plenzmd1

cmon brother, you more than anyone knows ya can't time the market!!!!! How long do you have?..i know nothing bout SEPs

Okay, we are just gonna have to disagree here. I am saying Trump JR and the Trump campaign thought they were meeting with someone officially connected to Russia..but you are saying your belief, and i stress belief at this time, that she was not there on behalf of Russia but the Clintons somehow mitigates the intent. Sounds like to me if I have you believe you are buying a kilo of coke from me but I actually work for the government and there are no drugs involved, no crime has taken place. And to reiterate, I am not saying there was a crime, but the intent to get information from a foreign government on the opposition, and you see no problem with that. We will forever disagree on that. I find it morally reprehensible to think our president and his kin would be in debt to a foreign government. Any government. And obviously Trump Sr thought it was bad to have that info out in the public realm, as he lied about the meeting too. So yes, that information could have been leveraged against him And to say you believe the Russian government was a friendly..cmon now ..i know you better

okay, thank you. Now, here si the actual text of the email Goldstone sent to Trump jr..please refute Couple of points. Goldstone told Don JR the Russiam government was involved..plain and simple 1) Of course, it is okay to take a meeting with someone claiming to have dirt on the opposition..should not be elected President if you dumb enough to say no to that. 2) The second okay you got there.. I don't see the wiggle room. Indebtedness is indebtedness no? And to Russia? In terms of the last sentence, does not matter who she is working for ..if Trump JR believed she was working for the Russian government, that is all that matters. Again, you okay with the campaign knowingly taking information for an adversarial government?

That was not my question...as I understand it there is not even a legal definition of collusion..so no collusion is relatively meaningless no? But again, the Trump campaign staffers attended the meeting as they understood the Russian's to have dirt on Hilary and that they wanted to get their hands on that dirt. 1) Do you have a different interpretation of the context of that meeting? 2) If you accept that as the context for why the meeting was arranged, do you have an issue with them accepting the meeting with the expectation that a foreign government would help in their campaign? I have not asked if it was legal, I have asked do you have an issue with it I refer specifically to the Trump Tower meeting ..and as mentioned above I am not asking about the legality of attending the meeting with the express expectation of getting dirt on an opponent from a foreign government, but rather if you think it okay. Rudy has said he thought it fine, I am asking if YOU think it is fine

Thanks for the welcome back!!!! I do not think that is what it says in the report...and lets say it is even correct.I .thought Trump was yapping yesterday about people negotiating with foreign entities that did have authority too..so I guess there is that as well Just a simple yes or no would suffice ..is it okay to accept help from a foreign government in your mind

This dude is pretty tied into the Chiefs..but might be on the move elsewhere?

Pot..meet kettle!!!

hey @Deranged Rhino and the tweet ^^^^^^^ isn't the point that the Trump campaign was promised dirt from a foreign government, never reported it, and only did not move forward because they received no useable material. Is that okay in all your books as Rudy said? Please don't answer everyone does it, Clinton did some nefarious thing..is it okay for a campaign to take help from a foreign government? Just a simple yes or no.

Per year..still small to be running a school system i think..and more importantly...oh hell ya!

Just as in football..once the Sabres out of it not really cheering a team to win, more just cheering for who I want to lose more. I am sure as Sabres fans we want both the Sharks and Blues to lose as early as possible..but there were some funky conditions on the Montour trade so i may be wrong on that. Having said that, I liked Kane as a player, and though I wanted him traded earlier than most due strictly to roster makeup and contract status. I am pretty sure every team left now has an ex-Sabre player that makes me cringe every time i hear his name and cringe. McNabb and 2 2nds for Deslauriers and Fashing...yikes!!!!

just saying when you are looking for a group of 15 and group tickets cannot be bought, ticketmaster ( ticketexchane) is a much better resource as you can say..okay 4 in this row, 4 in the row in front just off by a seat, and 7 in the next row two off..pretty close to all being together. And two of those may come from the Bills directly Stub hub gives you rows, but not seat numbers, and usually not seats directly available from the club.

The group route is best if you dont care where you sit..group tickets will be in upper corners of the upper deck for the most part. Minimum 15 tickets. Outside of that I highly recommend ticket exchange over StubHub can you see the exact seats that are open...some may be from the Bills directly and some may re resale, but you can see that all on one screen

I dont know!!!! Keep reminding myself to find it..ty!

especially when he tells them to not tell the truth..ole Ms. Sanders follows that order to a T!!!

which would be?? And lets not mention it covers events from 2010..at a loss here

has to be only a matter of time that the NHL will institute some form of replay on penalties

OT here, but that rule now where PI can be reviewed is a slippery slippery slope. I am so done with replay..kill it in all sports and just live with the refs call...damn i hate it!!!

just cannot decide who I hate more for tonight..insufferable Leafs fans or arsehole Bruins fans..whoever wins , if the Caps lose tomorrow, has to be the favorite right? dont know if i can take another Boston championship

when it happened, he was barely moving on the ice...and initially, i thought it one of those hits where his head bounced of the ice. BTW, my most hated penalty in all of sports is slashing on a stick..WTF, if you can't hold onto your stick or your stick breaks..that's on you! Stupid stupid penalty

I am used to you and your big swings..and love em!!!

That whole sequence starting in the other end was truly great, great, playoff hockey. But what hit me watching this play was just how different hockey is than the other sports when a big, massive hit that looks like a head injury could have occurred. Football the play is over, basketball obviously would be a stoppage in play..hockey they just kept playing. I mean if this dude was knocked out they would just keep playing till the puck got out of the zone right??? Essentially a power play with a dude prone on the ice?

okay..but on the one hand you say Mueller was not in for a hit job on Trump, but on the other say it was a one-sided political document.

? uhhh???? Now I am really confused. The same dude who answered 37 times he could not remember in writing because he refused to sit down for an interview was somehow denied the ability to challenge assertions?

Now I am befuddled..Trump and his supporters say it totally exonerates him ..no collusion, no obstruction. Are you saying Mueller and DOJ teamed up in favor of Trump?

well, that all depends on the numbers...less than $1M guarantee dude could still be cut in camp. Hmm..anyone else think Shadys days are numbered?