sheeeit

I liked 1. Havent started 2. I do not know why but Robisis (?) is sort of mesmerizing on screen.

Had not seen that article. It seems like I suggested above. CNN ran with a story based on info from, likely, Davis. No fault in that to CNN. CNN is basically saying that Davis is now changing his story and CNN can not be held responsible for that. Fair enough. They also seem to imply that Cohen was one of their sources. Who knows. Honestly, I do not trust any media outlet anymore when they quote anonymous sources and this case is exactly why. There seems to be exactly zero negative ramifications to the sources or news outlets when they rely on sources that are lying. It happened to Obama, Bush, Clinton too. It is just too easy in todays world to find a "source". There is simply no way to get to the truth. Just using this particular story, I find it impossible to believe that Davis was not the originator of the story. So Davis tells the media and then Davis tells other people who the media go to to "corroborate" the story and then, voila, you have multiple sources confirming the story, it is so incestuous. This is almost exactly like the Carter Page FISA stuff. The FBI uses Steele and his dossier as evidence. They ask Steele if he has talked to anyone in the media and Steele says no. They then use a media story that corroborates the evidence in the dossier and say it is a second stand alone source because Steele swears he did not talk to the media. Of course then the media guy who wrote the second corroborating story says that of course he talked to Steele and that Steele gave him all of the info for the story. But by then the warrant is in place and the damage is done.

I think it is shitty for anyone to leak private conversations from any potus. I do not get, at all, this notion that anything the potus says or thinks, at anytime, should be public record. That is just too stupid. Any potus has to have the ability to strategize openly without the fear that the conversations will go public. Be it defense, intelligence, trade, immigration, the economy or whatever. Questioning the wisdom of renegotiating NAFTA and other trade agreements is fine and a worthy endeavor. Leaking privileged info that has a direct impact on those negotiations should send someone to jail. Not just in this case and this potus but any. Concerning the Cohen/Davis story, people are just playing semantics. CNN is standing by the fact that they reported exactly what their sources told them. So they think they are in the right. They did not make anything up. It is not CNN's fault that some of those sources are now claiming something different. Where they are wrong, imo, is by not at least clarifying that at least one of their sources as well as Cohen himself have now denied the original story. It appears that CNN was possibly duped by Davis but does not want to admit it. It is also amazingly disingenuous to make a claim that they did not get a comment from Davis when Davis has now admitted to being one of their sources. The reality is that only Davis, Cohen or one of his other lawyers are the only possible ones that know the facts. Davis and Cohen are both now denying the story and CNN should report that.

Whoops. 10 million. I type poorly. Still a shitload.

It is strange the way people let their hatred or bigotry or whatever you want to call it compel them to just post anything they want regardless of truth or facts. You can hate religion all you want and you can hate Osteen all you want. You can argue that churches should be taxed, but the above post is just so stupid. Osteen pays the same tax rate as everyone else for every dollar that goes to him personally and he pays taxes on every fringe benefit provided to him by the church.

Not sure you quite understand this. Churches can not buy houses and cars for their pastors. Those assets are in the name of the church and when the pastor dies or leaves or whatever, he gets zero equity from them. In almost all cases, the pastor is required to pay the nominal amount the irs requires for getting a benefit. The big houses thatsome live in, like Osteen, are owned by Osteen and are paid for with after tax dollars and are subject to property taxes. Any salary or benefit paid to Osteen or any pastor is subject to taxation like anyone else.

Osteen is an unusual case. I personally do not care for his opulence but his message (admittedly I have only seen a few sermons on TV and have never been to the church) seems genuinely good and, obviously, many people find inspiration and solace and peace in his teachings. Church going and tithing are completely voluntary and I have no problem with people choosing both for whatever reason. The tax thing is sort of a misnomer. For the actual church, as many have mentioned, they do not really make any income. No business is taxed on their revenue, it is on the income/profit. Churches typically operate at a loss on a financial statement. The rely on large donations and fundraisers etc to offset their operating expenses. So even if there was a movement to tax them, it would yield little or no revenue from an income standpoint. For property taxes, I think of it the same way as Private Universities. They have a mission to do good and are recognized as having an impact on the well being of society. I do not have a problem with that. Also, church employees pay taxes on their wages just like any other citizen including FICA which the church matches by law. As for Osteen personally, he has not received any money direct from the church for many, many years. His income comes from books and outside speaking engagements and other media. I think I remember that his most popular book from several years ago sold over 100,000,000 copies. Osteen, of course, pays personal taxes on all of that income and he pays property taxes on all of his personal holdings. The one grey area that I do not like is that the church sort of promotes/advertises his books and stuff. I think that should be more separated but I am not sure it is a big deal. In short, the churches do not make any money that can be taxed anyway. Osteen is taxed just like everyone else on his personal earnings. And I am confident enough that churches do enough good for enough people that giving them a break on their property taxes is just fine. As for Harvey, there is not enough info to know the real situation as there are always two sides to a story. I will say it looked very bad and seemed to be handled poorly by Osteen and the church. The award, by the way, was really for everything that the church has done and continues to do for Harvey relief.

thanks all

I was referring to the fact that she wants an attorney to take it pro bono, Watson.

Looks like they are getting cold feet about pleading guilty and want to hire a lawyer to sue the government saying that he did not commit any crimes. It would not shock me if some lawyer somewhere took up case.

Love a good right turn on a surly thread. I actually never knew there was debate on whether the person Jesus was real or not. Learn something new everyday.

Heading to a poker tourney and wanting to play a little craps. I think I get the HG method but would love a confirmation. When I do not have the dice- No bet on the initial roll. When a point is established I place 3 bets on the non-point inside numbers (point is 6 so I bet on the 5,8,9). Just straight bets at this point with no odds correct? If the numbers hit I collect the winnings for the first two hits (next roll is a 5 I collect, next roll is a 9 I collect). After that if a number hits I leave the bet as odds behind my initial bet correct (8 hits so I press the bet on the 8)? So now I am getting "odds" on my 8 correct? Or do I not ever get odds since I did not bet on the initial roll? Or better question, when I play the 3 inside numbers can I put odds bets on them right away?

A couple of things and I appreciate the civilized discourse. On the rivers, there is not any evidence anywhere that the rivers in France are warmer on average than they have been in the past as a result of global warming. Of course rivers and lakes get warmer when it is hot outside. But sporadic heat waves (which have occurred forever) that cause temporary problems are not a sign of whole scale climate change problems. As mentioned in the article, the current heat wave that led to the issue in France was NOT as hot as it was in 1868. Heat waves happen all the time. Attributing this latest shut down to macro global warming is completely disingenuous. The issue was that due to increased temps the reactors were working harder/longer/ and required MORE river water for longer durations to cool so they backed off. And literally for less than a day. The issue with crops has been brought up repeatedly and it is, again, very disingenuous. Global grain production is at all time highs. That some areas suffer from drought each year is completely normal and has been happening since forever. It is very disingenuous to blame lower grain production in Sweden in 2018 on global warming when Sweden set records for grain production last year. And on the Chevron lawyer, you may be misstating what they actually agreed with. The difference is slight but meaningful. Everything I have read has said that the oilies have agreed that humans were contributing to warming. Not that humans were the main drivers. I find this in the IPCC report also and the 97% claim. I could very well be wrong about this but I have tried to find definitive facts and it is surprisingly difficult. What I think I have found and what I generally agree with is that the vast majority of scientists believe that the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to the warming through CO2 and other green house gas emissions. What I could not find was that a vast majority of the scientists agreed that humans were the primary driver of the warming. Virtually all agreed that humans contribute but not nearly as many believe that humans are primarily responsible. As mentioned it is hard to get true numbers from surveys but I did find this: Of course that is a small sampling and is 6 years old. I just couldn't find anything else that was actually definitive. And ultimately, the thing that matters is what happens if we keep warming. What is the economic and social impact. There is zero consensus on that front. You can find as many scientists that will say warming on the lower end of projections will have a net positive impact on the world as those that do not. And even the most ardent believers in climate doom must agree that, to date, the ability of us to predict the actual temp increases has been horrible. I think the issue is important and I support continued funding and research of the issue. Like all things, we will get better at making predictions on the future as we go along. I support continued awareness objectives to make people aware of the issue and let them do what they can to help reduce emissions. I just do not support radical, expensive measures to combat the issue yet. And I am not sure I will ever support any measure that does not have a global buy in from everyone, especially china and india . China seems to be at least paying lip service to curbing emissions which is good.

I will be shocked if he gets off. His only chance is the fact that Gates admitted stealing from him. Without that, there really isnt any defense. I do not think it will or should work, but the argument that Gates was stealing so he kept Manafort in the dark on the details is at least a half court shot.

Like I said, we will just disagree at this point on the effects. But it is certainly telling that you decided not to comment on the main point of my post which was that the article posted used completely bogus and/or made up stories/facts to bolster its point. You seem fine with that.

This paper is a perfect example of why some people question the hyperbole around climate change. I do not question the actual science as I am sure that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere have some influence on warming. I think the actual influence is way, way overstated and I think the negative ramifications of an incrementally warming planet are way, way overstated. It is doubtful people will ever agree on those points but, ultimately, time will tell. However, this paper is just full of shit under even basic scrutiny and serves as an example of why people tend to dismiss the entire issue. Here is a direct section of the paper where they lay out the supposed dire effects of climate change: One by one: California fires- No evidence at all that these are the product of climate change. Ca has had fires forever and these current fires and their scope were predicted years ago and Ca was warned of what would happen if thinning and brush removal were ignored. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/07/30/californias-devastating-fires-are-man-caused-but-not-in-the-way-they-tell-us/#314f7ff70af9 Wheat/Corn- Typical cherry picked data regarding Sweden. First, just last year Sweden set an all time record for grain production. http://www.world-grain.com/Departments/Country-Focus/Country-Focus-Home/Focus-on-Sweden.aspx?cck=1 The issue with wheat in Sweden this summer is tied to actually too much rain last fall which prevented the winter wheat from fully developing. Hardly an act of warming. Further, globally wheat and corn are at historic highs. Droughts happen ever year somewhere in the world. The Oklahoma dust bowl and droughts was n the 1930s. Rivers too hot for Nuclear- This one is just too good. It is completely misleading and just plain wrong. First, the temp of the rivers used to cool the reactors was never changed or too high as the article states. There was a fear that the water RELEASED from the reactors would make rivers too hot and that it might have an affect on fish life. It was really just 1 old reactor in France (not anywhere else in Europe as the article suggested) and it was shut down for a whopping 1 afternoon. Not mentioned in the article was that the same thing happened in 2003 and that the temps in France are still below the temps recorded in the 1940s there. Totally bogus claim. Electric grids crashing in 4 continents- I searched every combination I could think of from 2018 and can not find 1 single case of an electric grid crashing due to excessive heat anywhere. Japan heat Deaths- Obviously any deaths are tragic, but this is about climate change effects. 138 people died of heat related issues in japan this year. Comparatively, over 900 died due to heat waves in 2007. Further, the current average high temps in japan are still not as high as those recorded in 1868. I am certain recordings are much more accurate now than in 1868 but, somehow, the temp in japan got just as hot in 1868 as it is now and that was way before the industrial revolution. So, to recap, every single thing that the article claimed as alarming effects of climate change was just bullshit. It is the problem with the issue. The facts do no stand on their own so people resort to lying and exaggerating and cherry picking to try and prove their point. For the sane folks, that is just a sign that their underlying premises are bad.

I actually kind of like this. So the russians help trump but do not actually let trump know that they are helping. Then, after he wins, they let it be known that they helped which in turn creates chaos and causes the country to implode. I kind of like that angle. I mean it completely removes any conspiracy angle but it actually would be a pretty sinister plan.

No you moron. I am suggesting that it is seriously ridiculous to think that the Russian spy team would try and start a massive conspiracy operation targeting the potential POTUS using random people that they have absolutely no idea how they would react or act or anything. It is comical. And lets be clear. I am not saying that this meeting proves there was no collusion. Mueller still has to say that. I am saying that there is no way that this meeting was the work of Putin and his spy team.

Sweet. Mueller gets a lay up.

You goofballs have the reading comprehension of an 8 year old. Trump co may indeed be monumentally stupid but that is not the point I was making. I was saying that if the plan to work a massive conspiracy between trump and russia was going to be hatched and there was going to be russian election help to Trump and then sanctions easing to russia that it is too stupid for any sane person to believe that Russia/Putin, who you guys have called the master minds of espionage, would kick off the plan in the manner that is being suggested. I do not think russia is that stupid. What a plan. I can just see the russian spy chiefs deciding they are going to perpetrate one of the biggest espionage operations in modern history and their collective plan was to have some unknown British music manager with a connection to a russian pop star send an email to Trump Jr on an open server and ask for a meeting. Then have that music manager (who has zero connection to the russian govt and zero connection to anything intelligence related) sit in on the meeting so he can hear the entire collusion plan and just hope he doesn't say anything. Then they are going to have a relatively unknown russian lawyer with zero history of spying conduct the meeting. Further, just to make it really spy like, they will have her invite another person to join the meeting the day of the meeting who has zero connection to any of this and hope he doesn't say anything. Then make sure there is another person there acting as an interpreter and hope he doesn't say anything. Then have them waltz right into Trump Tower with a horde of media and constant cameras present. Then just hope that Trump Jr does not have anyone on his side (considering they had no idea who would be attending the meeting from the Trump side) that will hear the pitch and hope they don't say something. Maybe triple is actually the head of the gru and came up with this plan.

A few things here. I have read a bit of Hayden's stuff and I think he is pretty smart and pretty accurate. I agree with the bulk of what you wrote about Russia wanting greater global respect and a seat at the big table. I even agree that what you said about Russia wanting people to "think they did it" is true. But there is a massive distinction between wanting people to suspect you are behind something and having people know you are behind something. If someone is messing with me and I suspect I know who it is but I can do nothing to prove it, then I am vulnerable to them and I have to take them seriously. They have shown that they can mess with me and suffer no consequences. I can not retaliate against them because I have no proof. However, if I catch them red handed and have the facts to back it up, then I can go after them as hard as I want. Hayden has said the exact same thing. He has said that Russia hacking information from the US like the DNC hack was "artful" and something we would do to if we could. he said Russia could use that info to better understand how we think and then use that knowledge to continue to sow discord. However, he has said that when Russia made the emails public via wiki that it was a huge mistake because it now exposed Russia as the culprit and galvanised the countries at the big table against Russia. Russia, in no way, wanted to get caught in the election meddling. Everything that they hoped to gain from the meddling (increased global presence, respect, power, chaos etc) they have actually lost because they got caught. They now suffer from increased financial sanctions imposed by both the US and the EU. The EU is openly investing billions in order to get away from independence on Russian energy. Russia struggles to find trading partners and it is only getting worse. Current sanctions are crippling Russia's economy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/06/heres-how-we-know-sanctions-against-russia-are-working/?utm_term=.423de6aeaf84 https://www.ft.com/content/cad69cf4-3e40-11e8-bcc8-cebcb81f1f90 As it stands now, the fact that Russia has been caught has effectively ended any chance Russia has of sitting at the big table. All of which goes back to what I have suggested. I have zero doubts that Russia meddled in the elections. I have little doubt that Russia wanted anyone but Hillary so they tried to help Bernie and then they tried to help Trump. What I believe is that there was no collusion/conspiracy between the Russians and Trump co. The Trump Tower meeting is a perfect example. Either Trump co was compromised before the meeting or not. If they were already compromised, then a meeting like that would be monumentally stupid. If they were not compromised, then attempting to compromise them in that way would be equally monumentally stupid.

This just does not make any sense. When you describe what Russia wants I assume that includes what Putin wants. What benefit is it to Russia for the world to find out they undermined the electoral process in our elections? All that has resulted is additional financial sanctions on Russia, additional mistrust of Russia by the rest of the world, Germany publicly announcing they will move away from dependence on Russian gas, Brittain hitting them with sanctions etc. When Russia annexed Crimea and got involved in the Uraine, much of the world imposed sanctions on them but some did not. Russia was royally pissed and their economy suffered greatly. Do you think it is more or less likely that sanctions would continue or get stronger if the world found out that Russia is actively trying to undermine all of their elections? I will glady admit that Russia enjoys stirring up chaos. But it is absolutely illogical to think that Russia wants the world to know that they are behind the chaos. How does that help them at all? It just causes the rest of the world to distrust them more and makes the rest of the world willing to impose sanctions on them.

Really? You still think something will come out of this meeting? Based on what? Did you actually read the transcripts? As usual you guys are so focused on gotcha that you just make yourselves look like fools. No one has ever said that the genesis of the meeting was not to get possible dirt on Hillary. What everyone has said is that at the actual meeting, there was no dirt shared or offerred about Hillary and that the meeting went straight to Magnisky Act stuff and adoptions. This is supported by the testimony of every participant in the meeting. What do you expect Mueller to do with this? Trump Jr. made an on the record statement back in July of 2017 saying the initial request for the meeting was to get possible dirt on Hillary. This has been out there for a long time. If you guys can find one single quote from Trump that indicates that he said the intent or genesis of the meeting was about adoptions then you might catch him in a lie. Trump has only commented previously about the actual meeting and what went on. I would love for any one of you to come up with a theory of how this meeting will hurt Trump with Mueller. It is alo still so funny to me that none of you can make any kind of answer out of the following: If Trump and co have been compromised by Putin for so long through shady financial dealings and a dossier of blackmail material and direct ownership of Manafort and possibly Flynn and all of that that you guys apparently believe, then why would Putin reach out to Trump via an email that every intelligence guy in both Russia and the US knows will likely be captured from some unknown agent like Goldstone? Why have them waltz into Trump Tower on various cameras? It is the most illogical thing ever. Why reach out to some underlings like Papa and Page? I don't think any of you can actually articulate what you actually think happened anymore. It is just Trump and everyone around him is a traitor. And it is based on exactly no credible public evidence. None. It is just Trump is going down and Mueller will get him. I have posted 100s of times that I fully support Mueller and will be one of the first in line to call for impeachments if there is evidence that Trump committed crimes. I have said that TRump should be impeached if he fired Mueller. I like Rod Rosenstein. I suspect that the vast majority of you will not accept the Mueller findings.

lulz. Was a joke. Get a life. Still have not shown I have any socks because I don't. But keep it up.

Obvious sock.