the issue at hand- that disease is called deflection.

    You are proving my point of whatever you need to tell yourself.

    But I will respond to your question of is there anything that Nancy Pelosi can't be blamed for?

    Yes. CW refusing to address and inform citizens aboot One Demand and the current opportunity to mobilize the 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections but do not vote in off year elections is entirely on CW and has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi (unless she has a video of CW getting a golden shower from his cats).

    So doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity?

    So ordinary citizens that vote for Big Money Democrats and expect them to not be controlled by their Big Money contributors as they have been for the last thirty years are insane to vote for Big Money Democrats again while expecting that this time the Big Money Democrats will not be controlled by their Big Money contributors and will represent ordinary citizens?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    And please don't give me any hysterical Left Wing drivel about "hate speech"...

    "Hate speech" is the EXACT reason that Freedom Of Speech exists.

    Hate speech is the EPITOME of protected speech...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most of your responses are unrelated to the statement that you are responding to and are just avoiding addressing the issue at hand- that disease is called deflection.

    Veronica deflecting and ignoring facts she doesn't like!!???

    Say it ain't so!!!! :D

  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Alex Jones... Ring a bell?

    The Slanderer of Sandy Hook? That guy? The guy who says that the free press is the enemy of the people? Or was that his buddy, the guy pretending to be president?

    Yeah, I've heard of him. Seems there are only so many lies and slurs that you can spread before someone gets the ass at you and sues.

    They both need to remember that the right has a propaganda wing that is a part of the mainstream media too. But Alex Jones isn't the New York Times or even Fox News - he's a radio blogger at best, and a wildly uninformed one at that.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Slanderer of Sandy Hook? That guy? The guy who says that the free press is the enemy of the people? Or was that his buddy, the guy pretending to be president?

    Yeah, I've heard of him. Seems there are only so many lies and slurs that you can spread before someone gets the ass at you and sues.

    They both need to remember that the right has a propaganda wing that is a part of the mainstream media too. But Alex Jones isn't the New York Times or even Fox News - he's a radio blogger at best, and a wildly uninformed one at that.

    And guess what??? Everything he spews is HIS RIGHT under the First Amendment of the United States..

    But YOU Democrats have been trying to silence him...

    So, please.. You have no moral standing to point fingers at the GOP for not valuing Freedom Of Speech...

  55. [55] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hate speech is the EPITOME of protected speech.

    Indeed it is. But the Supremes left open an exception. It's called the 'fighting words' exception, and it involves "speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech", i.e., "fighting words".

    Jones has probably crossed that line more times than I've shit this month, but ironically, he's not being sued for being a loudmouthed asshole. He's being sued for defamation.

    In a segment called “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed,” which aired on April 22, 2017, it seems that Jones made several statements about the Sandy Hook parents that he knew weren't true. They caused real harm, death threats and the like.

    Whaddya wanna bet that Jones' defense is that he isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, and his monstrous behavior is 'just an act'?

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't get me wrong.. Alex Jones is laughable..

    His theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, his methods are sloppy, and his conclusions are highly questionable!

    :D

    But we're not discussing the validity of Jones' speech, are we??

    We're discussing if he has the RIGHT to that speech..

    You and your Democrats say NO...

    Facts, reality and the US Constitution say YES...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    he's not being sued for being a loudmouthed asshole.

    There is a reason for that...

    Because you CAN'T be sued for being a loud mouthed asshole..

    If you could, everyone here, myself included could have been sued 20 times over.. :D

    Whaddya wanna bet that Jones' defense is that he isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, and his monstrous behavior is 'just an act'?

    Whaddya wanna bet you are deflecting and not addressing the point..

    Is it FREE SPEECH or is it not??

    That's the only question here..

    Why won't you answer it??

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even when Democrats try to ban free speech, they are utterly incompetent at it..

    Bans don’t seem to be lessening reach of Alex Jones, InfoWars
    https://www.mystatesman.com/business/bans-don-seem-lessening-reach-alex-jones-infowars/Xo1jC96JodMuYqZDYMVQjO/

    Democrats are actually bringing about the very exposure they fight to stop....

    I swear, Democrats could scroo up an iron football.. :D

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We're discussing if he has the RIGHT to that speech..You and your Democrats say NO...

    Oh I would, just because he's a hateful, racist, dunce. His argument regarding the social networks that booted him for being an asshole has no merit, however, because they're not government entities, they're private businesses, allowed to set any rules they like regarding acceptable content, so long as their rules don't violate civil rights laws. Unless 'jerks' are a protected class, he hasn't got a case.

    Ironically, the laws that protect those rules were mostly promulgated by Republicans. Democrats actually warned about the hit that free speech could take from digital conglomerates.

    Makes you want to re-think Net Neutrality, doesn't it? Now that it's the Right's ox that's being gored?

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don't get me wrong.. Alex Jones is laughable..

    His theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, his methods are sloppy, and his conclusions are highly questionable!

    "Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down," Trump told Alex Jones during a Wednesday afternoon appearance on the Infowars.com proprietor's show.

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    In an amusing twist to the whole "Q" and "Qanon" story, some in the tin-foil hat crowd are now claiming that the whole "Q" thing is a left wing prank to highlight just how unhinged the RWNJs are.

    Conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies - anything is possible when your attitude to reliable sources is "why bother".

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh I would, just because he's a hateful, racist, dunce.

    AHhhhh

    So, you would deny Jones his right to Free Speech because you don't like what he says..

    And you accuse the GOP of not valuing free speech???

    Obviously you and your Democrats believe that only those you agree with should have Free Speech..

    Sad....

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh I would, just because he's a hateful, racist, dunce.

    AHhhhh

    So, you would deny Jones his right to Free Speech because you don't like what he says..

    And you accuse the GOP of not valuing free speech???

    Obviously you and your Democrats believe that only those you agree with should have Free Speech..

    Sad....

  64. [64] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Just a follow up to the insanity reference:

    "Well everyone in Mandrake Falls is pixilated. Except for us."
    -The Faulkner sisters
    Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies - anything is possible when your attitude to reliable sources is "why bother".

    And if my attitude was "why bother" because of that, you would have a point.

    But it's not, so you don't.

    It's ya'all who as created the atmosphere in here that facts don't matter..

    Don't blame me because I am playing and kicking ya'all's collective asses by ya'all's own rules..

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, you would deny Jones his right to Free Speech because you don't like what he says..

    I was afraid that you'd jump on that. I meant that I would IF I weren't such an advocate for free speech myself. In truth, I think that he has an absolute right to be a public idiot. I do think he crossed a line with the Sandy Hook folks, because they did't deserve the bile he spewed at them, and it put them in harm's way. He ought to lose that lawsuit. And I really don't believe that he has a case against twitter and facebook either, given their clear rights under the law.

    But am I comfortable with mega-companies deciding what gets discussed on the public airwaves? No. I'm against harassment, and the aforementioned 'fighting words' (narrowly defined), but not in favor of censorship. It's messy.

    Again, that's why I'm in favor of net neutrality.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    But am I comfortable with mega-companies deciding what gets discussed on the public airwaves?

    As long as what they decide coincides with your Party slavery...

    If you TRULY supported Free Speech, you would support Alex Jones' right to be a loudmouth asshole..

    But you have made it abundantly clear that your only interest in Free Speech is that ONLY those who politically agree with you should have it..

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, that's why I'm in favor of net neutrality.

    You are in favor of net neutrality because it gives those "mega companies" you are comfortable with, who are politically acceptable to you, control of the internet...

    With you Democrats it's all about control and silencing those who don't believe or think as you do...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    'A Slap in the Face': FL Police Unions Urge Miami Dolphins Boycott After Anthem Protests
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/12/florida-police-unions-urge-miami-dolphins-boycott-after-anthem-protests

    Well, it's football season.. Time for the scum-bag America haters and cop haters to come out of their holes...

    :^/

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Time for the scum-bag America haters and cop haters to come out of their holes...

    So, no free speech for football players then?

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, Republicans are so desperate to pretend that they are educated they've resorted to pretending to have degrees, then concocting elaborate lies to cover up, even confusing the pro-Republican press:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/11/florida-candidate-tried-to-prove-shes-a-college-graduate-the-school-says-her-diploma-is-fake/

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    'A Slap in the Face': FL Police Unions Urge Miami Dolphins Boycott After Anthem Protests

    So, letting bad cops kill unarmed people is fine with FL police, but exercising first amendment rights protesting it is a slap in the face?

    Snowflakes.

    If they spent as much time weeding out the bad cops as whining we'd have some respect for them.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, no free speech for football players then?

    There is no such thing as Free Speech when you are on someone else's clock..

    Duh...

    So, letting bad cops kill unarmed people is fine with FL police, but exercising first amendment rights protesting it is a slap in the face?

    Show me a bad cop who killed an unarmed person and wasn't prosecuted when it was ruled a bad shoot..

    You can't..

    One of those FACTS that you ignore because you can't admit you are wrong..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Republicans are so desperate to pretend that they are educated they've resorted to pretending to have degrees,

    Yea... Cuz a DEMOCRAT would *NEVER* pretend to be something their not to get elected.

    Girl from the Bronx' Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat high-ranking Democrat Joe Crowley, faces questions over her 'working class' background after it's revealed she grew up in a wealthy suburb north of New York City
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5905247/Girl-Bronx-Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-actually-grew-wealthy-Westchester-County.html

    Ooops

    Face reality, Neil.. There is nothing you can accuse Republicans of that Democrats haven't done themselves..

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    If they spent as much time weeding out the bad cops as whining we'd have some respect for them.

    The problem for you and your fellow cop hating Democrats is you define "bad cop" as anyone who lawfully and justifiably shoots a black person in the course of their duties..

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    But go ahead..

    Give me an example of a cop who shot an unarmed black person, where the shooting was ruled unjustified and the cop wasn't prosecuted or penalized..

    Go ahead.. Spout off with yer Tamir Rice (Good Shoot) BS, your Sam Dubose (Good Shoot) crap, your Philando Castile (Good Shoot) ignorance, your Michael Brown (Good Shoot) spewage....

    You can spout BS til the cows come home and they are *ALL* Good Shoots...

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem for you and your fellow cop hating Democrats is you define "bad cop" as anyone who lawfully and justifiably shoots a black person in the course of their duties..

    I'm not the one giving a blanket pardon for every cop regardless of circumstance.

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    You can spout BS til the cows come home and they are *ALL* Good Shoots...

    So there has never been an unjustified killing by a cop who wasn't charged?

    And why is it all about black victims with you? Why is race always your first go to - if the victim is black, the cop has to be right?

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here is a summary of what you asked for:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/black-deaths-police.html

    The family is paid off, but the cops and the prosecutors protect the cops regardless.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not the one giving a blanket pardon for every cop regardless of circumstance.

    What a coininky dink...

    Neither am I..

    I am still waiting for you to come with a case of a cop shooting an unarmed black man where it was judged to be a Bad Shoot and the cop was NOT prosecuted or punished in any way..

    You got such a case???

    So there has never been an unjustified killing by a cop who wasn't charged?

    You tell me, sunshine... :D

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/black-deaths-police.html

    Dood.. I don't want stats or links..

    I want FACTS... Do you have any FACTS from a case that supports your claim??

    YES or NO....

    Apparently, the answer is NO...

    The family is paid off

    So, they won the ghetto lottery and their happy..

    What's the problem??

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    From your OWN link, Neil..

    Officers were indicted or charged in eight of the cases. A trial is pending in one case. One case resulted in a conviction and another led to a guilty plea and a prison sentence.

    So, apparently, contrary to your claim that cops are getting away with unjustified shootings, cops ARE being prosecuted and punished...

    So, once again, the FACTS prove that you are full of shit..

    And once again, you will IGNORE the facts because you can't admit you are wrong..

    As I said above, your problem is you believe that cops who shoot black people should be punished, REGARDLESS of the FACTS that PROVE the shooting was justified..

    Yer anti-cop.... You simply hate cops...

    It's that simple..

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yer anti-cop.... You simply hate cops...

    It's that simple..

    That's a plurality... Democrats are anti-cop.. Democrats hate cops..

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Daily Mail? Really, this is your go to source? It is basically a supermarket tabloid in the U.K.

    Also, her web site states exactly what you are trying to claim is a revelation. It is right there in her biography.

    Heavens, the gullibility of the right wing.

    How's that "Qanon" thing working out for you? You bought into that hook, line and sinker?

  84. [84] 
    neilm wrote:

    Heavens, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has scared the living daylights out of the right wing - you'd think she was running for President instead of cantering into a safe seat in the Bronx?

    What is scaring you so much Michale? Any more lies about her you want to peddle to prove your insecurity?

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, her web site states exactly what you are trying to claim is a revelation. It is right there in her biography.

    And yet, she tried to pass herself off as working class girl...

    Funny how it's perfectly OK with you if Democrats lie about themselves to win election, but not if Republicans do...

    It's called Party bigotry and hypocrisy..

    How's that "Qanon" thing working out for you?

    Since I have no idea what you are talking about and don't care, this can only be viewed as you got caught in a lie and yer trying to crazily deflect attention.. :D

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is scaring you so much Michale? Any more lies about her you want to peddle to prove your insecurity?

    No fear here..

    Just proving how bigoted and hypocritical you Democrats are...

    She was scared to debate a RIGHT WINGER so she played the victim card.. Yet she attacked her primary opponent because said opponent wouldn't debate her...

    Typical Left Winger hypocrisy...

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still waiting for you to provide FACTS on a case where a cop shot a black person and it was ruled a bad shoot and the cop got away with it w/o any punishment or prosecution..

    Tick, tock Neil... Tick, tock...

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good news, Giuliani just remembered that Treasonous Trump didn't talk to Comey about Flynn, despite the viscous lies saying he did from some guy named "Rudi" on TV several times last month.

    This "Rudi" guy better stop stalking Giuliani and contradicting him in advance!

    Also, Giuliani needs to see if he can stop "Rudi" from using his likeness, title, last name and voice when he appears on Fox News, CNN, etc., it is a disgrace and makes Giuliani look like a complete turnip.

  89. [89] 
    neilm wrote:

    Tick, tock Neil... Tick, tock...

    Philando Castile

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I understand how you want to deflect from you being wrong and all :D

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Philando Castile

    Justified shooting...

    Even though he was prosecuted and found innocent by a jury...

    What makes you think the shooting was not justified?

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Philando Castile

    Basically, Castile didn't pay attention in his gun class and ignored the lesson on how to deal with LEOs while carrying..

    He paid for his ignorance with his life...

    That's a shame, but it's not the fault of the cop..

    See, now, if I were a Democrat, I would point out that the cop was hispanic and yer just attacking the because he is hispanic and that makes you a racist..

    But thank the gods I am not a Democrat, eh?? :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    See, now, if I were a Democrat, I would point out that the cop was hispanic and yer just attacking the because he is hispanic and that makes you a racist..

    Of course, that SHOULD read:

    See, now, if I were a Democrat, I would point out that the cop was hispanic and yer just attacking the COP because he is hispanic and that makes you a racist..

    I hate it when a devastating point is marred by a simple typo.. :D

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    If the person who liked Philando Castile hadn't been a cop they'd be in prison right now.

    A badge in America gives access to a special criminal justice system where the insiders investigate the insiders and occasionally put on show trials for cover. This allows bad cops to get away with murder.

    If it weren't true, why would the right wing be so crazy when football players raise the issue?

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    If the person who liked Philando Castile hadn't been a cop they'd be in prison right now.

    Should read "If the person who killed Philando Castile hadn't been a cop they'd be in prison right now."

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Philando Castile

    And was Castile's fiancee worried about helping him in the aftermath of the shooting??

    No.. She was only concerned about streaming it live so she could get a bigger settlement in the ghetto lottery.. :^/

    Let's face the facts and reality, Neil..

    When it comes to these police shootings, it's the MONEY that is the ONLY goal here... To hell with quaint concepts like justice and guilt and innocence..

    These scumbags who scream and attack police are looking for a payout, plain and simple...

    DO you REALLY want to be associated with scumbags like that??

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale's only reason for voting for the traitor was to ensure bad cops got off free when they killed innocent people.

    I pressed him frequently before the 2016 election and that was all he had.

    Sad really.

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    DO you REALLY want to be associated with scumbags like that??

    No, but I don't want them shot when they are doing nothing wrong either.

    Why do you always protect bad cops?

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    Man the Republicans have shot their selves in the foot when it comes to claiming to be the "Law and Order" party.

    First they protect bad cops and undermine the whole system, then they scream when one of their own, hired by another of their own, who was appointed by their leader, starts charging criminals.

    You'd have a lot more credibility on the old "no cop is ever bad" fairytale Michale if you'd stop attacking any attempt to police the police.

  100. [100] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Conservatives call for constitutional intervention last seen 230 years ago"

    The RWNJs are going completely Qanon all over the place.

    It could backfire however. They could eliminate the 2nd Amendment, or reword it to ensure that only trained military and authorized law enforcement can carry firearms. Oops.

    Alternatively they could get exactly what they really want, a balanced budget amendment that would destroy the economy while, at the same time, eliminating SS and Medicare (how's them apples, retirees?).

    What a bunch of crackpots. How'ya doing Michale, excited about a constitutional convention? Has "Q" told you what to think about it in some wildly obscure way?

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do you always protect bad cops?

    I never have..

    Why do you always claim cops are bad when they are simply doing their jobs???

    Your ONE example was a perfect example of a good shoot...

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    You'd have a lot more credibility on the old "no cop is ever bad" fairytale Michale if you'd stop attacking any attempt to police the polic

    Of course, I never said anything like that..

    But once again, you prove my point..

    You spew bullshit.. I provide FACTS.. You ignore the facts and can't admit you are wrong...

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Philando Castile

    Why don't you want to discuss the facts of the case you named??

    Is it because you are totally ignorant of the facts??

    Or is it because you acknowledge that the facts will prove how much of a cop-hater you are???

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    Of course, I never said anything like that..

    Prove it - you've been asked multiple times why you never post anything about bad cops unless they are getting exonerated by the system.

    What do you know about real law enforcement - you can't point to one case of a bad cop killing an innocent victim.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, but I don't want them shot when they are doing nothing wrong either.

    If they had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't have been shot..

    DUH.....

  106. [106] 
    neilm wrote:

    Undermining your next message Michale, even before you post it:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/11/22/thankfully-2017-is-almost-over/#comment-110817

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    If they had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't have been shot.

    So if a cop shoots somebody who is doing 26 in a 25 zone, all is good in your world?

  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    You still can't point to one instance where you criticize a bad cop Michale. Not one.

    You have zero credibility. If you can't ever see any errors then you are a completely unreliable witness.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prove it

    You can't prove a negative.. You made the accusation.. You prove that I DID say it...

    What do you know about real law enforcement - you can't point to one case of a bad cop killing an innocent victim.

    And yet, I have... The SC shooting... It was mentioned in your link...

    So, once again, the FACTS prove you wrong and you can't admit it..

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have zero credibility. If you can't ever see any errors then you are a completely unreliable witness.

    There are no errors committed by LEOs..

    The fact that you can't see this proves you are nothing but a cop-hater with an agenda..

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    So if a cop shoots somebody who is doing 26 in a 25 zone, all is good in your world?

    DO you have any facts to support that this happened??

    No, you do not..

    All you have is your cop hating agenda...

  112. [112] 
    neilm wrote:

    There are no errors committed by LEOs..

    No credibility problems here folks, move along.

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    No credibility problems here folks, move along.

    If you think I am wrong, feel free to point out the errors..

    {{chhirrrrpppppp}} {{ccchhhiirrrrrppppp}}

    Yea, that's what I thought..

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    To clarify....

    Point out the UNJUSTIFIED errors...

    Officer Yanez may or may not have been mistaken about Castile's intent..

    The extra second or two that Yanez needed to take to make that determination positively could have cost Yanez his life...

    But regardless, Yanez's actions were fully justified and he was acquitted by a jury that contained several black people and the acquittal was unanimous..

    These are the FACTS...

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, once again, FACTS scares away all Weigantians... :^/

    And, once again, I ask...

    Why do I even bother.... :^/

  116. [116] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Give me an example of a cop who shot an unarmed black person, where the shooting was ruled unjustified and the cop wasn't prosecuted or penalized..

    There’s a catch here... RULED UNJUSTIFIED... Of course those shootings result in criminal charges.

    But if you want a case that is questionable, look at the no-knock warrant serve of an ex-paratrooper Matt Stewart who ended up hanging himself in jail after being charged with murder for shooting one of the officers who burst into his home. No-knock warrant serves are typically done anytime firearms might be located at a location where a warrant must be served. They occur at a time when occupants are determined to be asleep. The police knock down the door and storm into the residence announcing that they are law enforcement after they are inside. Police will sometimes use flash-bangs when they enter to cause those inside to be disoriented.

    While I understand the safety reasons offered behind them, I think that no-knock warrant serves trample over self-defense laws. How can anyone be expected to comprehend that the police are inside their home to serve a warrant after being jarred awake from a sound sleep (and possibly disoriented even more by a flash bang) with men in all black pointing assault rifles rushing into your home yelling?

    Cities that can afford full time SWAT teams rarely have problems with these entries, it’s your smaller departments that tend to mess things up.

  117. [117] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Police shootings, SWAT raids, no-knock warrants - haven't we painted a lovely picture of US society today? Maybe the huge "Do Not Enter" sign the Trumpers want to stick on the door should be viewed as a warning, rather than a punishment. Perhaps the sign should read: "If you are darker than this ->[ ], ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK"

    Would that make the Trumpers happy? I think that would make them very happy.

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    But if you want a case that is questionable,

    But Neil isn't talking about a "questionable" case...

    He's talking about cases where a cop went up to a black driver and said, "You were doing 26mph in a 25mph zone" and then pulled out his weapon and shot the driver..

    Of course, Neil doesn't provide any FACTS to support that claim...

    But, that's how it is here in Weigantia...

    No Facts, Cop Hating.. All the time...

    Ni ni... Catch up in the morning. :D

  119. [119] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why do these guys always forget that there's video?

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    98

    Why do you always protect bad cops?

    Think about it, Neil. It's an easy answer.

  121. [121] 
    John M wrote:

    [45] Michale

    "How could REPUBLICANS take **ALL** of Chicago's gun laws off the books??

    There hasn't been a Republican Mayor of Chicago since 1927...

    The slime and violence that is Chicago is ALL Democrats...."

    I guess you either missed or deliberately glossed over the part where the Illinois State Legislature took that power away from local jurisdictions like the City of Chicago because it didn't fit your narrative?

    [54] Michale

    "And guess what??? Everything he spews is HIS RIGHT under the First Amendment of the United States.."

    Not entirely. Since the First Amendment only protects you from government censorship. Private companies like Facebook and Twitter have the right to do whatever they want regarding speech on their own sites.

    [56] Michale

    "His theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, his methods are sloppy, and his conclusions are highly questionable!"

    They are more than that. They led to families who buried their children being pursued and traumatized over and over again because people believed him when he called Sandy Hook a hoax, and took it out on the victims families in the worst possible way with the most despicable vile and death threats.

    "But we're not discussing the validity of Jones' speech, are we??

    We're discussing if he has the RIGHT to that speech..

    You and your Democrats say NO...

    Facts, reality and the US Constitution say YES..."

    Facts, reality and the U.S. Constitution DO NOT. They only protect you from government censorship, not regulation by private companies of their own platforms. Nor do they protect you from the consequences of your own speech, like lawsuits.

    [73] Michale

    "There is no such thing as Free Speech when you are on someone else's clock..

    Duh..."

    There is also no such thing as free speech when you are on someone else's privately owned forum, like Facebook, twitter, or C.W.'s blog.

    Duh!

  122. [122] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I think Kavanaugh is going to get borked over complicity and cover-up of his role in GWB-era torture.

    At least he'll remain on the DC Circuit, which is the bench, using a baseball analogy, on which modern Supreme Court nominees sit. Remember, when Bork himself got borked, Reagan then brought Scalia in to pitch in the big league. This time, President Pelosi might be able to re-appoint Garland.

    In what universe would there be a President Pelosi? The real world of 2019. Trump goes, and remember how the Vice President got chosen? Russian conspirator Manafort surreptitiously delayed Trump's plane on the ground in Indiana until Pence could meet Trump on board and the deal was sealed. If Pence is even a little dirty, he's a pussy, and would fold like a cheap suit. Who's next in line?

    Whaddaya think, michale?

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    chaszzzbrown
    32

    "I'm not just President; I'm also a client." - Donald Trump

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahhahahahahhahaha *takes breath* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Charles Brown, Esq. makes an excellent point here, and I can't stop laughing.

    I would just like to add that any of y'all with "male pattern stupidness" disease who can't seem to stop prattling on and on about Nancy Pelosi because your brain follicles quit producing, therefore you regurgitate whatever you're spoon-fed by Benedict Donald are little more than "useful idiots" and card carrying members of the Hair Dick-Tater Club. :)

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    50

    Most of your responses are unrelated to the statement that you are responding to and are just avoiding addressing the issue at hand- that disease is called deflection.

    No, sir. My responses regarding your techniques and repetitive spew are spot on, and therein lies your problem, Don: Your refusal to acknowledge what nearly everyone on this board has already told you multiple times over, and that's a disease called "delusional."

    You are proving my point of whatever you need to tell yourself.

    No, sir, and I repeat: "Delusional," and I would add to that "projection." It isn't me insisting that "all I can do is keep proving the option until people like CW are ready to listen, ready to understand;" that's all your handiwork. You've proven nothing, Don, other than your ignorant belief that doing the same thing over and over will somehow produce a different result, and in the process of that, you're insisting that it's everybody else who isn't "ready to listen" and "ready to understand." For the millionth time, Don: Your concepts are effing elementary; there's nothing complicated whatsoever about your bullshit or your delivery. You've been given loads of good advice on how to update your website, present it, as well as solicit others to help you, and you're still firmly convinced that it's perfectly wonderful, needs no improvement, and everyone else will come around to your way of thinking one day, that if you just keep repeating it ad nauseam on this blog or if you throw a few "f bombs" around to prove that you're "really, really mad this time" that this somehow is magically going to make the author change his mind and advertise your pathetic attempt at political activism. Whatever you have to tell yourself, Don.

    But I will respond to your question of is there anything that Nancy Pelosi can't be blamed for?

    Not surprisingly, Don chooses to answer the rhetorical question like it's a real question in need of an answer, and I will give everybody one guess what Don has to say.

    Yes. CW refusing to address and inform citizens aboot One Demand and the current opportunity to mobilize the 20-30% of citizens that vote in presidential elections but do not vote in off year elections is entirely on CW and has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi.

    Then perhaps you should have thought of that, Don, before you regurgitated her name in your "SSDD" post at [13] above where you whine like a toddler that CW chose to "honorably mention" Nancy Pelosi while once again and forever choosing to ignore your repetitive and ridiculous begging him to shill for you. At this point of years and years of this shit, it's beyond pathetic to watch you continue to grovel. Haven't you got the least bit of pride or decency? <--- yet another rhetorical question that requires no answer whatsoever.

    So ordinary citizens that vote for Big Money Democrats and expect them to not be controlled by their Big Money contributors as they have been for the last thirty years are insane to vote for Big Money Democrats again while expecting that this time the Big Money Democrats will not be controlled by their Big Money contributors and will represent ordinary citizens?

    These people you're referring to as "ordinary citizens" aren't likely to be stepping into the voting booth and concerning themselves with the ignorant labels Don Harris has created to describe the ideas contained in his "failed/not succeeding yet" pathetic attempt at political activism. They can only vote for who is on the ballot in their district regardless of how the candidates on their ballot are funded and/or to which political party they are affiliated. They are generally going to be concerned with issues like health care affordability, availability, coverage for preexisting conditions, education, earning a decent working wage, etc.

    I've got bad but obvious news for you, Don, and I'm telling you: The only moron out there who thinks it is necessary that "ordinary citizens" need to participate in "One Demand" in order to be able to cast a vote in an election held in any district, parish, or state in this country is... in fact... you, and it is the height of ignorance and the depths of indecency to continue to shill this shit on another man's website because you can't sell it yourself. :)

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    33

    Mueller is so stoopid and incompetent that he doesn't even know what his duty is..

    I think the disconnect here is the fact that you either didn't read the order or you did read the order and your reading comprehension problem reared it's pathetic head as it is wont to do daily.

    In HIS mind, his ONLY duty is to nullify a free, fair and legal election.

    Then again, I would not rule out that it's also a possibility that the disconnect occurs due to your inveterate ignorance wherein you insist that you know what everyone else is thinking. If you're going to keep claiming that you know what is going on in near everyone's mind, people are going to naturally determine you're missing one. :)

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    52

    Veronica deflecting and ignoring facts she doesn't like!!???

    Your projection is again duly noted, and I see those multiple mugshots are still easily searchable.

    Say it ain't so!!!! :D

    Sorry, Michael... it is decidedly so and shall remain ever thus because crime doesn't pay, and the mugshots last forever. :)

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    38

    Obviously it equals a non-violent paradise.. :^/

    Another shot of reality that no one wants to address...

    It is the height of ignorance to believe that anyone here needs a lecture on "a non-violent paradise" from a guy who opined during a discussion of the former U.S. national security adviser and multiple former directors/deputies of our United States intelligence agencies that:

    Personally, the [sic] deserve to be shot..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/07/20/ftp493/#comment-123359

    And with that nugget, it becomes easily recognizable that you're the living embodiment of a so-called "law enforcement officer" who has made a decision based on ignorance rather than procedure/rule of law, and when you defend their actions made out of their personal feelings of fear, prejudice, and/or "political slavery," you're obviously defending yourself.

  128. [128] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [123] any of y'all with "male pattern stupidness" disease who can't seem to stop prattling on and on about Nancy Pelosi

    Kick, I hope you'll be pleased to know that I've reconsidered my position that Pelosi has to go.

    Here's why. As I proved in post [122], sometime in early 2019, following the impeachment conviction. and that quickly followed by Pence's resignation in disgrace, the Speaker of the House will become President. It would be too risky to open the speakership up in January, and there would inevitably be distractive and harmful maneuvering before the election.

    Pelosi has to stay.

    There's a clown bus full of new Democrat representatives that arrives in Washington in early January. While we know it'll be a clown bus rather than a car simply because there'll be so many of them, it's impossible to know until Nov 6th who even has a validated ticket for the bus. There's just not enough time for the stakeholders -lobbyists, donors, and the party itself- to understand the power alignments and personalities in the new caucus to feel assured that the speakership is solid.

    Pelosi is the only safe bet out there. My lord, there's even a self-declaring Socialist running around; lord knows what animal spirits might be raised by that one. BTW, I think she's a Warren agent, groomed and sent out by the New England / Kennedy establishment wing of the party to give the really leftie Bernie people something to hope for.

    That's a digression. Back to the point, Nancy Pelosi is the only person who will be serving in the House of Representatives in January who is known today to be qualified to be president, even if only as a caretaker until the 2020 election.

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale: We're discussing if he has the RIGHT to that speech..You and your Democrats say NO...

    Balthasar: Oh I would, just because he's a hateful, racist, dunce. His argument regarding the social networks that booted him for being an asshole has no merit, however, because they're not government entities, they're private businesses, allowed to set any rules they like regarding acceptable content, so long as their rules don't violate civil rights laws.

    Let's all take a walk down "Memory Lane," shall we, and return to those thrilling days of a few months and weeks ago when Michale, who is as clueless as the day is long, came back from yet another one of his "hissy fit," "cry baby," "if I can't get my way I will leave the blog," wherein he seems to have completely blanked out right about now regarding his pathetic attempts upon his return to recruit other posters to lobby the author of the blog in order to impose rules of his own making. Indeed, he even had the punishments all written up and ready to be meted out according to his whims.

    I posted my comment at [126] above for no other reason than to remind him about his failed efforts to impose his "Michale's Way or the Highway Rules Limiting Free Speech on a Blog Not Owned By Michale." It seems he's totally forgotten about his efforts to silence certain members of this very blog and therefore remains clueless regarding the fact that receiving a lecture from him about "freedom of speech" is akin to receiving admonishments from Hannibal Lecter about the ills of cannibalism.

    He seems to have also forgotten about that entire incident wherein he and EM whined endlessly for days and days about a post Paula made, saying over and over that it was an issue of "common decency" that she shouldn't post her feelings about retiring supreme court justice Mr. Kennedy, and then he went and blew that whole pathetic argument into tiny little bits by declaring that multiple former officers of our United States intelligence agencies "deserve to be shot."

    No worries, Balthy, seriously... because the demonstrable FACT is that Michale has proven unequivocally by his recent and past actions and statements that he doesn't give two shits about either "freedom of speech," "common decency," or the "rule of law" because he is... after all... nothing more than a hypocrite who incessantly whines about hypocrisy while being the demonstrable living embodiment of it, proving over and over again that he's nothing more than a Trump cultist who has bought "all in" to Don the Con and his travelling 3-ring circus of lying liars, traitors, swamp creatures, and ignoramuses who believe whatever propaganda they're spoon-fed by Benedict Donald and spew it back here mindlessly without ever factoring in their own bullshit. :)

  130. [130] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why do you always protect bad cops?

    Think about it, Neil. It's an easy answer.

    Yeah, I twist Michale's tail, but remember, he is just a very confused Pelosi fan that'll get there in the end ;)

    The hard way.

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    61

    In an amusing twist to the whole "Q" and "Qanon" story, some in the tin-foil hat crowd are now claiming that the whole "Q" thing is a left wing prank to highlight just how unhinged the RWNJs are.

    Conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies - anything is possible when your attitude to reliable sources is "why bother".

    *spew alert*

    This is so awesome. I have to hand it to y'all today. I needed a good laugh, and the comments from the more intelligent posters have not let me down.

    I can see I'm going to need a margarita to stop from laughing, and... oh, look... there is one conveniently located at the end of my arm here. :)

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    64

    Just a follow up to the insanity reference:

    "Well everyone in Mandrake Falls is pixilated. Except for us."
    -The Faulkner sisters
    Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

    Why don't you follow-up on your "insanity" and "go to town" on your website? :)

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale: Time for the scum-bag America haters and cop haters to come out of their holes...

    Neil: So, no free speech for football players then?

    Why of course not, silly. You are only allowed to take a knee if it's at the feet of Vladimir Vladomirovich Putin in the process of tearing down the intelligence agencies of America whom you insist you agree with except when you're busy doing overtime putting your own personal interests in front of the citizens of the United States that you swore on the Bible to protect and defend. /sarcasm off

    There will be a tipping point; I can assure you, and I would wager that tipping point is going to include the following words/numbers... in no particular order:

    * Prague
    * July
    * Cohen
    * Hackers
    * Italy
    * 2016

    Say... is it just me or did anybody else notice how Michael Cohen has become awfully quiet in the press lately? Mikey must really be busy. I personally would characterize him as an alto myself, although sometimes he hits some of those notes in the upper register. ;)

  134. [134] 
    Kick wrote:

    LeaningBlue
    128

    Kick, I hope you'll be pleased to know that I've reconsidered my position that Pelosi has to go.

    And you will be pleased to know that things actually do happen every day wherein Nancy Pelosi proves without question why it actually might be a good thing if she were to pass the torch, however, admittedly at far less frequent intervals that the Orange Asshat who is currently sworn in as the President of the United States... either written/oral and combined. For instance, yesterday I saw on live television where Nancy Pelosi claimed it was racist that Mitch McConnell said what he did about making Barack Obama a 1-term president. Honestly, LB, that's ridiculous when you consider that McConnell's wife was actually made a cabinet secretary in a quid pro quo to keep her husband in line lest he get any ideas of making Trump a 1-term president, and I don't for one second believe he would either do that or say that just because Trump has orange skin. Still, Trump has Nancy Pelosi beat by a mile in the "Who Needs to Step Down Because They Said or Tweeted Stupid Stuff" department.

    I just grow weary of hearing people spew back the propaganda of Benedict Donald on cue because it's exactly what he wants. Very few in political circles gave two shits about the football players taking a knee until Trump decided to dictate the reasons they were doing it and convinced the uneducated goobers and TrumpTrash that taking a knee was disrespectful to the flag that Trump likes to hunch like it's his daughter. Pay no attention to the fact that "Cadet Bone Spurs Five Deferments, STDs Were My Personal Vietnam, and I Like People That Weren't Captured" has disrespected multiple thousands of soldiers outright, but I digress.

    There are all kinds of reasons that Nancy Pelosi might consider passing the torch, but anyone taking the Traitor Bait versus discussing the actual issues is just allowing themselves to be spoon-fed by Hair Dick-Tater and giving credence to the whining drivel and spew of the Pablum Puking Putin Puppet.

    Here's why. As I proved in post [122], sometime in early 2019, following the impeachment conviction....

    Say what? I've said it before, and I'll say again, the GOP and their ignorant tools... Devin Nunes... spineless minions, and rank and file "useful idiots" do not give two shits whether or not Trump broke the law or even whether they themselves broke the law on multiple provable occasions. They're only concerned with all the pathetic conspiracy theory bullshit they can invent regarding "crimes" committed by the "others." Trump will continue to choose to lie and further debase our law enforcement and government institutions in order to obfuscate and cover up his own crimes, while the MAGAts and un- and undereducated morons will continue to believe Trump's lying bullshit because they wouldn't know a fact if it lived on their faces, and they're only concerned about their false equivalency and whataboutism bullshit and whining like little witches when you point out their crimes and the crimes of their spawn and their ilk. So there's that.

    Cowards resign. I don't believe Trump will be impeached because he's a liar and a coward, but I'm hoping some of these GOP morons will grow a spine and put their country over the cult of personality that is Benedict Donald, Treasonous Trump, and Communist Mafia Don and prove me wrong.

    In the meantime, the handwriting will be splashed across the wall in great big letters when more of the "My Ass Got Arrested" crowd become the newly indicted and handcuffed as well as ankle braceleted and prisoners of ADX Florence. I guess we'll see.

    Pelosi has to stay.

    Okay, LB... if you insist. ;)

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    130

    Yeah, I twist Michale's tail, but remember, he is just a very confused Pelosi fan that'll get there in the end ;)

    The hard way.

    Well, he said he would be the first one to admit if he was wrong about Trump, but his ignorant posts to the contrary wherein he spews the spoon-fed Party line pablum on cue while helping to move the goalposts aren't exactly indicative that this will be the case.

    So far he's only managed to prove he's nothing more than a classic case of a cult follower living in the right-wing fantasy bubble swallowed whole by Trump and heading for a circling toilet bowl being flushed by a tiny orange hand into the Twilight Zone.

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not entirely. Since the First Amendment only protects you from government censorship. Private companies like Facebook and Twitter have the right to do whatever they want regarding speech on their own sites.

    Since we were talking about which Party values freedom of speech, your comment is non-sequitor..

    They are more than that. They led to families who buried their children being pursued and traumatized over and over again because people believed him when he called Sandy Hook a hoax, and took it out on the victims families in the worst possible way with the most despicable vile and death threats.

    And yet, it's STILL covered under freedom of speech..

    That is the EXACT kind of speech that the First Amendment is designed to protect..

    There is also no such thing as free speech when you are on someone else's privately owned forum, like Facebook, twitter, or C.W.'s blog.

    Exactly..

    But the point that Balthy is making is he is DEFENDING those mega-corporations in their censorship of Jones, even though he claims that it's the GOP that doesn't value free-speech..

    Put another way..

    Weigantia is RIFE with "hate speech"... Would you be "comfortable" with CW's provider pulling the plug on cw.com due to Hate Speech??

    Wouldn't you scream to the high heavens about censorship and freedom of speech...

    Don't bother answering because you and I both know ya'all would..

    But you bring up an interesting point..

    Basically, you are saying that, as a privately owned business, it has the right to serve whomever it wants and, more importantly, DENY service to whomever it wants..

    So, if it were Facebook Bakery and a person was gay and wanted a cake, Facebook could deny service because it's.....as YOU say... it's private...

    "Well... er... uh.... That's different!!!"

    Let the mealy-mouth back-pedaling begin!!! :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    I think Kavanaugh is going to get borked over complicity and cover-up of his role in GWB-era torture.

    Wanna put a wager on that???

    That will only happen if Democrats WANT to give a huge majority to the GOP in the House and give the GOP a Filibuster-Proof majority in the Senate and guarantee President Trump's re-election by a landslide in 2020..

    Democrats are not going to risk control of the House to stop Kavanaugh... They are gonna put up a token resistance and Kavanaugh will be confirmed by EOM Sep..

    You can take that to the bank...

    Here's why. As I proved in post [122], sometime in early 2019, following the impeachment conviction. and that quickly followed by Pence's resignation in disgrace, the Speaker of the House will become President.

    LB!!! I have seen a new side of you!!! You DO have a sense of humor!!!! :D

    That is a very funny joke... I am still laughing.. :D

    Whaddaya think, michale?

    I think you have a glowing career as either a stand-up comedian in your future.. :D

    Or a career in Sci-Fi Alternate Reality Fiction writing.. :D

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    De Blasio lets security haul away Post reporter for asking question

    Mayor de Blasio is a such a big believer in the free press that he let two bodyguards physically remove a credentialed Post reporter who had the temerity to ask him a question in public on Sunday.

    The unusual muzzling unfolded at the start of the annual Dominican Day Parade in Manhattan, where the reporter sought de Blasio’s reaction to The Post’s front page story about his administration’s many meetings with lobbyists.

    It also came after Hizzoner appeared on national TV Sunday to proclaim, “I believe in a free, strong media with diverse views — I’ll defend it with all I’ve got.”

    https://nypost.com/2018/08/12/de-blasio-lets-security-haul-away-post-reporter-for-asking-question/

    Once again, we see a Democrat official act EXACTLY as ya'all accuse President Trump of acting and the response??

    {{chhhiiirrrrrppppp}} {{{cccchhhirrrrrpppppp}}}

    Cricket city...

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Abuse allegation made against Keith Ellison, who denies it

    Keith Ellison, one of the leading candidates to be Minnesota's next attorney general, confronted allegations Sunday of domestic abuse of a former girlfriend that surfaced days before the election that will decide the party's nominee.

    The allegation that the physical abuse was caught on video was posted to Facebook late Saturday night by the woman's son, four days before Minnesota's primary election, where Ellison is facing off against four other Democrats for the open attorney general's seat.
    https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/08/12/abuse-allegation-made-against-keith-ellison-denies-attorney-general-election

    Ah ah ah... Looks like the Democrat Wunderkind Ellison's halo is tarnished....

    Looks like Ellison is about to be Fraken'ed....

    Haven't yer Democrats created such a lovely world?? :^/

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    https://youtu.be/QcSQIn_0ps0

    I'de likely call that an example of a bad cop..

    Or, at the very least, a good cop who is having a bad bad day...

    So much for your claim that I never point out bad cops.. :^/

    Once again, you are proven wrong with FACTS and you won't admit you were wrong..

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it's funny how no one, relatively speaking, on the Left is screaming hysterically Police Brutality!!!! and RACISM!!!

    Funny how that is, eh???

    I guess all ya'all Democrats are interested in police misconduct ONLY if ya'all can blame it on racism...

    Sad...

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    This week, leading wordsmiths at two of the nation’s major newspapers openly propounded the need for the media to work together (also known as “conspire”) to defeat Donald Trump. The age of metropolitan dailies pretending to be unbiased sources of news officially is over.

    At the New York Times, Thomas Friedman called on the media to defeat Trump in 2020 by targeting specific demographic slices of the electorate. He thereby moves from columnist to campaign consultant:

    In a close election it doesn’t take many uncomfortable moderate Republicans to just stay home to make a big difference.

    He calls on his colleagues to focus on random people whom show up at Trump rallies wearing shorts or signs that Friedman doesn’t like:

    Yes, I want every American to know that two Trump supporters were spotted at the president’s last rally, in Ohio, wearing T-shirts that read, “I’d rather be Russian than a Democrat.”

    Two supporters out of thousands. Would Friedman suggest collectively publicizing the anti-police, anti-capitalist, anti-white, and other slogans on shorts and placards at rallies for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or and other Democrat? The question is rhetorical, because there is a de facto agreement in the mainstream media to hide radical elements of the left.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/trumps_media_opponents_are_leaping_into_his_trap.html

    There you have it..

    As President Trump says, the news media IS the enemy of the American people..

    Just like the Democrat Party....

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    So, what do YOU think about the media openly conspiring to attack and bring down President Trump??

    Is that to job of the media in your mind?? To become activists, create unruly violent mobs and attack a legally fairly and freely elected POTUS to undermine him and remove him from power??

    Is that how far the Left has sunk??

    Apparently.... :^/

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump broke the presidency. It's time to get rid of the job altogether.

    Donald Trump is proof that the U.S. presidency is broken and democracy is in peril. It's time to amend the Constitution and abolish the presidency.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/10/donald-trump-russia-election-inept-monarch-abolish-presidency-column/923543002/

    First it was ABOLISH ICE..

    Now those wacky and crazy Democrats want to abolish the Presidency because their candidate lost..

    :^/

    Yea... DEMOCRATS are fit to govern... :^/

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats used to be for the middle class. Not anymore.
    https://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2018/08/democrats_used_to_be_for_the_m.html

    This is why Democrats won't win the House and have NO CHANCE at the Senate...

  146. [146] 
    Kick wrote:

    INTERESTING TWEET OF THE DAY [SO FAR]

    https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/1028961157544075264

    TRUMP: Omarosa? Omarosa what’s going on? I just saw on the news that you’re thinking about leaving? What happened?

    OMAROSA: General Kelly—General Kelly came to me and said that you guys wanted me to leave.

    TRUMP: No…I, I, Nobody even told me about it.

    OMAROSA: Wow.

    TRUMP: You know they run a big operation, but I didn’t know it. I didn’t know that. Goddamn it. I don’t love you leaving at all.

    Apologies for the cursing, but I'm just the transcriber and not the Orange Asshat who actually said it.

    The President of the United States claims that "they run a big operation," but he didn't know. While in another recording, the Chief of Staff claims that everyone on staff works for him and not the President of the United States.

    Lordy, if Omarosa has tapes from the SITROOM, is there any doubt that Comey could have some? #Morons

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Balthy,

    AP Exclusive: Google tracks your movements, like it or not

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Google wants to know where you go so badly that it records your movements even when you explicitly tell it not to.

    An Associated Press investigation found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you’ve used privacy settings that say they will prevent it from doing so.

    Computer-science researchers at Princeton confirmed these findings at the AP’s request.

    For the most part, Google is upfront about asking permission to use your location information. An app like Google Maps will remind you to allow access to location if you use it for navigating. If you agree to let it record your location over time, Google Maps will display that history for you in a “timeline” that maps out your daily movements.

    Storing your minute-by-minute travels carries privacy risks and has been used by police to determine the location of suspects — such as a warrant that police in Raleigh, North Carolina, served on Google last year to find devices near a murder scene. So the company will let you “pause” a setting called Location History.
    https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb/AP-Exclusive:-Google-tracks-your-movements,-like-it-or-not

    Here's one of those mega-companies you are "comfortable" with..

    My how the Democrat Party has changed...

    Ya'all USED to side with the "little guy", with everyday patriotic Americans..

    Now you side with Mega-Corps who trash privacy and the "little guy" is nothing but an irredeemable deplorable..

    Sad...

  148. [148] 
    John M wrote:

    [136] Michale

    "Basically, you are saying that, as a privately owned business, it has the right to serve whomever it wants and, more importantly, DENY service to whomever it wants.."

    Nice try. But as you know, we were talking about the First Amendment to the constitution applying only to the government, not to private entities. NOW, you are talking about something else completely, as you well know. Which would be private organizations being subject to and governed by civil rights laws.

    "So, if it were Facebook Bakery and a person was gay and wanted a cake, Facebook could deny service because it's.....as YOU say... it's private...

    "Well... er... uh.... That's different!!!""

    Yes of course it's different. The reason you are now trying to compare apples and oranges is because you lost the original discussion and you know it, so now you are the one trying to bring up something totally else.

    If we were still on the original subject you would have a point, but we're not so you don't.

  149. [149] 
    John M wrote:

    [145] Michale

    "This is why Democrats won't win the House and have NO CHANCE at the Senate..."

    Once again Michale I have to ask do you ever bother to even read the articles that you post the links to? If you have you would have discovered the following:

    1) Yes the article points out Democratic problems

    2) But it also says that Democrats ARE going to sweep the House in a blue wave this November anyway

    3) And points out that as bad as Democratic polling numbers are, the Republican numbers are even more dismal and worse off than the Democrats

  150. [150] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    Since we were talking about which Party values freedom of speech, your comment is non-sequitor..

    Since Balthy was directly rebutting your ridiculous and asinine statement that "everything he [Alex Jones] spews is HIS RIGHT under the First Amendment of the United States.." he's totally on point, and you lose again. John M made the exact same point... so you lose twice.

    Face the facts, Mugshots, you suck at this debate thingy and your grasp of the rule of law and the Constitution is tenuous at best, and you've already proven you don't give two shits about "First Amendment rights" that day you came back from your pity party and attempted to institute your pathetic rules and punishments that you wanted instituted by the author according to your whims if posters didn't toe your line and comment to suit your tender "snowflake" sensibilities.

    So there are facts on one hand and hypocritical idiot spew on the other, and it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out which side you keep repeatedly finding yourself landing on... hoisted by your own petard. :)

  151. [151] 
    Kick wrote:

    Since we were talking about which Party values freedom of speech, your comment is non-sequitor..

    You couldn't recognize a non sequitur if it lived on your face.

    I hate it when a devastating point is marred by a simple typo.. :D

    Then your swamp in Shithole must just be overflowing with hate. :)

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice try. But as you know, we were talking about the First Amendment to the constitution applying only to the government, not to private entities. NOW, you are talking about something else completely, as you well know. Which would be private organizations being subject to and governed by civil rights laws.

    So, what you are saying is "That's Different"..

    But it's not.. It's about private businesses choosing who they will and will not serve..

    You don't have a problem with businesses discriminating against people YOU find politically unacceptable..

    How is that not hypocrisy??

    Yes of course it's different.

    "I knew you'de say that..."
    -Judge Dredd

    :D

    2) But it also says that Democrats ARE going to sweep the House in a blue wave this November anyway

    That is NOT what it says...

    They may win in dozens of districts scattered across the country in the fall, it may even be a "blue wave" election.

    MAY... not "are going to"..

    But I have NO DOUBT that you read it exactly as you wanted to read it..

    3) And points out that as bad as Democratic polling numbers are, the Republican numbers are even more dismal and worse off than the Democrats

    Once again, it DOES not say that..

    Over the same period, the perception of Republican candidates remained virtually unchanged.

    And once again, you read ONLY what you want to believe.. What it actually says has NO BEARING on your position.. FACTS don't matter..

    Once again..

    YOU have Party slavery...

    **I** have FACTS...

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see Welfare Girl has crawled out from her ratty hole and is trying to be relevant again..

    Hurry up and go cash your welfare check, bitch.. Then you can pretend to have a life for a few days with your crack purchase..

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    I said it before, and I'll say it again... self-awareness is not the strong suit of morons who can't seem to remember their own bullspit!

    You done whining like a little "witch" yet about "First Amendment rights" and "freedom of speech" after your pathetic attempt to institute rules on another man's blog whereby posters should be banned by CW based on your very own promulgated rules? I guess you forgot about your pathetic attempt at censorship, and here you are just a few months later in "full on" bullshit hypocrisy mode because your brain follicles ceased producing long ago, and you can't remember your own ridiculous "spewage."

    That spoon you've got shoved up your backside is seeing a lot of wrist action lately. If you can't handle a taste of your own "spit" shoveled right back at you, then perhaps you should shut your ass up!

    *laughs*

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Crack-whore says "bzzzz bzzzz" like a little gnat...

    Par for the course for crack-whore welfare girl...

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I Would Murder Him – Do Him Like Gaddafi” Antifa Activists on Video Threaten to Kill President Trump at Unite The Right Counter-Protest
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/i-would-murder-him-antifa-activists-on-video-threaten-to-kill-president-trump-at-unite-the-right-counter-protest/

    Ahhh Yes..

    "Peaceful" and "tolerant" Democrats..

    THAT is what the Democrat Party stands for these days..

  157. [157] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    The "All I can do is keep proving the option..." was a typo. It should have been "All I can do is keep providing the option...".

    Of course, you couldn't know this so your rant aboot me proving the option is understandable. And actually somewhat correct.

    It is an elementary idea. it is a pretty simple concept that if people keep voting for Big Money candidates it will result in Big Money legislators and if people want something other than Big Money legislators they need to stop voting for Big Money candidates and start voting for small contribution candidates and when there are no small contribution candidates on their ballot register a vote against the Big Money candidates using a write in vote to create and demonstrate demand for small candidates in future elections.

    The "loads of good advice" have nothing to do with the issue at hand- which is should CW address One Demand. That is just deflection to try to let CW off the hook for not meeting his responsibility as a journalist that claims to address reality to inform citizens aboot this real idea or at least explain why he won't address it.

    Of course citizens are not likely to step into the voting booth as participants in One Demand- because they don't know aboot the opportunity because people like CW are shirking their responsibility to inform them aboot One Demand while shilling for the corrupt two party Big Money system.

    You are wrong that people can only vote for the candidates on their ballot. They can cast a write in vote and it doesn't even matter if it is counted because it is not intended to elect a candidate. So even if it is not counted as an official vote it will still have to be counted as a disallowed vote.

    And YOU are the only one that thinks that people have to participate in One Demand in order to be able to vote in any election.

    I never said people have to participate in One Demand in order to be able to vote. I have only said that it is one option.

    If you had a valid argument against One Demand you would provide it instead of deflecting and making stuff up.

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you had a valid argument against One Demand you would provide it instead of deflecting and making stuff up.

    Key phrase there being "IF {she} had a valid argument"

    She doesn't, so she simply lies..

  159. [159] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    157

    It is an elementary idea.

    So your continued claim that people don't understand it is utterly nonsensical and asinine. We all get it. CW gets it. So that leaves you as the disconnect, Don.

    The "loads of good advice" have nothing to do with the issue at hand- which is should CW address One Demand.

    Wrong, Don. CW has already addressed your solicitation and made it clear that he isn't going to shill for it because of the ideas contained in "One Demand" and/or your repetitive delivery has not proven to be a catalyst that moves him to support you. The disconnect is obviously on your end.

    That is just deflection to try to let CW off the hook for not meeting his responsibility as a journalist that claims to address reality to inform citizens aboot this real idea or at least explain why he won't address it.

    CW doesn't need to be let "off the hook" when it's his lure, his pole, and you're nothing more than the tiny little fish flailing in your attempts to commandeer his boat. It's not his "responsibility as a journalist" to shill for you; he owes you absolutely nothing.

    Of course citizens are not likely to step into the voting booth as participants in One Demand- because they don't know aboot the opportunity because people like CW are shirking their responsibility to inform them aboot One Demand while shilling for the corrupt two party Big Money system.

    Again, little blowfish, it's his boat.

    You are wrong that people can only vote for the candidates on their ballot.

    We've covered this shit ad nauseam, Don, including links proving that write-in votes are not counted in the vast majority of states.

    So even if it is not counted as an official vote it will still have to be counted as a disallowed vote.

    Wrong, Don. In the vast majority of states it's not counted at all. It's been covered. Clue in.

    And YOU are the only one that thinks that people have to participate in One Demand in order to be able to vote in any election.

    Wrong, Don. I am the one who keeps repeating the fact that people don't need to participate in your bullshit while you are simultaneously insisting that CW has a "responsibility" to inform the citizenry . People can throw away their vote without any help from your "One Demand."

    I never said people have to participate in One Demand in order to be able to vote. I have only said that it is one option.

    You insist it's CW's "responsibility" to inform the citizenry about your bullshit on one hand while insisting it's merely "one option" on the other... whatever you have to tell yourself, Don.

    If you had a valid argument against One Demand you would provide it instead of deflecting and making stuff up.

    Been there, done that; the majority on this blog have too, and then you claim: "The loads of good advice have nothing to do with the issue at hand- which is should CW address One Demand" (quoting your BS above), and then you prattle on and on for awhile until you're back to claiming that if there was "a valid argument against One Demand" it would be provided... and on and on ad infinitum in your flailing and floundering. :)

  160. [160] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Lick-
    If you "get it" then the only reason you keep getting it wrong in your responses is that you are purposely misrepresenting what One Demand is and making stuff up because you have no valid argument aboot what One Demand actually is.

    You may not agree with my opinion that someone claiming to be a reality based blogger should address this real idea or even that it is a real idea and we are each entitled to our opinion and to state it here.

  161. [161] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    OOps. "Lick" was a typo- it should have been Kick.

    If I wanted to use a form of Lick it would have been licked as you are constantly "licked" in our exchanges because you can't "win" when all you do is deflect to avoid addressing the issues and make stuff up.

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    158

    Key phrase there being "IF {she} had a valid argument"

    She doesn't, so she simply lies..

    It takes a special kind of stupid to whine about "lies" in a comment full of another person's opinions. I am entitled to my opinions and my "freedom of speech," not unlike your twin in stupidity, Alex that way... regardless of your recent pathetic attempts at censorship on CW's blog. :)

    Now if lies are suddenly an issue for you, I'd say it's a little too late because that ship has left the White Star Dock in Southampton and ain't going to arrive in New York:

    https://tinyurl.com/y8xcra6c

    *laughs*

  163. [163] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    160

    OOps. "Lick" was a typo- it should have been Kick.

    If I wanted to use a form of Lick it would have been licked as you are constantly "licked" in our exchanges because you can't "win" when all you do is deflect to avoid addressing the issues and make stuff up.

    Said the DH who has been groveling to the author for years to shill for his pathetic attempt at political activism: Winning!

    Please keep floundering, flailing, trolling, and chasing your fishtail for another 3 years, Don; that way you'll never have to wonder why you're "failing/not succeeding." :)

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Morons were saying that Strokes was still an FBI agent??

    FBI fires Peter Strzok, months after anti-Trump texts revealed
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/13/fbi-fires-peter-strzok-months-after-anti-trump-texts-revealed.html

    As usual, morons have NO FACTS to support their claims..

  165. [165] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    That is your opinion and you are entitled to believe it.

    And it is my opinion that you once again proved my point by deflecting from my point about winning our exchanges to pointing out how CW has shirked his responsibility as a person claiming to be a reality based blogger to address One Demand and currently the reality that if one third to one half of citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections participated in One Demand in 2018 instead of not voting that it could total anywhere from 10-20% of the vote in 2018 sending a clear message to the candidates for 2020.

    Of course, your opinion is that it is okay for CW to ignore this reality or that it is not a reality.

    Of course, your opinion is just your opinion. And clearly not reality.

  166. [166] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But the point that Balthy is making is he is DEFENDING those mega-corporations in their censorship of Jones, even though he claims that it's the GOP that doesn't value free-speech..

    Michale, I wasn't DEFENDING mega corporations, simply pointing out that the ones who have booted Jones from their platforms have a legal right to do so. Reality sucks, eh? I didn't make up the rules.

    Further, I've already pointed out that protect Facebook and Twitter in this were largely written by Republicans, and that Democrats have always been wary of carving out spaces for corporations to stomp all over free speech.

    As an example, I raised the Net Neutrality debate, wherein the GOP clearly sided against the Democrats in favor of mega-corporations that want to decide which internet users are favored and which are not. Of you really believe, as I do, that the internet should be allowed to be a free-speech free-for-all, then you have to also be in favor of Net Neutrality.

    So who do you side with, Alex Jones, or the GOP?

  167. [167] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The second paragraph in [166] should read "..the laws that protect Facebook and Twitter in this were largely written by Republicans.."

    worth repeating.

  168. [168] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Since you're such a free speech advocate, Michale, how about agent Strzok's right to express a private opinion in a private email? Didn't seem to carry much weight with Andy McCabe's successor.

    Bowditch is signaling, "I'll be your Bork!"

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, I wasn't DEFENDING mega corporations, simply pointing out that the ones who have booted Jones from their platforms have a legal right to do so. Reality sucks, eh? I didn't make up the rules.

    You said you were "comfortable" with them making the rules..

    That is defending..

    Don't back pedal now...

    Since you're such a free speech advocate, Michale, how about agent Strzok's right to express a private opinion in a private email?

    He wasn't on a private email. He was on the job, on an FBI owned and paid for pager....

    Once again..

    I have FACTS and reality..

    You have Party slavery..

  170. [170] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    He wasn't on a private email. He was on the job, on an FBI owned and paid for pager....

    He was exchanging personal emails with his girlfriend. None of those emails were work-related, and none were posted marked "for everyone".

    The IG already presented a report confirming that none of Strzok's privately expressed opinions appear to have affected his job performance, so where's the offense that justifies the firing?

    Oh, he dared to criticize the Dear Leader. Oh my.

    Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit to me. I'm sure Mike Avenatti would be glad to take that case.

    Check your wrists: they're the ones shackled to the interests of the Orangutan in chief.

  171. [171] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You said you were "comfortable" with them making the rules..

    The trouble with having you twist my words the way you do, is that I can't even go back and find where you went so wildly off the rails.

    Let me reiterate: I am not in favor of censorship. Full Stop. Am I a fan of Alex Jones? hahaha No. Do I hope he has a hard time? Absolutely, he's a jerk.

    That should clear it up for you.

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    He was exchanging personal emails with his girlfriend. None of those emails were work-related, and none were posted marked "for everyone".

    It was on company time and company equipment.. THAT makes it public information..

    Let me reiterate: I am not in favor of censorship.

    UNLESS it's people you don't agree with are the ones being censored..

    That's what the facts prove beyond any doubt..

  173. [173] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It was on company time and company equipment.. THAT makes it public information..

    Strzok had an expectation of privacy at the time, and he viewed them then, as he does now, as irrelevant to the performance of his job, an opinion backed by the DOJ's own IG.

    That was the result of that farcical hearing Strzok endured in the House a month ago. In the end, Republicans had to admit that they couldn't prove that any of his opinions affected his job performance.

    Andy McCabe was hustled out precisely so that an ambitious stooge like Bowditch could be installed in his place. Strzok's firing by Bowditch is a flare to signal Trump: "I'm in place, boss. You can pull the trigger on Rosenstein any time.".

    And I'd bet that the events that follow Rosenstein's firing would spawn at least two Academy award winning movies. Maybe three.

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Strzok had an expectation of privacy at the time, and he viewed them then, as he does now, as irrelevant to the performance of his job, an opinion backed by the DOJ's own IG.

    Bullshit.. He was on a company pager while working..

    There is no expectation of privacy..

    If it will make you understand better, pretend it's a cop saying shit about a black person while on duty using a Department cell phone..

    You would nail him to the wall over it..

    Yer so damn hypocritical..

    If it was so on the up and up, why did the FBI can his ass???

    Why did Mueller fire him from the probe??

    Because it was wrong...

    It's that simple..

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Police chiefs, headed by Dudley’s Wojnar, blast Sen. Warren for remark on ‘racist’ criminal-justice system
    http://www.telegram.com/news/20180812/police-chiefs-headed-by-dudleys-wojnar-blast-sen-warren-for-remark-on-racist-criminal-justice-system

    How ANY cop can vote Democrat is just disgusting..

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    ProPublica's appeal for dirt on Brett Kavanaugh's baseball outings called 'desperate' and 'hilarious'
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/13/propublicas-appeal-for-dirt-on-brett-kavanaughs-baseball-outings-called-desperate-and-hilarious.html

    Jeesus H Christ!!

    You Democrats are becoming downright hysterically hilarious...

    If ya'all had ANY self-respect, you would be embarrassed by the actions of your Democrat Party...

  177. [177] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW:

    Congrats on breaking the 3,000 mark — That’s an impressive accomplishment!

    Here’s to looking forward to the next 3,000!

    -Russ

  178. [178] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why did Mueller fire him from the probe?

    Because Republicans' cartoon-caricature of Strzok was being used as a cudgel by Fox News against Mueller, just at the time that the investigation was getting under way. Mueller sidelined Strzok without commenting on the validity of the charges, leaving that task up to the IG, who cleared Strzok. If further proof was needed, an all-day grilling of Strzok by a hostile House Committee failed to tarnish Strzok's reputation with anyone who wasn't already hostile to him.

    So in the end is this: fire him without cause, what the hell. We're in the Trump universe now, which is like Oz, except that the Wizard speaks with a distinctly Baltic accent.

  179. [179] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why did Mueller fire him from the probe?

    Because Republicans' cartoon-caricature of Strzok was being used as a cudgel by Fox News against Mueller, just at the time that the investigation was getting under way. Mueller sidelined Strzok without commenting on the validity of the charges, leaving that task up to the IG, who cleared Strzok. If further proof was needed, an all-day grilling of Strzok by a hostile House Committee failed to tarnish Strzok's reputation with anyone who wasn't already hostile to him.

    So in the end is this: fire him without cause, what the hell. We're in the Trump universe now, which is like Oz, except that the Wizard speaks with a distinctly Baltic accent.

  180. [180] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    164

    Morons were saying that Strokes was still an FBI agent??

    No, sir. It was a moron claiming repeatedly and incorrectly that Strzok wasn't still an FBI agent, and that moron was indeed yourself.

    FBI fires Peter Strzok, months after anti-Trump texts revealed

    Yes, sir. That happened just today… so quite obviously any moron like you who whined incessantly and repetitively that Strzok wasn't still an FBI agent before today has just been proven wrong regarding each and every time he heretofore claimed otherwise.

    As usual, morons have NO FACTS to support their claims..

    As usual, here I am explaining to the moron that insisted multiple times before today that Strzok had already lost his job that just because that finally did happen at a later date, that doesn't somehow magically make facts out of all the times he lied about it in the past... quite the contrary.

    Do you ever get tired of being the one to focus the klieg lights directly onto your own ridiculous bullshit? :)

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhhhh

    So the FACTS come out..

    Fired FBI agent Peter Strzok sets up anti-Trump Twitter account, GoFundMe page seeking $150G
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/13/fired-fbi-agent-peter-strzok-sets-up-anti-trump-twitter-account-gofundme-page-seeking-150g.html

    Storked is just after a payday....

    Typical Democrat...

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welfare Girl says "blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa" when the FACTs prove her wrong...

  183. [183] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    How ANY cop can vote Democrat is just disgusting..

    Why support a president who talks about being supportive of law enforcement unless they are looking into any possible wrongdoing by him or anyone who supports him!?!?

    Trump wouldn’t be allowed to do a ride-along with most police departments with his background and known criminal associates, but I guess most police departments have much higher standards than the GOP does.

    Let’s count how many different explanations Trump has offered concerning his ties to the Russians during the campaign:

    There were none! No collusion!

    OK, maybe a few, but they weren’t planned.

    A few were planned meetings, but no one showed up, so no collusion!

    OK, a few showed up unannounced but it was such a quick visit that no one even remembers what was said so no collusion.

    They talked only about adoptions, but that’s not really collusion!

    They met hoping to get dirt on Hillary, but they didn’t get any. No dirt = no collusion!

    The meeting was the Russian’s offering us dirt on my political opponent, which is completely legal to ask foreign governments to help us with! And I had no idea that this completely legal meeting that EVERYONE does ever occurred — even though I could have known and it would still be legal. So yes, my wonderful son colluded without my knowledge! But that’s not even a crime!

    Hillary is the one who is guilty of collusion — that thing that isn’t really a crime unless we’re talking about her!

  184. [184] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    165

    That is your opinion and you are entitled to believe it.

    Yes, Don. Unlike the moron in Shithole, Florida, I am quite capable of recognizing a fact versus an opinion, and I don't really need anyone such as yourself informing me repeatedly what I am "entitled" to believe. I also don't agree with your opinion that CW has a "responsibility" to shill your opinion.

    The fact is that "freedom of speech" includes the freedom not to have to speak... carpe diem... and having his own "reality based blog" in no way whatsoever creates either an obligation or a requirement on CW's part to shill for every Don, Dick, and Harry that trolls his blog.

    Of course, your opinion is that it is okay for CW to ignore this reality or that it is not a reality.

    Just when I thought you understood the difference between an opinion versus a fact, you go and refer to your unproven theories as "reality."

    Well, alright then, I suddenly find myself of the opinion that you're not worth a further response, and now I believe I understand why CW has chosen simply to ignore your near daily lickspittle. :)

  185. [185] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Fired FBI agent Peter Strzok sets up anti-Trump Twitter account, GoFundMe page seeking $150G

    Wow, that counts as news over there? Even the article admits that neither of these things is either unusual or unexpected. Nor were the supposed 'anti-Trump' quotes offered in the article anything out of the ordinary. That's a sign of astro-turfed outrage. Must've been a slow news day.

  186. [186] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    169

    You said you were "comfortable" with them making the rules..

    That is defending..

    Don't back pedal now...

    Oh, I see the problem, this is simply yet another case of the moron's reading comprehension issues screaming to be addressed. Balthasar said exactly the opposite:

    But am I comfortable with mega-companies deciding what gets discussed on the public airwaves? No. I'm against harassment, and the aforementioned 'fighting words' (narrowly defined), but not in favor of censorship. It's messy.

    Again, that's why I'm in favor of net neutrality.

    The problem is the same as it usually is: The moron has undeniable reading comprehension issues. :)

  187. [187] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    171

    The trouble with having you twist my words the way you do, is that I can't even go back and find where you went so wildly off the rails.

    I got your six, Balthy. See above. :)

  188. [188] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    168

    Bowditch is signaling, "I'll be your Bork!"

    Balthy makes an excellent point here, and I would wager that Trump will be our Nixon and that "all the president's men"... a very large portion thereof, of course... will go to prison. I've been saying it for years now, and some of them are already there or packing their bags to go. :)

  189. [189] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    172

    It was on company time and company equipment.. THAT makes it public information..

    Careful there, moron... you're undercutting your own ridiculous assertion that James Comey leaked "government owned confidential documents."

  190. [190] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    182

    Welfare Girl says "blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa" when the FACTs prove her wrong...

    I thought we had agreed to stop talking about your family situation, snowflake. Everyone here already knows you're flat broke and living on welfare in your doublewide in Shithole, Florida, and I will be more than happy to refer to you as "Welfare Girl" if that is your wish; however, I admit to preferring "snowflake" and "moron."

    Strzok got fired today, moron. Do you have to have it explained to you that this fact proves you were wrong every time you insisted he was already fired? :)

  191. [191] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    183

    Exactly right, sir! I love it.

    And the new one:

    Don has received notoriety for a brief meeting, that many politicians would have taken, but most importantly, and to the best of my knowledge, nothing happened after the meeting concluded.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybj3y6fk

    "To the best of my knowledge." *laughs*

    Very telling, indeed. :)

  192. [192] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    155

    Crack-whore says "bzzzz bzzzz" like a little gnat...

    This is far from the first time in the comments section of this blog that you've posted a comment about you and your wife being "players" and regaling us all with multiple tales of your life as a whore... TMI... but I would wager the other regular readers of the blog are as devastated as I am to find out that you've turned to crack to solve your problems. I'm so sorry for y'all.

    Perhaps you should consider joining a support group for other whores like yourselves who are coping with multiple addictions or maybe take up a hobby like bowling or golf or something.

    Par for the course for crack-whore welfare girl...

    Work on your putting and "just say no" to crack, and your scores can only get better. Good luck! :)

Comments for this article are closed.