Bob in Mich

Actually, jokes aside, I did reply to his question the same day as he asked. I have always tried to reply and to provide whatever information I could to sincere questions.

I am a little behind on replying to questions I guess. Sorry. I hope she is still with us. For a long time there have been (former) addict testimonials on the ability of cannabis to help a person quit opiates. Since cannabis can help to treat the withdrawal symptoms of anxiety, pain, and nausea most (including me) have assumed that these were the primary reasons that cannabis seemed to help. According to this study, we see the reduction of cravings with CBD use may be the biggest factor of all. https://www.leafly.com/news/health/cbd-can-help-with-heroin-addiction-study-finds From the article The study team found that CBD, in contrast to placebo, significantly reduced both the craving and anxiety induced by drug cues compared with neutral cues in the acute term. CBD also showed significant protracted effects on these measures seven days after the final short-term exposure. In addition, CBD reduced the drug cue-induced physiological measures of heart rate and salivary cortisol levels. There were no significant effects on cognition, and there were no serious adverse events. The capacity of CBD to reduce craving and anxiety one week after the final administration mirrors the results of the original preclinical animal study, suggesting that the effects of CBD are long-lasting, even when the cannabinoid would not be expected to be present in the body.

Again, congratulations on your new found typing ability. In the context of 'us or them' I don't care about who or how. In other words, investigate wrongdoing whenever it is discovered, regardless of party affiliation.

If we have a hole in our system that is allowing recurring interference, we need to close it. I don't care when it was discovered or who took past advantage, nor should any American, imo. Why, are you only in favor of looking for wrongdoing in your opponents? So, you are OK then if your side commits crimes in order to succeed? Wow!

Boy, thanks to all of the earlier discussion, we can save a lot of money on this possible investigation. As has been stated here by several posters, collusion is not a crime. No need investigating anything there. And, as Rudy explains, taking information from Russians is no problem either. So, summarizing, nothing to see here. We shouldn't have investigated the last Russian collusion issue, we certainly shouldn't undertake another identical investigation. Move along, right?

Any time Bill Glad to help you out

Every time I see this topic come back up in PPP I am just stunned that there is anyone with a brain still arguing to do nothing about global warming. Is there some doubt in the models and forecasts? Sure there is some doubt, but imo certainly not nearly enough to sit still. Ever been at a baseball game when a foul ball is hit hard and sent spinning into the crowd? About 500 people put their hands up to their face and they start to lean. Do you really think 499 of those people are stupid because it won't end up hitting them? Those 500 react like that for two reasons. First, a baseball could smash your face or even end your life. The consequences of misjudging it are very great. The second reason is that casually waiting until you are certain that it is going to hit you, may mean you waited too long and cannot now react in time to avert the tragedy.

Oh my gosh. I am so sorry guys. I accidentally posted that question on this board. I meant to post it on another board - one with grown ups. So sorry. So, how is school? Exams coming up soon, eh? Are you guys ready?

Assuming the Russians will attempt to interfere in the 2020 election, who do you think they will favor? At this point, I am unsure. It seems on the one hand, having Trump at the helm has divided this country better than I have ever seen it. But, on the other if they could pull it off, having Trump ahead in the polls only to somehow lose could send some in his camp to load up their guns. What do you think?

I have DR on ignore so I can't answer your question Sorry. I did want to say however that is one of DR's best posts. If you figure out how to make all of his posts do that, please share.

I've got an eagle story too. Dan and I both lost last season's partners in our office league. Dan wanted to pair up for the new season but when I took him aside and explained that I sneak a few tokes when I play, he cooled on the idea stating he feared potential sighting by some of our bosses that played in our league. He didn't use that stuff, didn't really like it, and certainly wouldn't want to get caught by association. Wasn't really a problem. We remained work buddies and we both found other league partners. One late afternoon he asks if I want to go play after work (non league). Sure, why not, I could always use the practice. After several holes of cannabis restraint I am lining up my putt. The putt is downhill about 35 feet and bending pretty hard left. Dan is holding the pin for me when I decide, what the hell, he knows about the pot. So, I pull the loaded bowl out of my pocket and take 2 or 3 quick hits. Dan laughs and shakes his head, "Ya really think that's gonna help your game?" As you probably have figured out, I sunk the putt. We laughed about it riding to the next hole, 125 yard par 3. With sinking that putt, I had honors. My 9 iron shot bounced once on the green, rolled about 6 feet, and dropped in. Dan looks at me very seriously and says, "Bob, you know I don't like that stuff but right now, I have never been more sorely tempted in my whole life." I am sure cannabis would not help new users but always helped my game. I wonder how long before the senior circuit allows it

I have some things to get to and so I am out for a while I hope everything is not over before I get back. I just had to reply to B-Man's post though. I don't think I ever saw any of your actual words. Was always only cut and paste. Oh, certainly I completely disagree with the post but am happy for you. Congrats!! Baby steps man, baby steps.

The post I replied to was yours in which you said that the released version of the report proved No collusion and no obstruction. That was not true. Oh, I understand that Mueller does not exonerate him, as do you. Didn't Mueller say something though about exonerating if he could? Seem to remember something about that. Similarly the President's narrative on the Mueller report after Barr's receipt but prior to it's redacted release was 'Complete exoneration, No Collusion, No Obstruction It is over. I won'. That was very obviously untrue too. Most Americans are tired of the whole investigation issue though so that false narrative has stuck with most. Congrats, your boy has fooled a good bit of the population with this lie. Barr has aided in that misdirection, if you want to talk about shameful actions. Seriously? The proposed solution is that you can view the documents but can never speak of them to anyone afterwards? Give that five seconds of thought. If you don't realize what a ridiculous option that is in five seconds, you may have larger problems. Hint: It has nothing to do with leaks. Good luck.

Thought I would re-post this here. If we do actually get into impeachment it might be interesting to see how the backpedaling from today's Repubs follows the Dems actions from the Clinton impeachment in the 90's. Obviously the details are different but if we go down the path there will be similarities I would guess too. The other day I found a 1999 email I wrote to a friend expressing frustration with the Dems and their constant backpedaling with respect to Bill Clinton's impeachment. I recall too at that time my golf partner calling me the Raging Republican. You may think I am now a Raging Democrat but I view myself as Independent and have voted for plenty of Dems and Repubs and will likely continue that pattern. I wouldn't want anyone convicted of non-existent crimes but I also don't think we should ignore misdeeds just because of our party affiliation. I think we citizens should be more like jurors and less like the lawyers I see around here. Here is the 99 email: > I think I'm finally starting to put together some clues on this ... > > Many Clinton supporters view all of the Republicans as the Religious > Right Wing, therefor the enemy. They feel that for many years the > Religious Right has been trying to take away more and more personal > freedoms in the name of morality. They want the government to stay out of > their personal lives. That feeling is at the root of this Clinton > support. They see Ken Starr as one who has pried into the President's > personal life. They feel that the Republicans (aka Christian Coalition) > now are trying to throw him out of office because of 'immoral behavior in > his private life'. Many have decided that regardless of the facts, they > are not giving any more ground to this morality craze. > > Also, most people that liked Bill (before all of this) knew he had > told lies in the past and they accepted him anyway. Many of us that > didn't like him because of his lying felt that his backers just couldn't > see how dishonest the guy was. In reality the backers saw the dishonesty > and liked him for his other fine leadership qualities. When he is finally > caught red handed in these lies, his detractors say 'See, we told he was > dishonest. Look at the evidence we have on him.' While his supporters > say, 'What's the big deal? He told a lie about sex. The economy is > great. Get over it.' > > This is the backstepping I've seen in protecting our buddy Bill. It > seems so many points have been conceded, yet there's always another > position to fall back to ... > > 1. The story breaks... He did not have an affair with this > 'gold-digger'. She is just trying to smear the President or just out to > get a book deal for her self. The Whitehouse says that she was stalking > the President and that the FBI is investigating her. > 2. Talk of the stained dress surfaces. Now the stance is 'I > doubt he had any affair, but even if he did, so what if he committed > adultery, it's strictly a personal matter between himself, his family, and > his God. The damn Republicans probably planted this woman in there to try > to get Clinton'. > 3. He lied about sex, so what, everybody lies about sex. Who > hasn't lied about sex? Obstruction of Justice! Get real. > 4. He didn't have any obligation to do the job of the Jones' > attorneys. He wasn't forthcoming and he was evasive. He can be > misleading without committing perjury. There's nothing illegal just > because he didn't offer up answers to questions he wasn't asked. Besides > he had to protect Hillary. > 5. OK, maybe he lied, but it was a civil matter and the case > was eventually thrown out. Everybody lies in civil cases. It's not a > serious matter to commit perjury in a civil case. Besides, that Ken > Starr spent how many millions of dollars? He was appointed to investigate > Whitewater and then it became Travelgate and blah, blah, blah ... That > Betty Curry thing? He was just helping to refresh his memory, that's all. > 6. Well, he had to lie to the Grand Jury. What was he going to > do, admit to perjury in the Jones case - that would have been stupid. He > had to deny that he lied earlier or Ken Starr, that no good, rotten, > bastard .... would be able to indict him for perjury when he leaves > office. He has to maintain that he never lied now, or Starr will get him. > > 7. Look, perjury is just not that serious of a matter. It's > certainly not a 'high crime or misdemeanor like treason or bribery'. > There's no way they could make any case for Obstruction of Justice. The > obstruction case is purely speculation. He says- She says case - could > never be proven. Even if, for the purposes of argument, you suppose all > allegations are true, these are not 'high crimes or misdemeanors'. > 8. The House prosecutors show that a few Federal Judges have > been removed by the Senate for just such deeds (The Senate labeling the > perjury a 'high crime or misdemeanor'). Ok, in some cases perjury could > be grounds for removal, but not in this case. This case is only about sex > and lying about it and if that pervert Starr wasn't peeping into > everybody's bedroom... Would you want to be asked sexual questions under > oath? > 9. The Senators are not just jurors, you know. They are trying > the case. They need to consider more than just the facts, the rule of > law, and the Constitution. They also need to consider what's in the best > interests of this country. The House managers may have made a pretty good > case, but it is not in our best interests to remove the president even if > he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. > 10. And then the latest to my ears ... They had no business > asking him personal, private questions in a grand jury setting where he > couldn't plead the fifth (the protection from self incrimination). That > f***er Ken Starr. It was a witch hunt. Any evidence against Clinton has > to be discounted because of the 'illegitimate' means that were used in > acquiring it. It doesn't really matter what they found out because of the > way they went about it.

Why is the President trying to obscure in any way a document that so clearly exonerates him of any wrongdoing? If I had control over the release of an investigative document that stated that I had done nothing wrong, I know I would not try to block it. No one would, unless the release creates even more problems for them. I understand the offer to view the document but then not speak of it any more, and agree that it is rightfully unacceptable to the Dems. I also know about the grand jury testimony but we all also know that is not insurmountable if transparency was the DOJ's goal. The goal instead is to hold back as much as possible. That is not the action that would be taken if all the information was exonerating, is it now?

Truth? That is no longer important. What the king or his toadies tell you, is the new truth. Shut up and enjoy your tax cut you pedo ingrate!

Look, everyone knows that anyone critical of the president's behavior is in on the conspiracy and is on the Soros payroll. Full stop. They may have been an honest and decent public servant at one time but now they are clearly Dem pedophile sympathizers and butt hurt because Hillary lost. Impossible that there could be any other reason for speaking out against our leader. Sheeesh I think that we should burn all copies of that Mueller report. That will finish this witch hunt appropriately. Who's with me?

Sorry if this has already been posted. It is ReasonTv with Napolitano. Talks a lot about Trump/Mueller/Barr He also talks about Flynn lying because the President asked him to talk to the Russians about sanctions pre- inauguration and Flynn was covering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzyEi4TtIrA

Glad to hear we are both Americans first. There was plenty of smoke around Trump and his team. Failure to look into that smoke would have been malfeasance. My God, you don't think there should have even been an investigation into the myriad of Russian contacts and accompanying covering lies!? The Mueller report claims there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone. As long as that is his conclusion, fine. I accept that. As I have said repeatedly, if there was misuse of the FISA process, let's get to the bottom of it, correct it, and if appropriate, punish any wrong doers. So what did they do to prevent Trump from getting elected? You still did not answer my only question.

Well, I am not sure. I am having dinner tonight with Rachel, Wolf, Anderson, Ari, Mika, and Joy. I will memorize what they tell me and get back to you.

Comrade 33 is a Russian robot troll. That is why his posts are so strange. Most of the comments are computer responses. His posts are just meant to stir up people. Hey comrade, where do you post on Canadian politics ? With your continuum of thoughts on American politics, you must be absolutely blowing up the Canadian political board. What board is that?

Hey Lenny, I have asked this but have not really gotten a decent answer. You seem sincere. I would like to ask you, what did the Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Page, Strzok, coup core actually do to stop Trump from getting elected? I know about texts and suspicious connections, but what actions were undertaken to prevent Trump's election?

Did we forget about the timeline regarding Barr and his testimonies? It was weeks ago when he wanted to maintain the Trump narrative of No Collusion, No Obstruction. That is when Trump was trying to convince the casual observers that the Mueller report totally exonerated him. Remember when he was praising Mueller there for a time? That is when Barr mislead and that was well before the report itself was out.

I would recommend getting disability insurance too. My recollection was that it was a pretty tiny cost and one just never knows when an accident or debilitating health problem could strike. We all take on debt - college, cars, homes, etc - with the idea that we have the earning power to easily repay but one day, that earning power could unexpectedly disappear. Regarding Social Security, the often forgotten point is that SS is essentially a safety net program. I understand the fairness argument regarding the income cap but that sort of ignores the safety net aspect of SS. The very wealthy really don't need the SS net. I think the cap should be lifted. Is that fair? No. To keep SS afloat, I always thought that payouts of SS monies could be withheld from the very wealthy. I think these dollars should be tracked and held but only available to the individual if their 'net worth' falls below some level. Say, pulling this number out of the air, that if you are worth over $20million, your SS monies are held for you in some SS account. If your net worth falls below that amount, you start receiving monthly SS payments. Perhaps a catastrophic loss entitles you to all of your prior SS 'earnings'. When you die in this scenario, any unused SS money goes back into the system and not to heirs. Lots of details there to be worked out for sure but could save some money. Is that fair? No but the idea is maintaining the net for those that really need the net.

What is abundantly clear is that Barr is a political ally of the president. The best that can be said about Barr's testimony is, if he didn't lie, he was certainly intentionally misleading. He could have been much more forthcoming regarding his interactions with Mueller if his goal was to be totally transparent. It appears to me that Barr wanted to maintain Trump's narrative of 'No Collusion, No Obstruction' for as long as possible for Trump's political benefit. It was also very telling when he said 'WE did not waive executive privilege'. He sees himself as the the President's lawyer and protector. Trump finally has his Roy Cohn.