Bob in Mich

And, a smarter poster would recall that you have been a confrontational jerk with me several times. Given that, as you well know, I will no longer engage with you. Please quit trying. Your thoughts aren't all that important to me.

Holy *****, Az! Let me try once more just because I need a distraction at the moment. Otherwise I would be done with this brick wall 'discussion'. Is it possible that there are similarities and yet still some differences? Wait, don't type yet. Is that possible? Wait So, could someone point out the similarities in two situations without them being identical? Is that possible ? If yes, then you are seeing how the comparison might be made. If your answer is no, then surely you are being dishonest.

From Merriam- Webster Definition of hypocrite 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings I contend there is hypocrisy on display here by the Trump defenders. (see definition 2 above) These same people that claim to be concerned about Hillary's emails exposing classified information, dismiss as harmless Trump's actions to grant clearances to individuals that were denied clearances by the security professionals. To say that exposes nothing by itself is technically accurate but a bit short sighted especially if any of those folks are indeed compromised.

Dude, loosen the MAGA hat. You''re hurting your brain....again. Oh hell, probably no longer matters.

Thanks for the advice. If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you. Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways. It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all. I have overestimated people before. Sorry. ‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy

Can’t be compared! Seriously? Why have clearances at all if it doesn’t matter who has access to what? The whole point is determining who will keep our secrets and who may not. These rejects were determined to be untrustworthy by our country’s security experts. The administration overruled the experts based on what? For about the 5th time, the point isn’t legality. The point is the hypocrisy of complaining to high heaven about Hillary exposing classified information while being just fine with the Trump administration exposing our classified information to these Unqualified individuals

I don't need to wait. I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken. It is a valid comparison, however. Both actions possibly exposed top secret material to our adversaries. Again, the point of my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Hillary's actions while being just fine with Trump possibly exposing us. In fact it reminds me too of the Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Oh the howls of tampering we heard about the Clinton-Lynch meeting even though we don't actually know what was said and Lynch recused. Then when Trump publicly and blatantly attempts to influence the FBI and the Attorney General, those same folks are just fine with it.

Len, Lenny, Skinny Lenster.... lol. I made an attempt at humor with the lock em up line. It appears to have missed. Try not to fixate on the strict legality for a moment. I am aware that the President can technically clear anyone he wants. The outrage was really about the exposure of national secrets to individuals that the professionals decided against clearing. That seems to me to have possibly exposed us significantly. The question was, why do so many seem to have no issue with this exposure when the Hillary misdeed was made out to be so monumental?

No, I don't recall being involved in that discussion either. But, if you want to know, after hearing the entire story at the time I never felt she should be locked up. So, weren't you calling for Hillary to be locked up for that issue? It is tough to keep y'all straight. You ridiculous partisans here all blur together to me. So, if you were calling to lock her up, how do you feel about the whistle blower and the 25 or so overridden recommendations?

Hey, Wetside, what's going on? Please tell me what I said that was hypocritical?

So, we should ignore the whistle blower and overall you are okay with this clearance process or is it an issue to you? You can defend the practice of ignoring the advice of the security professionals I suppose. I didn't really think it violated the law, in spite of my smart remark about locking someone up. The point is if you were yelling to lock up Hillary for what she possibly exposed, this should bother you. I think objectivity may have escaped some here.

But didn't Hillary's email server exposure already give away all of the nation's secrets anyway? I mean, after that happened do we really even need security clearances for anyone? Seriously, if Hillary possibly exposing her emails to prying eyes upset you, shouldn't this issue too? In fact it seems much more has possibly been jeopardized. Who y'all think we ought to lock up for this?

For many years cannabis users have been prohibited from donating or receiving a transplanted organ. The assumption in the medical community being that 'drug users' are a bad risk. This attitude is beginning to turn as more physicians are becoming aware of cannabis as medicine and are actually looking at available data. It seems to show little difference in outcomes between cannabis users and non-users. Of course as with most things cannabis, much more research is needed. Sadly one of my favorite cousins passed recently due to liver problems. He was on the transplant list for many years, getting booted only recently when liver cancer was found. I found it very frustrating to watch him suffer because I was confident cannabis medicines could have provided some relief to him on a few different fronts. With the restrictions on cannabis use for transplant patients however, he was unwilling to risk trying cannabis medicines until after he had gotten kicked off the transplant list. By then his body was pretty well shot and he passed a few months later. https://www.leafly.com/news/health/cannabis-and-organ-transplants

Rarely if ever in person but quite frequently on this board. Why do you ask, are you often accused of this by any chance? I assume so. Boy assuming sure makes discussions easier, eh? I do find ignorance is quite often at the root of board attacks. Look at Comrade 33 for example. He is an ignorant Russian troll. He attacks me every time I post. Case closed

Well, your assumptions are as moronic as your postings. You have no idea how many threads or postings I view, do you? I may read every one of your idiotic utterances but refrain from replying to ensure you are not encouraged to post even more drivel. You may want to review the thread to see where the turn to cannabis began. It wasn't with me but naturally I will defend myself from ignorant attackers.

I hijack threads? Please point to those threads. Challenge....aside from totally unnecessary spelling and grammar policing and some of the dumbest jokes on the board, what have you ever contributed - anywhere ever ? Why don't Trump supporters want to address my question? Before hijacking the thread by posting the Colbert 'source' I asked, in this thread about sources, if Glenn Greenwald was a good source. I posted a link where he lambasts both sides. It seems he is only reliable though when his attacks align with your own. Otherwise, what, he is unreliable?

I spend weeks every year in Canada. It is a wonderful place and I have always spent my vacations there. How bout you, comrade? Ever actually been to Canada? Also, let me throw out the same challenge to Comrade 33 as I offered to GG. Can you point me to any postings of yours that had any benefit? I am not referring to your lame jokes or insults as those are less than worthless. I am asking you to point me to anything useful you have posted here. Finally, you love to proclaim who you have on ignore, including me. Most users don't read or respond to folks they are ignoring. Why not consider following that norm?

You are a goof. So, now you have developed a sense of humor and I am supposed to know that too. Ah, okay pal. Boy, no one wants to talk about Greenwald's tirade. How strange!

Paranoia? I don't think that word means what you think it means. If so, point out the evidence in my post please. Also, I was hoping you would peruse the 'Know Anyone with a Disease' thread and point out all my supposedly foolish, stoner postings that allow you to feel that 'stoner' insult is appropriate. Then, when you have time, compare and contrast those foolish postings with your insightful postings from that thread.

So, the implication is that because you mentioned Greenwald in another thread, I should know that and not ask your opinion in this thread?? Have you read all of the other postings on the board? No, no one has. Thanks for that brief peek into the workings of your pea brain. No more are necessary. To address the stoner aspect ......The reason many people ridicule me with stoner comments is largely because of the 'Know Anyone with a Disease' thread that I started in 2014. I encountered insults after nearly every post in that thread. Care to show any one post in that cannabis thread where it turns out I was wrong? I don't care to search for your contributions in that thread but have little doubt as to their relative value. That thread was an attempt to shed some light and to perhaps help someone that was out of other medical options. What a silly idea!

Humor is a taste. What appeals to some may disgust others. I find him funny personally but understand not everyone will. In fact I mentioned that in my original post. You If you want a more serious discussion, great! Let's talk about the Glenn Greenwald take on things. What did you think about his tirade? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdYw6jk3TTA

Comedians, such as Colbert, often use humor to make their point. You quoted my post with the link to the Colbert video. If that doesn't penetrate, perhaps someone else can guide you.

So, in addition to all your other shortcomings, you have no sense of humor either? Look into some self help programs....soon.

Stephen Colbert ? Is he a good source? lol If you aren't a big Trump fan, you will like Colbert's take. If you are short on time, like him or not, skip to the 14 minute mark. (16 minutes overall) https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/colbert-presents-evidence-trump-still-124222356.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_04

Glenn Greenwald?? Is he a reliable source or not? I saw this tirade recently (under 4 minutes in length) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdYw6jk3TTA