Jingthing Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 And you believe anything Putin or his cronies say? Seriously?trumpists trust murderous dictator Putin more than American democrats. Something is very rotten in the state of the republican party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soalbundy Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, F4UCorsair said: But 'Trump' is only one syllable. What you on about boy? I think he meant moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soalbundy Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 22 minutes ago, bushdoctor said: I could speculate but what's the point? Speculation is what the left depends on, and it keeps getting them into hot water. Both Trump Jr and she says it was a meeting regarding adoption policy. They have their own children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 28 minutes ago, bushdoctor said: Both Trump Jr and she says it was a meeting regarding adoption policy. Since you added this in your edit, here's what she said in her own words: The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign ... insisted she met with President Donald Trump’s son in 2016 to discuss sanctions between Russia and the U.S., not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Discussing state sanctions. That's not acting as a foreign agent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushdoctor Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, soalbundy said: They have their own children Maybe they do. Regardless, if you do a quick google search you can find the information. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushdoctor Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, attrayant said: Since you added this in your edit, here's what she said in her own words: Discussing state sanctions. That's not acting as a foreign agent? No it is not. But she didn't give that information and instead talked about adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushdoctor Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Certainly not a government agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushdoctor Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 When Dennis Rodman made a his visit to North Korea did that make him a government agent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chou Anou Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 11 minutes ago, bushdoctor said: No it is not. But she didn't give that information and instead talked about adoption. Why do we assume nothing came of Don Jr.'s meeting? "I've found it a little odd how much of the conversation about themeeting between Trump campaign officials and a Kremlin-linked lawyer has taken as a given that the meeting didn't amount to much. But the people telling us that nothing came of the meeting are people who were in the meeting and would have reason to want us to believe that nothing came of the meeting. And they're also lying liars who have been lying about all sorts of stuff, including, for months, whether there were contacts between the Trump campaign and agents of the Russian government. http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-meeting-natalia-veselnitskaya-what-happened-2017-7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 You seem to be using the word "agent" to mean employee, as in the romanticized usage (James Bond, agent 007 and so on). Meanwhile all the rest of us are using the word in its conventional mundane sense, which simply means working on behalf of somebody else's interest. Cf: travel agent. visa agent, and so on. Proxies and lobbyists are also agents, since they are acting on behalf of a third party's interest. 4 minutes ago, bushdoctor said: When Dennis Rodman made a his visit to North Korea did that make him a government agent? That depends on what he talked about while he was there. Did he try to ease tensions and get the NKs to lay off their nuclear aspirations? If so, then yes he was acting in the interest of his government and was therefore an agent. On the other hand, if he was there only for personal vacation and spent his time sight-seeing the turnip farms with no political agenda with NK government officials or their agents (get it?), then no, he wasn't acting as an agent. Agent is a role, not a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 When Dennis Rodman made a his visit to North Korea did that make him a government agent? Seriously? Best you got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 I don't blame him for clumsily slipping in the word "government" before 'agent' half-way through the discussion to shore up his credibility a little. Didn't work, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soalbundy Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Trump jr is funny, his father didn't know, of course not, now wash your mouth out with soap and water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushdoctor Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 31 minutes ago, attrayant said: I don't blame him for clumsily slipping in the word "government" before 'agent' half-way through the discussion to shore up his credibility a little. Didn't work, though. I'm not sure who you are referring to, but if it's me... I didn't introduce the term government agent, I simply responded to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1Str8 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Fret not. It's not possible for the image of the US to plunge further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Fret not. It's not possible for the image of the US to plunge further. It can always get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegman Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Jingthing said: It can always get worse. Well I sure don't see it getting better with this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegman Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 12 hours ago, Morch said: Superior how? And while there are certainly some good journalists on board, that's something most respectable Western news outlets have. Let me suggest that it is not quite that they are "less biased", but more that they pander to your views. The Arabic Edition does not fully conform in content, tone and editorial control to the English edition. Fair enough, and worth mentioning again, that what most of the posters relate to is not quite what the Saudi's & Co. are about. They do have a point when it comes to seeing Al Jazeera as a Qatari tool. The broadcasters most in line with my worldview are CNN & MSNBC both of which I find near impossible to watch. That is outside of Brian Williams and Ali Velshi with the latter. Al Jazeera I find does indepth reporting that the other two don't do. Unless it is about the phu in Vietnam as reported by a globe trotting celebrity chef. Like I said in the other post I find they are less bias than corporate media bringing the viewer both sides of arguements. http://www.aljazeera.com/pressoffice/2012/04/2012416161854868952.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Off-topic post and reply removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 9 hours ago, A1Str8 said: Fret not. It's not possible for the image of the US to plunge further. The global image of the US was at 64% favorable after the end of Obama's term. Way down now. But still at 49%. So some must still have a positive image of the US. And a still a long way to plunge if Trump keeps up his antics. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/27/global-image-us-has-plummeted-donald-trump-not-russia/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andaman Al Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 Here are the type of people that Trump surrounds himself with. (we like to hang around like minded people don't we!). Quote Trump's personal lawyer: 'Watch your back, bitch' Quote The personal attorney for President Donald Trump apologized on Thursday after a thread of emails was released showing threats he wrote to a stranger on Wednesday night. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/13/politics/trump-lawyer-profanity-threats-emails-apology/index.html Nice! What was it Trump said: "I have all the best people, the best team" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thakkar Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, Andaman Al said: Here are the type of people that Trump surrounds himself with. (we like to hang around like minded people don't we!). http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/13/politics/trump-lawyer-profanity-threats-emails-apology/index.html Nice! What was it Trump said: "I have all the best people, the best team" it's yet another example of the lowlife thuggish circles Trump and his family run in. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iReason Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 6 minutes ago, Andaman Al said: Here are the type of people that Trump surrounds himself with. (we like to hang around like minded people don't we!). http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/13/politics/trump-lawyer-profanity-threats-emails-apology/index.html Nice! What was it Trump said: "I have all the best people, the best team" Yup. A bully. He cracked. And it appears this lowlife is on his way out anyway. Read an extensive profile here: Trump’s Russia Lawyer Isn’t Seeking Security Clearance, And May Have Trouble Getting One Colleagues say Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s attorney on the Russia investigation, has struggled with alcohol abuse and engaged in behavior that left employees uncomfortable. (sub-title) "The ongoing investigations into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia involve reams of classified material. Yet Marc Kasowitz, the New York lawyer whom President Donald Trump has hired to defend him in these inquiries, told ProPublica through a spokesman that he does not have a security clearance — the prerequisite for access to government secrets. Nor does he expect to seek one." "Several lawyers who have represented presidents and senior government officials said they could not imagine handling a case so suffused with sensitive material without a clearance." https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-russia-lawyer-marc-kasowitz-alcohol-security-clearance The guy is in way over his head. But, he was the inept one's first choice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 A New York lawyer, a bully? Shocking! Who would have thunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 11 minutes ago, rijb said: A New York lawyer, a bully? Shocking! Who would have thunk. Not just a bully, but a stupid bully! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iReason Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 14 minutes ago, rijb said: A New York lawyer, a bully? Shocking! Who would have thunk. And one just as inept as his employer. Couldn't even spell president. "I am Marc Kasowitz, Predisent Trump’s personal lawyer.” http://heavy.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-lawyer-marc-kasowitz-misspells-president-predisent/ Nice introduction. Perhaps he was heavily into the bottle when he wrote that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maewang99 Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 forget about the image thing.... Social Security runs out of funding in 12 years... today's CBO projection. yeah... we will keep getting our checks even after that... but how confidant are you? how confident would you rather be.... and it will be the defense budget and lots of other stuff that will have to be squeezed to keep the Fed from having to finance it with Funny Money... funny money that will hit the fx value of the dollah... against asian currencies..... come on, forget about everything else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soalbundy Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 39 minutes ago, iReason said: And one just as inept as his employer. Couldn't even spell president. "I am Marc Kasowitz, Predisent Trump’s personal lawyer.” http://heavy.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-lawyer-marc-kasowitz-misspells-president-predisent/ Nice introduction. Perhaps he was heavily into the bottle when he wrote that... It's moider beein a loyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 1 minute ago, maewang99 said: forget about the image thing.... Social Security runs out of funding in 12 years... today's CBO projection. yeah... we will keep getting our checks even after that... but how confidant are you? how confident would you rather be.... and it will be the defense budget and lots of other stuff that will have to be squeezed to keep the Fed from having to finance it with Funny Money... funny money that will hit the fx value of the dollah... against asian currencies..... come on, forget about everything else! First off, it doesn't run out of funding in 12 years. Its trust fund would run out. And not in 12 years but 17. The trust fund supplements the income stream from current workers. So even if it dries up, recipients would receive about 2/3 of benefits. When the income cap on Social Security was revised in 1983, social security covered 90 percent of all income. And that was expected to be the case in the future. Unfortunately because the wealthy began to capture a bigger share of wealth, less of it was subject to Social Security Taxes. In 2012, 84 percent of earned income was subject to taxes. I can't find figures where it is now, but it's almost certainly lower. Raising the income cap to capture 90 percent of earned income would go a long way towards resolving the problem. Eliminating the cap altogether would solve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now