gonzoron Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 59 minutes ago, foxbat said: reason.com must not have any blogs about it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 39 minutes ago, gonzoron said: reason.com must not have any blogs about it. Apparently neither can you find any pictures on facebook.com about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzoron Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 29 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Apparently neither can you find any pictures on facebook.com about it. I didn’t look. I did look on reason.com though. If something would have jumped out at me there immediately, I would have shared the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbat Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Muda69 said: Yes, I was. At a minimum, while traveling to/from said institutions, should you be pulled over by law enforcement, you are much more likely to have a more positive experience. Should you be carrying with a concealed permit, you are more likely to show up alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 21 minutes ago, gonzoron said: I didn’t look. I did look on reason.com though. If something would have jumped out at me there immediately, I would have shared the link. Sure you would have. 4 minutes ago, foxbat said: At a minimum, while traveling to/from said institutions, should you be pulled over by law enforcement, you are much more likely to have a more positive experience. Should you be carrying with a concealed permit, you are more likely to show up alive. Nice try: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbat Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 16 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Sure you would have. Nice try: You're tossing up a straw man and then pulling out your mobile goal posts when someone decides not to engage in the high school debate tactics? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, foxbat said: You're tossing up a straw man and then pulling out your mobile goal posts when someone decides not to engage in the high school debate tactics? You can't seem to answer my question as stated, foxbat. Yet more of your: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzoron Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, gonzoron said: Nice self portrait, Gonzo. Didn't know you were an NHL fan. Go Red Wings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzoron Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 back on topic: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzoron Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbat Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 4 hours ago, gonzoron said: Trump could end all of this speculation by releasing his x-rays. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzoron Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 1 minute ago, foxbat said: Trump could end all of this speculation by releasing his x-rays. They must be somehow tied in with his taxes and transcripts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbat Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 Apparently, when questioned about this, Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, told the press, "President Trump likes Chairman Kim and he doesn’t think these sanctions will be necessary." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzoron Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wabash82 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 On 3/20/2019 at 7:21 AM, swordfish said: The only reason "supreme" was put in my post was because of the term "white supremacy" becoming (IMHO) synonymous with simply being white. Now the nomenclature appears to be headed to "white privilege". So you are saying (based on the highlighted text) then it is NOT racist if one would consider someone who is (perceived as) other than white to be a person of less privilege? (based solely on the color of his skin) FYI - I really must have missed out on the "granting" of those "certain advantages/privileges" you touched on......care to expound? Yes, it is not racist to acknowledge that people of color are less privileged in our society. I know you want to try to twist that into a statement about the person's inherent worth or status, which it is not. It is a statement about how certain people are treated in our society based on something (skin color) that has zero to do with their inherent worth or status, but which nonetheless causes them to be less privileged (face disadvantages). The advantages you have as a white person in America are too numerous to list. But if you are honestly interested in learning, you can start with this example and go from there: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wabash82 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 On 3/20/2019 at 7:58 AM, Muda69 said: I'm wondering exactly what advantages I, a Caucasian male, receive when I visit government entities like the local BMV branch, county courthouse, or post office. Why you decided to limit the conversation to government entities is unclear. The elimination of express de jure racism (e.g., actual laws establishing separate schools for white kids and black kids) doesn't mean de facto racism magically disappeared. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 19 hours ago, Wabash82 said: Why you decided to limit the conversation to government entities is unclear. Because it is one entity where freedom of association should not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 20 hours ago, Wabash82 said: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews Should such perceived racism be illegal, Wabash? Should private companies be forced by law to interview a certain percentage of racial minorities, even though companies in question maintain that the non-racial information on the resume did not meet their internal standards for an interview? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 Mueller's Conclusion: No Coordination Between Trump Campaign and Russia: http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/24/muellers-conclusion-no-coordination-betw Quote The investigators working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Donald Trump or anybody connected with him directly conspired or coordinated with Russian nationals or entities attempting to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in 2016. That's according to a long-awaited summary of the outcome of Mueller's investigation, which was delivered today to the heads of Congress' judiciary committees and then almost immediately released to the public. The four-page memo written by Attorney General William Barr states clearly, "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election." Barr's letter explains that Mueller's team looked at the two big efforts by Russian entities to meddle with the election outcome—both the secret, concealed campaign to spread discord and misinformation on the internet, and the hacking operations that gathered secret Democratic Party emails and communications within Hillary Clinton's campaign—and found no involvement from Trump or people on his campaign. Furthermore, the report explored accusations that Trump obstructed justice by his actions during the investigation, like firing FBI Director James Comey. Here, Mueller essentially punted. Mueller did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether Trump's behavior counted as obstruction, and will leave it to Barr to make a decision to prosecute. Mueller's report does not conclude that Trump committed a crime, but also does not exonerate him, according to Barr. Barr adds in response that he does not see enough evidence under the principles of the Department of Justice to establish obstruction charges that would satisfy a "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold for conviction. Barr concludes he wants to release as much information from the report as possible, but there are some disclosure concerns involving evidence in grand jury investigations that need to be dealt with. There are likely to be some redactions in what gets out from the report, but it does suggest we're going to see a lot of it. So this is hardly going be the last word, not that anybody thought it would be. Mueller is essentially handing the obstruction issue over to Congress, and I imagine there will be a lot of opinions there, though House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has already said she doesn't predict impeachment happening without bipartisan support. If Barr's summary of the Mueller report is accurate, I don't see any current Republican defenders of Trump switching sides. Read Barr's letter to Congress for yourself here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 How can there be obstruction of justice if there was no crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbat Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 hour ago, swordfish said: How can there be obstruction of justice if there was no crime? The same way that the police may find nothing in your home with a search warrant, but if you refuse them entry with a warrant, then you are obstructing justice. Or, they have a search warrant for drugs, you refuse them entry and the reason for refusing them entry isn't because you have drugs in the house, but instead have a kidnapped child down there. No drug crime, but another crime you were trying to conceal and you stood in the way of that warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ Edited March 27, 2019 by swordfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted March 27, 2019 Author Share Posted March 27, 2019 I'll take Don Lemon vs. Joy Behar in the final match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts