sheeeit

Lulz. Where does he make that distinction? I swear you guys have lost your brains. The WH situation room made their transcript of the call. Using the same exact process that they always use. Apparently the lawyers here have a hard on for whether it was made from notes, or voice activated software or some other method but everyone seems to acknowledge that the transcript was made in "real time" as the call was happening. That transcript was then classified (as all calls are initially) and, according to the whistle blower, placed in a more secure server than some other calls' transcripts. The whistle blowers' report comes out and then, after that, the POTUS declassified the call and released the official transcript created by the WH situation room that was on the secure server. The disclaimer on the situation room transcript is on every single one of them they do. They have explained it multiple times. The disclaimer exists because sometimes it is difficult to hear every word of the call. It does not mean, at all, that there are parts of the call that were omitted. I realize you dorks think there is some other secret transcript out there but there just isnt. The attorney representing the whistle blower, Mark Zaid (who is an outspoken critic of Trump and openly advertised for whistle blowers to come forward- and I mention this not because I think the attorney is not being honest, I think he is, but to demonstrate that he would not hold anything back), also has a second blower that he says has direct knowledge of the call. So for the latest crack pot conspiracy (that there exists a different transcript of the call that is more complete or has more info or whatever) to be true, then we must all believe that when POTUS said the entire transcript of the call from the WH situation room was released was lying. That somehow, they altered/doctored the official transcript to hide something. However, none of you have even tried to respond to the fact that if POTUS is lying about the transcript being the complete call, that this new 2nd whistle blower who is represented by the attorney who hates Trump and who was listening to the call in real time, is just letting the lie by POTUS go unchecked. That is simply preposterous. If Trump did lie about the transcript being complete and it comes out that there is, in fact, a longer transcript then that is better grounds for impeachment than the context of the call. Schiff and Zaid and the rest would be all over it. I would love for one of you to actually say that you truly think a second more complete copy of the transcript exists. Lets go on record.

A lot to unpack here. You really do not understand what you are talking about. The whistle blower referred to the " official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. " The document that was released by the WH was that exact document. Not a summary of the transcript, the same transcript. There is no other document. The one released is the official situation room document. The exact document that was classified and placed on the secure server. The exact one the whistle blower was referring to. You are clearly trying to imply that there exists another transcript. There is zero evidence anywhere that another document exists. Listen carefully- dozens of people listened to the call, including the very same people that told the whistle blower about the call. You want us to believe that the WH released a doctored or abbreviated or something similar transcript to the public, and told the public it was the official situation room transcript, and that not one of the dozen people who heard the call- again including the ones that informed the whistle blower about how bad it was- have claimed that it was not the whole transcript. No one who heard the call has questioned this. No one. You are just wrong. (note- you need to tell the other lawyers hammering me on my word choice that the whistle blower is a "lying, fucking liar" for saying that the situation room transcript is word for word) As for the ellipses, once again you are just clinging to speculative nonsense. The former director of the same situation room for Obama said that the ellipses represented times where the person speaking paused in the course of the conversation. Nothing was omitted. If you could just think, you wouldnt have these problems. Just ask yourself if you truly believe that the dozen or so people that listened to the call and decided to take it to the IG and file an official report and communicate with the intelligence committee would just stand by and not hammer the WH if the transcript that was released was not the whole thing.

Wow. Lets be clear, is the thing I am being accused of lying about the "document" (id hate to call it a transcript eve though that is exactly what CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS etc all called it) that the WH released? I am lying because i referred to it as a transcript? I used the term stenographer? Here is the 'document" https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html Call it whatever you want. I really does not matter. It certainly does not read like something paraphrased. It is my understanding that the document is made by people listening to the call in real time. They are taking notes/transcribing what is being said. Obviously, the words they used are very specific and certainly read like a direct dialogue of the call. It is obviously an attempt to get down precisely the words used in the call. For the lawyers, I apologize for using the term stenographer. I was not using that in a legal way but just as a catch all for people taking notes and writing down what was said. As to your questions above..I do not think that this is a 5 minute summary of a 30 minute call. I think this is the entire call. I have no idea why the call says 30 minutes. In reading it, it certainly doesn't appear to have some huge gap. I am sure that translators slowed things down. But it would be very, very easy to ask the people who took the notes about it. This is so typical. People see some apparent inconsistency and assume it is some conspiracy. Why don't the dems just ask the note takers how long the call lasted and if there was any part of the conversation that was excluded? Seems pretty easy to me. Why do you suppose they haven't done that? And my recollection is that the whistle blower did not hear the call first hand but spoke with people that did hear the call first hand. Seems pretty easy then to get in touch with the people who actually heard the call and ask them if there is a bunch of missing dialogue. I mean we have people accusing the POTUS of saying things in this call. Does it make any sense to you that those people would let an incomplete transcript be released by the WH without calling bullshit on it? It is absurd to think that the WH would claim this is the complete call and that the dems have people that actually listened to the call and dont refute it. As to privilege, not once, ever did I claim that privilege was absolute. Never. All I said was that executive privilege is a legal right for any POTUS to claim. It is not absolute just like congressional subpoenas are not absolute. I am pointing out the absolute idiocy of people claiming obstruction of justice and that this time it means the end of our democracy. It is foolish. I am fully aware that no one has actually asserted an official position of executive privilege yet. At this point, the executive is attempting to reach an understanding on the proceedings. If they can not, then I and everyone else, expects them to claim executive privilege and let the courts handle it.

Jesus. This place is completely insufferable. Call it whatever you want. POTUS released a document that was created by people listening in real time to his phone conversation. Is that better? You said they "paraphrased" it. "A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words." So I guess you yourself need to "fuck off, you lying sack of shit". And, as usual, you somehow get fixated on this and refuse to even try and justify that using executive privilege is "fucking lawful".

Um..the people in government that communicated with the POTUS about his interactions with a foreign head of state? Are you talking about Rudy? POTUS did not instruct Rudy to ignore the subpoena. Rudy is just ignoring it. If they want to come after Rudy they certainly can.

Really? There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls. That transcript is what was released. It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.

I suppose it is possible that you are just uninformed and not an "idiot". This is directly from Pence's letter to congress: "Please know that if the committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the committees have appropriate requests for information in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for separation of powers," Morgan wrote. "Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the president, the vice president and their advisors." So everything you typed was wrong. They are in fact relying on executive privilege and they have never set a "conditions were to end the investigation". Are you really an attorney?

Do you even realize what you are saying? Either congressional subpoenas are absolute or they are not. You just typed that Holder failed to comply only after Holder (the one being subpoenaed) decided the gop had gone "too far afield". I think you typed it with a straight face too. So your position is that the person who receives the subpoena gets to determine what they want to provide? Wow. In fact, the specific documents that were requested from Holder but not provided in the subpoena were denied in the end by......obama exerting executive privilege. So by your definition it was obstruction. And contrary to your assertion about the WH not providing a scintilla of information, i suppose that you just forgot that the entire current impeachment inquiry is based on the potus phone conversation with ukraine. Potus released the transcript of the call. A transcript that every single legal scholar in america would agree is subject to executive privilege.

As usual you guys are omitting certain facts. Maybe you are just unaware. There is actually very little case law regarding impeachments and very little precedent when it comes to congressional subpoena power and executive privilege. The reason is that, in virtually all former instances, the executive and congress worked out a compromise on the issues. What Cippallone's and Pence's letters are saying is that unless the congress and the executive can agree to certain guidelines in the impeachment process, the executive will invoke privilege which it is legally entitled to do. Contrary to what you guys keep saying, the executive has said it will be willing to waive privilege with an understanding and clarification of the process. It is asking for compromise. Perhaps it is bullshit but it will certainly be much harder for the executive to defend its position of uncooperation if the congress agrees to certain terms which certainly appear to have precedence. Essentially, congress is asking for everything and giving nothing. The executive has indicated they will cooperate under certain terms and, so far, the congress has refused to any such terms. So, like I have said, if both parties refuse to budge then it becomes a case of executive privilege versus congressional subpoena power. Congress is saying that they have absolute/unlimited subpoena power for any reason they want. This whole claim of "obstruction" is so stupid but you guys just love to eat it up. Asserting legal rights is not obstruction. Executive privilege is a legal right. I get it that most of you think it is bullshit, but that doesnt make it illegal. To me, this episode is actually a great statement to our country's constitution and rule of law. It is why we have 3 branches. It is within congress' legal rights to issue subpoenas an it is within the executives legal rights to claim privilege. If, and only if, the issues are heard by the courts (likely all the way to the SC) and then one side fails to comply with the courts rulings then that side would absolutely be obstructing justice and should be help accountable. But not before. Have any of you actually read what the executive is asking for in exchange for waiving privilege? It is actually pretty reasonable. If this is really an actual impeachment inquiry as opposed to a political hunt, then congress should agree to the terms requested immediately as they do not change any of the underlying facts of the case.

Lulz. You clearly have no reading comprehension and this is another perfect example of you being so emotionally charged that you cant even respond. I clearly stated that my argument was on the issue and not, at all, based on who is currently in office. If you want to debate that then lets do it. "Because I fucking believe in the rule of law, regardless of whose fucking "team" is in power." Which "rule of law" should we follow? The law is not black and white on this issue. Is presidential privilege not lawful? The courts certainly think that it is. Both dem and repub appointed Justices have upheld it regularly. Apparently, you "fucking believe" that congressional subpoena power should override presidential privilege. That is a defensible position. Just as presidential privilege is a defensible position. I can not believe that you actually think that there should be zero instances where congressional subpoenas can be legally ignored. That is why we have a 3rd branch. If the courts determine a particular subpoena is lawful then full consequences should fall on the person not abiding by them. You are arguing that every single written and expressed comments by any POTUS or anyone providing counsel to a POTUS should be made public. That cant be your true feelings on the matter. "And I thought that Holder and the DOJ were wrong." I never suggested that you didnt. My point on that, which was pretty clear, was to point out the hypocrisy of the players involved. I am sure your personal position was consistent but I must have missed all of your posts that suggested America was a lawless, banana republic at the time.

I am on the fence with this one. Essentially it boils down to the issue of which constitutional power is more sacrosanct: presidential privilege or congressional subpoena power. Ultimately, it is most likely a decision to be decided by the Supreme Court. I can see both sides to the argument. The impossible thing for 98% of this forums crazies to look at is how this plays out in the future when there is a new POTUS and new congress. But a few of you (especially THOSE of you who REALLY like to make their points) need to realize how incredibly stupid you sound when you make comments like unprecedented obstruction, banana republic, lawlessness etc. It was only 7 years ago when we had a very similar scenario. Congress issued subpoenas to Eric Holder on Fast and Furious related issues. Holder refused, citing executive privilege, was then held in contempt and then Obama/DOJ refused to act on the contempt and it went to court. And guess what? Life went on. America went on. The courts ultimately ruled and some documents were released and some were not. The absolute hypocrisy of the people involved is astounding. Both sides. In 2012 the republicans were crying that the subpoenas were lawful and the democrats (led by Pelosi) were claiming that the subpoenas were simply a political witch hunt. this is a direct quote from Pelosi " "What the Republicans are doing with this motion ... is contemptible," Pelosi declared. "This is something that makes a witch hunt look like a day at the beach. It is (the) railroading of a resolution that is unsubstantiated by the facts, based on a false premise." This what the WH said about the subpoenas "White House accused House Republicans of engaging in “political theater rather than legitimate Congressional oversight.” Amazing how the words are the same but now in different hands. This why I ultimately believe that presidential privilege should preempt congressional subpoena power. The precedent is just too damning. Lets assume Warren is the new POTUS and she has her first call with Xi. Some anonymous source tells Fox news that Warren said something unethical or possibly illegal in the call. Fox runs with the story, the House subpoenas records of the call, Warren refuses, the House claims obstruction and impeaches her. It would be ridiculous.

great flick obviously. Biggest plot fail is that if Mike had been on a draw he could have just folded. He still had a big stack. But the movie has to end.

There really are very big problems with this. Cali is not doing this for the athletes, the politicians are doing it for votes. I typically hate slippery slope arguments, but lets look at a hypothetical that would be completely "legal" under the proposed regulation. Wealthy Stanford alum decides to have a monthly podcast/call in show/whatever called "the lives of stanford football players". Every current stanford player can log on the show and, if they do, they get $1,000. $12,000/year per player. Costs about $1M per year which is insignificant to alum (for that matter you could sell subscriptions to it for $1/month and easily get enough die hards to cover the actual cost). That would be perfectly legal under the proposed bill. Take that scenario and multiply it by anything you can imagine. The potential for harm is even greater in small sports. Maybe some of you have seen Ricky Fowler's golf channel show about college golf teams? Just pay the 6 OSU golfers $20K each for the show season. $120K. Think OSU might get all of the best golf recruits? They already get many of the best and have amazing facilities and if they also get $20K per year for doing what they are already doing- who wouldn't go there? There would be no policing this. Suddenly Harvard and Yale will be relevant in sports again. I think stipends of up to $5K/year are already available for scholarship athletes. I would have no problem with schools offering additional grants to athletes based on need. Maybe another $5K/year. There would have to be a cap.

The short answer, which many have indicated, is cost. It is too expensive to do right and not enough people will use it. Of course there are some that will and I love train travel, but its just not practical. Go to Dallas for cotton bowl. 4 guys or a family or any combination of people, it is so much cheaper to drive. Call it 400 miles round trip costs bout $50 in a car. That is $12.25 per head both ways. There doesnt exist an economic model that works. My hope is that electric cars get better and easier and then we add high speed driving lanes on these routes between cities. At least 100 mph. Little environmental impact.

Spectacular thread. Filet>Ribeye>All other forms of steak. Indian>Thai>Vietnamese>Chinese Eating more than 4oz of brisket at one setting is doing it wrong Baby back pork ribs are fantastic Beef ribs are horrible Raw onions and green peppers should be abolished. Bacon is a side for breakfast and BLTs and should never be paired with any other food. For the margarita snobs (although I agree on the rocks is better): 1 Can Frozen Limeaid then use empty can for the following: 1 Can Tequila 1 Can Beer (no IPA) 1/2 Can Triple Sec Ice

LOL Yes bad term by me. Athletic is not what I meant. Not sure the right word. Skilled? Basically he was just a very poor shooter. Not a guy a team could lean on down the stretch offensively. All the other guys on the list were great defenders as well as the first option on offense and all had the ability to score consistently in the 4th quarter. In an era that had massive scoring (like 118/game and almost 150 possessions per game versus 100 or so now) Russell only averaged about 12 pts per game after they widened the lane. He literally only made 3-4 shots a game that were not dunks or free throws. The other guys on the list averaged that many in the 4th quarter alone. Bottom line, if you could take any player on the list in their absolute prime to start your team with in todays era, very very few would pick Russell.

Love the topic also. My only question is on Russel. I feel like every other guy on the list would dominate in any era. They could all score. I do not think Russel would be great in the modern era. He was just too limited offensively and he was not nearly as athletic as the rest of the list. Every other guy on that list you could feed the ball to late and they would deliver. Not Russel. Certainly one of the very best in his era, but not in my top 20 all time. I also think KD will get into the conversation of top 10.

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey. (personal all time favorite opening line) When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride Till I get to the bottom and I see you again Well you can tell by the way I use my walk I'm a woman's man, no time to talk Bass, how low can you go And now, the end is here and so I face the final curtain

Jordan is best ever, imo. 2 deep starting all great team: Magic, Curry MJ, Kobe Lebron, Bird, KD Duncan, Barkley Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt

Cool topic. Impossible to narrow down to 10 and greatest is so subjective. I would say that these 10 had the greatest emotional (funny, scary, action, inspiring etc.) impact on me personally when I watched them: Rocky Godfathers Star Wars Jaws Shawshank Shining Wedding Crashers Caddyshack Platoon Goldfinger Hoosiers

You clearly can not grasp what I am saying. Whatever oversight we currently have on the police we would have on a private police force. I am suggesting that if Austin currently spends $200M on its police force, that if we bid out the exact same services to private companies, that the bids to perform the same work would be less than $200M. I am saying we have no idea if the police force is run efficiently or not because we have nothing to compare it to.

I agree with most of your post but this part I strongly disagree with. This is not a perfect example but it is quite interesting to consider. We need to remember that the private insurers had no problem covering people currently getting medicaid, they just were not going to do it without getting paid. In 2017 there were roughly 28 M (lots of kids) people that lacked private health insurance. The vast majority were medicaid recipients. Now before people go crazy, I fully support medicaid to those that need it. It is a very good use of govt funds. But in 2017 total spend on medicaid for these 28M people totaled about $560B between state and federal. medicaid provides, essentially, the same benefits that ACA compliant health insurance plans provide. If we take the most basic ACA compliant plan that is equivalent to the benefits provided by Medicaid, the premium for coverage is approximately $400/per month per person (it is actually less for kids but we will use the higher figure). So that is about $4,800 annually. So the private insurance world will insure every uninsured american for $135B. Lets be really generous and say every single person, all 28M, will use their entire $1,000 deductible in the year. That is another $28B. So the private insurance world will insure everyone to an ACA compliant level and we can pay all of their deductibles for somewhere in the range of $163B yet we spend $560B annually on medicaid. Throw in about $20B annually for dental and vision. So the US could simply pay the premium for every single uninsured person, and pay their annual deductible and provide dental and vision care for less than $200B and as a country we save $360B.

As mentioned, I am not championing that we privatize the vast majority of these things. My point has been that it is impossible to truly tell if an entity is efficient when there does not exist any competition within the industry- meaning there is not another entity to compare it to. If you go to your bank and they tell you that they have great service and prices and their fees are really low, how do you know if it is true unless there is another bank to compare them to. How do we know if the post office is well run or not? It very well may be. We just do not know because no one else is allowed to do it. We do know that the USPS had an absolute monopoly on all things mail/delivery for a long time and had built in infrastructure and abilities (largely through military aircraft) to dominate the market forever. Yet, multiple start up delivery services have come into the space and have dominated the marketplace. Start ups with no infrastructure and massive up front costs. And those companies are now worth billions of dollars and the USPS is broke. If the US decided to let those companies bid on providing the exact same services currently provided by the USPS, I would bet they could do it for less money than we currently spend but I have no way of knowing. As for your examples, I would assume the same people would apply and work those police jobs that are working them now? What possible difference would it make if they were being paid by a private company or the govt. You seem to assume that bribery can only exist in the private sector which is curious. It is just really stupid for people to argue that govt is equally as efficient at something as the private sector when the private sector is not given the opportunity to compete.

Another perfect example of why I should not break personal rules. You and Dennison and Wildcat and others are just the perfect example of what debate is like with people that have absolutely zero personal shame or accountability. I mean what sane person could think there is a difference between these 2 posts: A rich man raping a poor man's daughter You are a rich man with a private militia and I am a peasant worker with a family in a little hut in the woods. You come and rape my daughter.

Precisely why one should never break personal rules. I put it right in the post.