Southsidedvr

You show me just one post by John Kallend where he is wrong on the facts. You simply cannot. Jerry Baumchen Want to put money on it or rephrase your above statement? There are not many but there are a handful.

I knew someone would miss the point, never would have thought you guys would be 3/3.

Take obama, Garland, and politics out of the equation. What is so wrong with waiting for a new president who will have to live down their nomination for 4 years vs someone who is going out and can throw up anyone? I personally see many things that are not what the status quo is when politicans are leaving office especially sketchy pardons. I have no problem with waiting. Now turn politics back on. I would be happy if he were nominated, but let the new president do it.

That is a pretty substantial list of lies.

How about that airplane.

What a shite blank statement. This one, and the one where you asserted your @security dominance@. If that was the case you should never ever discuss things you have never been officially trained on, or officially employed at ever again. You know people can be very knowledgeable about things they may have never actually done right?

Are you saying that drop in unemployment is due to people getting $15/hour jobs? No, I am saying that the increase in wage had no negative effect on the unemployment rate. How about this common sense tidbit, my 'opinion' with absolutely NO DATA to support it, but sounds reasonable: "Things in the economy are generally better these days, certainly better than they were 8 years ago - more corporate earnings, more people working, more people spending - that is a fact. So maybe we can splurge a little more. 'Splurging" could also mean asking companies (through regulation) to pay their employees a little more - hence a minimum wage increase might be a good idea - or certainly do no harm" Your wrong about that. Many many if not the majority of corporations are hurting big time right now.

You followed all that with this which negates it all. It was classified. Literally or by the nature of its content. So back to my question without all the arguing about something that happened decades ago. Is the woman going to be charged or not? If not her the systems architect who KNEW, and everyone else that was involved in their IT department should be fired or charged.

Well she did attend classes and was advised that in her position even if it was not marked some things by their content alone are classified. I agree with you that on a conviction note that arguing if she understood that, and if the information required that and she did not is a tough thing to do. I am looking for someone neutral and official to come out and finally say one way or the other. That's what I am asking here. I know many of you are more up to date eon these things has anyone from the government involved in the official investigation said she is going to be charged yet?

This has been in the news every day. Has anyone here been able to read through the filter and see if it is real or just spin. Did they finally catch her breaking serious laws that she should be charged for? http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/more-trouble-for-hillary-clinton-classified-e-mail-total-reaches-1666/ Take a read here for what I am talking about.

***"Unlike YOU, I don't post anonymously. If you can't figure out who I am, then your internet skills are sadly deficient." ? Do you have to submit your USPA card to get verified here? If so please provide the link and I will get it to whoever needs it or you can call me if you need to. I am not understanding where you are coming from with the gruffness in your comments. If I am not allowed here let me know. Thanks

Why don't you just give us a link to whatever right wingnut website is filling you up with this nonsense? Or at least give us a name we could Google. Your post hints at accusations, but has nothing to back it up, and no references. Very trollish. Jesus you guys are not very welcoming here I have been accused of being a troll and a wingunt in one day. I have no issues with the kid or anything else, I was just trying to bring up a discussion of the kids past and family and how it could relate to the issue. I am laid up in bed for cellulitis and figured I could use a break from the tv and have a discussion. This is what I have read about his family and they were into education sciences, and his father was/is a politician who once ran for president multiple times in Sudan and will try again in 2020. I am sorry for upsetting you all I will move on from now on thanks. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/09/22/ahmed-mohamed-texas-sudan-family_n_8176702.html

? And I have no clue who you are.... My response was a prod for you to read about the father if you did not know about him yet and see if you get the hunch like I did that this was motivated by his political present and past. My apologies.

Do you know who his father is, and have you added that into the equation?

I never ignore T&A!

No, I don't have to do one of those two things, and I'm not going to. Gun violence in this country is not a (emphasis: singular) problem. Children getting their hands on firearms and hurting others and themselves is a problem. People shooting each others when drug deals go bad is a problem. Jilted lovers murdering their ex at their place of work and injuring other people in the process is a problem. People with CCWs deciding to be vigilantes and shooting bystanders is a problem. People committing suicide with firearms is a problem. People flipping out and going on shooting sprees (intentionally trying to distinguish this from toxic arguments about the term "mass shooting") is a problem. The distinction is important because neither the scope of these problems nor the kinds of steps we can take to try to help some of them even remotely resemble one another. Banning high capacity magazines absolutely will not do shit to prevent firearm suicides. Waiting periods will not do shit to prevent toddlers from finding guns and hurting themselves. Assault weapon bans and trigger locks aren't going to do shit to prevent gang or drug related gun violence. Making CCW permits harder or nearly impossible to get isn't going to do shit to stop shooting sprees nor jilted lovers. You are demanding that totally distinct issues be conflated so that we can "get to the other side of the argument" where people trot out ideas with no deference to a cost/benefit analysis but only to the fact that "hey, at least it's something, and gun violence, the homogeneous blob that it is, is something we've agreed is a problem... no takebacks." Best post of the thread No it's not. What parts do you disagree with specifically? "No it's not" to a seven paragraph post is not a counter argument it is lazy commenting.

No, I don't have to do one of those two things, and I'm not going to. Gun violence in this country is not a (emphasis: singular) problem. Children getting their hands on firearms and hurting others and themselves is a problem. People shooting each others when drug deals go bad is a problem. Jilted lovers murdering their ex at their place of work and injuring other people in the process is a problem. People with CCWs deciding to be vigilantes and shooting bystanders is a problem. People committing suicide with firearms is a problem. People flipping out and going on shooting sprees (intentionally trying to distinguish this from toxic arguments about the term "mass shooting") is a problem. The distinction is important because neither the scope of these problems nor the kinds of steps we can take to try to help some of them even remotely resemble one another. Banning high capacity magazines absolutely will not do shit to prevent firearm suicides. Waiting periods will not do shit to prevent toddlers from finding guns and hurting themselves. Assault weapon bans and trigger locks aren't going to do shit to prevent gang or drug related gun violence. Making CCW permits harder or nearly impossible to get isn't going to do shit to stop shooting sprees nor jilted lovers. You are demanding that totally distinct issues be conflated so that we can "get to the other side of the argument" where people trot out ideas with no deference to a cost/benefit analysis but only to the fact that "hey, at least it's something, and gun violence, the homogeneous blob that it is, is something we've agreed is a problem... no takebacks." Very well said.

Yep it was faked. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/donald-trump-immigrants-tweet-fake The tweet sounded believably par for the course from a candidate who launched his 2016 campaign calling Mexican immigrants entering the U.S. “rapists” and drug runners. There was just one problem – it was fake. Trump never tweeted the remark, and @Rivermansky63 eventually explained over and over again to his followers that the "Trump" tweet was fake. It's unclear, however, where the fake image originated.

If it is the same Daniel I am thinking of he is/was missing an arm, so its gonna be tough to beat her, and that was low.

Back in the early 90's this happened to me, I went to PT and got some strength exercises down, and started wearing support like you.

I have to thank you for reminding me that there are people in our country today who think like that. I just made a $500 donation to PETA. Thanks again. I gotta see proof of that or I call BS.