Bob in Mich

The thing I have been lobbying for in these threads is to let Mueller finish his investigation. That is it, and I keep finding myself in arguments. We all can then see what he comes up with. If nothing implicates Trump, then we can all try to move on. Aborting his investigation will leave too many Americans with unanswered questions. It is abundantly clear that the Trump disciples have no further questions, but perhaps half the country still wants to see Mueller's completed report . Lobbying to 'wrap it up' just seems to be lawyer like and an attempt to exclude possible evidence of wrongdoing.

https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/russian-word-for-24b86618cfdf52dc0b2384627ec0e9eaf91d16b4.html Boy 33, you sure are far and away the most opinionated supposed Canadian I have ever met. And, equally telling, you don't apologize for your comments anywhere near a Canadian level. You seem to know a lot though. I have to say that. Do you by chance know which one of these Russian words for trolling describes what you do here?

Well, if she is going to be VP in 2020, she has to get more experience in international affairs. Well, to be fair, she has sold handbags worldwide but, well you know what I mean.

I too have been waiting to hear from all those same posters that were aghast that Hillary's email server was exposing possible classified information. Geez, it would seem the WH's carelessness with security clearances and classified information should raise similar howls but nothing so far. Curious, eh?

jmc, I wasn't the one talking conspiracy. I think SWAT is correct with respect to doctors, saying unwitting. Doctors bought into the 1990's pharma line that they could be less fearful of addiction and should prescribe more freely. In hindsight now and given our opiate addiction problems, that seems to have been at best bad advice. There may have been some conspiring with producers/distributors, imo, but outside of pill mills, I don't think doctors widely conspired. I think this mistake by our medical community points more to a flaw in the way doctors learn of the effectiveness of new drugs. I think pharma has too much control in doctor education, from my understanding given I am not in either profession. Without pharma reps pushing cannabis medicines, educating physicians has often fallen to patients. It seems that may change soon with respect to cannabis based medicines, so more doctors may get behind them after the cannabis medicine pharma rep visits.

Oh yeah, you were convinced of Deranged Rhino's, what is it now, 30 person intelligence community conspiracy theory. Oh wait, I forgot to count the press. So, let's say 2000 person conspiracy. Not necessarily something to brag on but, yes, you claimed to have changed your mind there. I was wrong.

Tasker debates. That's what he does. That is all that he does. Recall that debaters get an initial position and defend it to the death, like Tasker. Just an fyi in case you were waiting to convince him of anything other than his initial position.

Got a few bites trolling today, eh 33?

maybe he's only half witted, er witting

If you want to try thinking a bit.....look at the cardiac arrest data in places where use has become more prevalent with medical and adult-use. Wouldn't one expect to see corresponding spikes in those? California? Colorado? We are not seeing that. Surely you know by now that cannabis studies are difficult to get approved in the US if trying to prove anything other than drug abuse problems. If you are a doctor and are to serve your patients well, you need to dig deeper than to say 'I am waiting on the gold standard study'. Opiates are very valuable and are wonderful for short term pain. Long term is where the problems start to crop up. If you are prescribing, in the name of 'do no harm', you owe it your patients to look into cannabis medicines for pain before moving to the more harmful opiates. Of course, state laws have a huge say in a doctor's options too. Finally, the current opiate campaign is necessary because of the disinformation spread years earlier by the pharma industry that these were all safe. They surely have their place but they are not nearly as safe as we were told.

If you honestly think there is a safety equivalence between opiates and cannabis, you are either plain ignorant or willfully ignorant. Which would you say it is? By 'another doctor' you are implying that you are a doctor, then I would suspect the willfully ignorant.

Being a chronic pain patient in Michigan when medical cannabis became legal in 2009 I have vast experience with both forms of pain control. Cannabis does not control all types of pain equally but for me and many others I know, cannabis concentrates were a Godsend. Opiates may be better for acute pain but the long term use of opioids is very hard on a person, both physically and mentally. Over time opiates will damage liver and kidneys too. If you think there is an equivalence between long term cannabis use versus long term opiate use, even as directed, you may want to do some further research, or ask your doctor. To conclude, even as directed, long term opiate use is not safe.

Also, lots of new opioid addicts in our country. They got this way by following the directions on the bottle perfectly......and now they are addicted.

I know, right? You would think that now that his cover is blown, he would retire 33 and start another identity. I bet the Russian government withholds pay or bonus money if its trolls screw up. He is stubbornly refusing to admit that we are all on to him. Rubles matter.

Even though I still think you are a scummy half-robotic Russian troll, the Olympic spirit has gotten to me. Congrats on the Russian hockey victory.

Many countries allow their young to play violent video games and don't have anywhere near the gun deaths. Japan, for instance, allows equally violent video games as the US. I recall reading that in 2013 they had 13 gun deaths to our approximately 32,000. Adjusting for their smaller population, it becomes 32,000 vs 39. Sure, it may desensitize, but the difference is the ease of access to guns, imo.

I believe I read somewhere that one of the 4 FISA-Page judges was appointed by Reagan, one by Bush 1 and 2 by GW Bush. In a quick search the only link I saw pop up however seemed to be a WSJ subscription article, so perhaps it was on a tv/youtube news story. So, let me withdraw the 'republican appointed' modifier as it is unnecessary to ask the question. Isn't it a reasonable assumption that any judge at this level, knowing that this was politically motivated and intended to discredit the candidate, is wise enough to realize that he/she has to be suspect of the information in that dossier? Any of the other possibilities you mentioned aside from Hillary, don't seem to alter that point.

If this FISA application was submitted in September of 2016 and the application claimed that the dossier appeared politically motivated to discredit the Trump campaign, wouldn't a reasonable Republican appointed FISA court judge conclude that the Hillary Clinton campaign was the party being referenced? Certainly you Nanker would assume this was Hillary without any further explanation in the application. Why is it an 'aha moment' that Hillary is not named explicitly, or am I missing your emoji point? Schiff memo: "Contrary to the Majority's assertion that DOJ fails to mention that Steele's research was commissioned by 'political actors' to 'obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia,' DOJ in fact informed the Court accurately that Steele was hired by politically-motivated US persons and entities and that his research appeared intended for use 'to discredit' Trump's campaign."

Apparently Gillibrand claims she will stop accepting corporate sponsorships. Not sure if it will last but it would improve her ability to hear her constituents. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2018/02/23/senator-calls-out-big-pharma-for-opposing-legal-marijuana/#4792704a1bac Gillibrand, in an appearance on Good Day New York on Friday morning, was responding to a question about whether marijuana is a "gateway drug" that leads people to try more dangerous substances. "I don't see it as a gateway to opioids," she said. "What I see is the opioid industry and the drug companies that manufacture it, some of them in particular, are just trying to sell more drugs that addict patients and addict people across this country."

ok fukstik, you have proven no sense conversing with you either. I rest my case lol

That is funny because I thought he proved mine.

Yeah, ok. So the people you agree with are the smart ones. It's just those others that are idiots. Sure, that makes perfect sense here.

People get consistently mocked here whether they deserve it or not. See the 'Know Anyone With a Disease' thread. Pretty much everything I mentioned about the attacks on new posters is in there. In fact on page one I wrote a post pleading with Tom not to post his typical mst3k comments in the thread. I did not count, but I would say he posted another 75 times. Not to discuss anything though, just his typical crap. Also easy to see the group attack point that I made in many places within that thread.

Well, he did say 'Go Bills' OK, I get your point about his post being an abrasive discussion opening. As mentioned though, I wasn't defending Grant as much as making a general observation.

I didn't really defend Grant's position. He obviously got frustrated and sarcastic. He even took a swipe at a post of mine I guess because the post didn't specifically blame the guns. My post was a general observation/critique. Many posters depart here with some of the same observations. I have asked several friends if they ever post on PPP. The reply has always been pretty much the same. "Why bother getting into an insult battle with those guys? For what?" You may not see yourselves as a group versus the new poster, but it seems that a whole lot of posters see it that way. If you really want to have better conversations outside of your veteran circle here, you might consider that point.