nolhtairt

I'm not a fan of that. They need to let the investigators do their work instead of turning this into a political hit job. I just find it hypocritical... Crying about alleged collusion, when there's solid evidence THEY themselves colluded against Bernie Sanders...

Now this is the stupidest shit ever, by a political party. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/20/democratic-party-files-suit-alleging-russia-the-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks-conspired-to-disrupt-the-2016-election-report.html

Ben Shapiro's article: https://www.dailywire.com/news/29672/6-things-you-need-know-about-released-comey-memos-ben-shapiro

To no one in particular: https://www.dailywire.com/news/29672/6-things-you-need-know-about-released-comey-memos-ben-shapiro

So they're willing to eat the financial losses on those. Good for them. (shrugs)

Clinton didn't have to. He sicc'ed his wife on the female accusers, and threw them under the bus. Besides, all that shit with Stormy happened over a decade ago.

Never underestimate the Russians. If they want you dead, they'll find a way to make it happen.

You'd be the ugliest drag queen ever, more than likely.

Which would be legitimate if they were purely political partisan attacks. But concealing payoffs to porn stars and other high crimes. Should be paid for by trump personally. Not by tax-deductible political donations. The alleged payoff came from President Trump's attorney and the incident allegedly took place in 2006. President Trump was simply a business tycoon at that time. I know that fake news has a different account. NBD ETA: Are you concerned about the $15M Congressional Hush Fund? I'd love to hear your opinion on all of this if the person's last name were Clinton. The Clintons are star performers. Ancient history along with LBJ and JFK. Clinton's hanky panky happened while he was serving as POTUS, even though he had a prior history. Trump's happened well BEFORE he even started running for POTUS, like a decade. That we know of anyway.

As I understand, it's not unusual for attorneys to have specialized practices. One issue that this brings up is that if Cohen was already doing this before Trump was running for office then these things can be dismissed as not being illegal campaign contributions. I think we all know that Trump has a long history of paying his way out of compromising situations with females. As have many others who have money to burn.

You're welcome. I've alerted him to your query. If you don't hear from him this week, send me a PM with your email address and I'll forward it to him.

I'm going to ask a friend who is a below knee amputee. Who knows, maybe he will get back on here to help you but its been years since he's been on here. He has had the osseo-integration surgery to have the prosthetic mounting hardware installed.

I'm still confused. In what way do you see Bill defending anyone? In any case I agree that better pre-employment checks should have been done here. How does that affect gun background purchase checks? Are you trying to make a case against Wasserman or against background checks? I don't know if this was the original reason for the post, but you can bet that the next time someone suggests a database of gun owners this will be called out as an excellent reason not to. A legitimate concern about gun databases is letting criminals know who in their neighborhood has guns to steal. I think that's really an issue that's not an issue. There are all sorts of ways of figuring out who has guns and that doesn't change the fact that gun owners need to take the steps to keep their weapons safe from robberies. My weapons are not in a safe but there are two people on this planet who know where they are and they would never be found in the course of a robbery without the use of an xray imaging device. Besides, the big ole "The house protected by Smith and Wesson" sticker can be a dead giveaway for some folks. Not just on the house, but also your vehicles.

I've just noticed that there's no Liberal outrage on gun control after this incident. Of course not. It doesn't fit their agenda. Bill's reply to you is a great example of the left losing the argument. You come across with a great point which is absolutely correct and he has to move towards shaming you into silence. Don't let him do that! I think you're missing the joke we're all sharing here. We're very much aware that people like you see this woman as some kind of Lefty Extremist and it's your big chance to throw mud. Yet, it's another case of someone's unrestricted access to a firearm that enabled them to go from assault to murder. There's no "losing the argument" because she's a vegan or a she. She killed people and she killed people with a gun, another statistic in American gun violence that doesn't happen as frequently in countries with tighter gun control laws. As far as I know, she only killed herself, so fortunately her aim sucked when it came to shooting the other 3, relatively speaking.

From my personal experience it is when they do not want to be associated with the current regime in Iran. Jerry Baumchen I haven't met a single Iranian that liked their country's regime, and there have been quite a few.

I've just noticed that there's no Liberal outrage on gun control after this incident. Of course not. It doesn't fit their agenda.

Nah, not really... Turned out to be a Turkish or Iranian woman angry at YouTube for filtering her videos so she didn't get as many views, plus she was an extreme leftist vegan PETA supporter. I've seen some of her videos. She's way the fuck out there. In other words, just another loser.

Then enforce the laws already on the books. Which is what failed to happen in Cruz's case.

No it is not, because it ignores the 67 US cities with higher murder rates than New York or London. His point is that despite the strict gun control that the UK has, people still find ways to kill and maim. So it's not a choice of weapon issue. It's a mental issue. I'd like to see a break down of those stabbing incidents though, and see what kind of sociological issues are involved.

Calling them nazis is going too far. However, Hogg appears to have lied. There's an interview where he admitted to being at home during the shooting, rather than at school when it happened. Lots of questions about his background. Poor guy, being used by the media to promote their anti-gun agenda.

I already knew about the faked constitution rip.

Somehow, I don't think dressing like a Communist is going to help your cause, lady.

So, the school in Florida that had the mass shooting, has now required clear backpacks, and the activist students aren't happy. Well la dee dah, you walked out of school to protest. The school came up with a solution that is already in use at other schools across the country (not all), and you don't like it? Get with the program and suck it up buddy.

The agenda being that pedophiles should get more prison time than a shoplifter. It is apparently a really radical agenda. And it's one I agree with, even as a Republican supporter.

But you're also unwilling to listen to the students who ACTUALLY got shot at or were ACTUALLY shot. Did you Actually get shot at? Or are you just trolling. No, I'm just calling you out for saying these students are pawns and shouldn't be taken seriously. How seriously you take these children? http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/03/20/student-planning-abortion-protest/ Now that you-tube is banning gun video's. Where are you going to learn about shooting, guns, etc.? YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/youtube-bans-firearm-sales-and-how-to-videos-prompting-backlash YouTube, a popular media site for firearms enthusiasts, this week quietly introduced tighter restrictions on videos involving weapons, becoming the latest battleground in the U.S. gun-control debate. YouTube will ban videos that promote or link to websites selling firearms and accessories, including bump stocks, which allow a semi-automatic rifle to fire faster. Additionally, YouTube said it will prohibit videos with instructions on how to assemble firearms. The video site, owned by Alphabet Inc.’s Google, has faced intense criticism for hosting videos about guns, bombs and other deadly weapons. So youtube has gone into full libtard mode. What's to stop some gun enthusiasts with some computer saavy from setting up a video site similar to youtube, solely for gun videos?