daz28

You could have Mr. Clean disinfect the plane as good as nature intended, but it's still a narrow tube of aircraft aluminum. I think when we get to talking about heads being literally 10" apart, that changes the discussion. To me they'd be a ship of fools. I know I'd feel like a real dummy if the ICU doctor started talking about intubating me, because I wanted to see the country a few weeks too early. Now for the second part of the discussion. CAN the industry withstand having only half full flights? As notoriously bad at planning as airlines are, they do have fuel prices in their favor. Thank God, but is that enough to keep them going for maybe a year or two of 1/2 full flights?? I wouldn't bet on it.

The shareholder does not know when the transaction will go through, so he's playing the street like everyone else. Top management could even BUY more shares before they DECIDE to execute the buy back to enhance their position in the company. None of this was even considered when they ram-rodded this tax cut through. It may have even been intentional, butt look there's Mike Flynn's squirrel. If a company is not in a position to re-invest, and stock buyback from tax cuts is the best option for the company, you better believe that will increase its price per share. Guaranteed no, but if the management is that inept, they wouldn't/shouldn't be where they are.

So this is what you want to take in front of the jury of your peers to show that I'm the one who injected partisanship in this discussion, and in this thread??? I think I pretty much took a poop all over the entire government, and the statesmen that inhabit it. I have no dog in the fight but me, you, and every other American. Our government belongs to us no matter what ANYONE says. They haven't pried the right to vote out anyone's cold dead hand either. Did I say I believe the govt is legit or serves us?? I think I said the opposite

If message boards had been around since 1960, we'd be on the 75,638,463,9264,907 page of the 'Washington slimes us again' thread in PPP. For all we know this has been going on since 1800, but they take short periodic breaks from sliming us.

If I had control all these dirty scumbags would fry, but they have a fraternity. That's why I don't really get upset about it.

I'm not gonna call Barr dirty, but he's been around the center of some partisan issues for a long time, and he is not afraid to be political. Certainly not my idea of an ideal AG

You're the one that insisted this be a partisan issue.

Try to better conceal our operatives? I'm not sure what you're going for here. When it comes to intel, yesterdays mistakes can't be todays excuses.

This is the problem. In these partisan times can we trust them with that responsibility? Can we trust the DOJ to not be partisan? The fact these are even questions is a testament to how bad things really are right now. I believe Trump, Barr, and Kavanaugh all believe that he can't. So are you disagreeing with them? If so, is there really any recourse other than impeachment and removal?

Are you asking me? All I said is we need to keep our guard up against China at all times.

I have no clue where you think I said China did anything. I'm saying that it's OUR responsibility to protect ourselves from them. Maybe they said screw off, because trump's been tariffing them? Who knows. In the end we're responsible for our own safety no matter what the case.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. if your company buys back shares, the price per share goes up. Top executives have their own personal shares as well. After the price goes up on the companies buyback, they then sell their personal shares for a neat GUARANTEED profit. Neither me nor you have ever benefitted from a GUARANTEED stock transaction like that.

I didn't say he committed a crime. I only asked if you thought he should be able to be charged with one if he did. I don't look at it from a Trump angle, because in 10 years it might be a Democrat or a Republican. Do you think that person should be able to be charged with a crime while acting as sitting president. You're making this WAYYY more difficult than it needs to be

It's not securities fraud, but it has the general feel of it. I mean you inflate your companies price with the money that you told Trump you'd use to invest in jobs, then sell a bunch of your own personal shares on the bump. It's greasy at best

A history of cooperation doesn't allow us to assume a future of cooperation. That assumption alone is poor intelligence by itself. If any nation were to try to infect us with germ warfare, it would be best done by the sneakiest means possible. When they rebuffed us is probably when we wished we had better intelligence, because good intelligence doesn't get surprised.

I'm not picking on Trump, I'm talking about this from a legal standpoint perspective. You're right, how many times can they investigate before it becomes harassment is another good question, but that's not what we're discussing here

You: "We don't live in East Germany yet, but give it time. Maybe you can interrogate me in the future.?" Me: "That's fair, I just fail to understand why you choose not to share, and why I'm East Germany for asking?" Or maybe you did, and maybe it's you misrepresenting. Name one other time you mistakenly thought I misrepresented you? What does this mean??? Are you saying you should be able to be charged after you're tried and found guilty?? All I see here is Covfefe

Wouldn't we love to know, but there's a catch. China is our adversary, so whatever information THEY gave us should/would have been taken with a grain of salt. Ultimately, the only information we could truly trust would be our own intel, which might corroborate what China was saying. Even then, they could start giving you good data until you trust it, then slap you with the bad data. If this is a failure it falls directly on our own intelligence or lack of.

That's fair, I just fail to understand why you choose not to share, and why I'm East Germany for asking? Asking a question isn't argumentative

Are they both charged with murder? Did they both shoot him?? That's what's confusing me. Wow, I'm not a Trey fan, but he nailed that one!

So why do we have a forum if our opinions aren't relevant, and whatever happens happens. What is your opinion on him being charged? Understand I don't take sides. I can totally see how both sides will abuse this no matter which way the cookie crumbles.

I'm not trying to make a case. You said you read the Constitution, and I want to know if you read that a sitting president can't be charged with a crime? Don't confuse your discussion with Tibs with mine

I agree, one can't slack off, because it will be too noticeable with all the people around him working hard. People are def more honest when you are watching them. I guess if there was a productivity measure, you could do it, though. The construction business may be real slow moving forward. Heck, there's gonna be mass evictions. Best of luck to you moving forward. Thanks for reply.

Does the Constitution say the president can't be charged with a crime?

A mess they will have to deal with when the Democrats are in power, and start beaming up all the aliens from Mexico under an executive emergency order, and giving them drivers licenses, health care, and happy meals. Their heads are going to explode