Taro T

Unable to walk w/out assistance?

Interesting that you appear to be attempting to lump all of the right into "the far right." Nobody here, that isn't merely treating you like a cat toy, is going to play your game.

Had the quote w/in the post that was being responded to stated that the right had "never" resorted to the type of behavior we are seeing nearly daily from the far left & now being encouraged by politicians on the left, perhaps your comment would have merit. That quote didn't. It simply claimed that was "never done by the left" here during the author's lifetime. Was merely calling out that the author was either very young or was lying. Please show me any posts of mine that claim the right doesn't have a lunatic fringe. You can't because that has never been a claim of mine. Not sure why you're laughing about abortion clinic bombings, but that's your choice.

But, but, ... he walked that statement back. He didn't really mean it; really he didn't. /the usual suspects

Thus the comment placed within parentheses pointing out the Q was directed at the original author of the quote.

Another consequence of Global Warming? Is that why the media would report on it?

It was "never done by the left during your lifetime?" Are you young enough that the anti fur protesters weren't throwing paint at women wearing fur coats during your lifetime? (The Q is directed at original author of the quote.) Granted that was lunatic fringe left, but it still was the left. Apparently the caveats about scale & support were there to mitigate the term "never" but that seems kind of intellectually dishonest. At least to this observer, it does.

As long as there is a Sotomayer, a Ginsburg is basically redundant. (Though Ginsburg defends & provides support for her views much more convincingly than Sotomayer does.)

That would be huge. If Trump were to continue to nominate conservative justices, that would make Roberts the swing vote should the thusfar unnamed conservative be approved.

Wow. The Liberals & Roberts were right on this one. Cool.

Not sure if there is an ongoing investigation into the e-mail & private server or not at this time. Would expect that one thing to fall out of the bias found in the initial investigation/investigators would be a reopening of that investigation by the FBI but this time with investigators that at least claim to be impartial heading into the investigation. As to your statement prior to th 2nd Q. From what has come out so far, really think that Comey was at least partially, if not fully, in the dark as to what McCabe, Strzok, Page and others were doing. Which should, in itself, be grounds for firing him for incompetence. Also, pretty sure that he thought that by "exonerating" Clinton in late October that he was actually doing her a favor by tamping down a potential post-election scandal before it started. Namely, had he waited until after the election to bring up the Weiner e-mails, people would have accused him of having covered up for her. This way, the coronation could proceed as planned and nobody would have been able to complain about the investigation having been hidden as he divulged it pre-election. Your 2nd Q is the $64k one.

This portion of the report covers (in part) the FBI's and the DOJ's handling of the Clinton e-mails. Horowitz is the IG for the DOJ and is only reviewing the activities of those civil servants that work in that department. Secretary of State Clinton headed the State Department. There is a separate IG that reviews policies and employee adherence to those policies in the State Department. The next DOJ IG report to come out will cover the FISA applications and (potential) abuses thereof by the DOJ & FBI.

Interesting thought. Expect that it is only solving a portion of the problem, as it seems that only a portion (less than 50% - based on piecing together info from various articles) of the children in the detention centers that have been apprehended were brought into the system along with an adult/adults. And as, again piecing together from various articles, it appears that asking for asylum at a border check point rather doesn't result in the adults & children getting separated, it would seem that the most efficient route to allow the families to stay together would be to have them come into the system there. Could probably increase the resources available at the check points more efficiently than adding the DNA collection. (The DNA collection itself rendering issues as 1st time illegal immigration violations are only misdemeanor offenses, but my understanding is that typically only those charged with felonies are required to provide samples in most states. I'd expect the ACLU would take significant issue with it.) Would require a change to the law to happen, so it won't happen. Cool that you are trying to "think outside the box" and find a reasonable solution. Expect that the true solution will necessarily include GG's point that we'd be better served by helping Central & Southern American countries improve their own domestic conditions and that when they improve, so will our illegal immigration problem. And the final thought on this, for this post anyway, is that we don't know what percentage of the asylum seekers (that are actually families looking for a better life) are truly displaced due to persecution / fear of death staying in their native lands and what percentage are merely seeking a better life. If we default to letting people claiming without proof that they are asylum seekers jump the line, so to speak, we will greatly increase the number of asylum seekers at our southern border. We REALLY need to fix the entire system and have needed to do so since at minimum the early '00's. Sorry for this rambling a bit.

We are allowed to want & should want both. But given only 1 or the other, results please.

The incentive moving forward would likely be in large part whatever it was that had China, Russia, & Japan all very much publicly off on the sidelines letting this baby step move forward. Whatever drove China especially and Russia to have this move forward likely hasn't changed in the last 48 hours. The removal of sanctions is another huge incentive (maybe even bigger than the other, though I'd doubt that) and I'd expect that the US negotiating team realizes this and that it is the prize for NK. I doubt that they'd give it up before they've gotten our prize (non-nuke NK). The other potential big prize would be eventual reunification of the peninsula. Maybe that's been taken off the table behind closed doors for China's benefit and why their request for lifting sanctions now is merely posturing. (Absolute conjecture here and VERY likely wrong.) But at any rate, it SEEMS both different and positive.

Why would 45 seemingly contradict himself only a day after saying something else? Could it be because it is another day ending in "day?" That is what he does. He bloviates, contradicts himself, and enjoys rolling in the mud with his detractors. And there is likely more to the statement (like has proven out many times in the past 18 months) that NK is no longer a nuclear threat than meets the eye. (Haven't seen the quote directly, so it is difficult to speculate specifically about it.) It probably means that unlike in the past when NK tacitly had the approval of China to carry out its exercises/failed launches that China behind the scenes has told Kim to reign it in. Yes, the hostages were home before the summit (and the silo &test site destroyed as well), but do you really believe that those weren't preconditions to get the summit to happen? The details of the meeting between Kim and Trump were the cherry on top of many months of earlier work. IMHO, this SEEMS to be happening far more like the Reagan/Gorbachev meetings than any other between the US & NK (or the US & Iran for that matter as well). Those meetings happened over several years with a lot of behind the scenes work leading up to what eventually (in meetings 3&4) became some serious arms limitations and led to even more talks and a treaty w/ 41. And the 2nd meeting even appeared to be a "failure" at the time as Gorbachev demanded essentially a halt to SDI and Reagan refused. The 2 are talking and progress (limited though it was) was made. Considering where we were 6 months ago, I'll take that. And, as far as we can tell, Kim didn't walk out of the meeting with a few $B in walking around money that he keeps whether he follows through or not. Unlike some other recent international negotiations.

As long as the US inspectors are leading the process, the UN can ride at the back of the bus.

Though the inspections were agreed to on paper, they weren't allowed almost immediately, but we kept sending them fuel & everything else we bribed them with. I really would like to see US inspectors involved along w/ the UN. But regardless of how that ends up getting handled, AFAICS, the US at this point has given up nothing to NK. We agree that a framework to lift the sanctions is in place. We disagree as to the trigger to release them. I believe they won't be lifted until the nukes are gone & WE have verified that. You believe they'll be lifted sooner. We shall see. Either way, we should have a good idea of how it'll play out by the '20 election. And regardless of how it does play out, this one is different in that the US has actually gotten stuff already. In the past it was always NK getting stuff up front for promises to do stuff later. What have they gotten to date except a photo op?

They will push for the sanctions to be lifted, but how much of that is real & how much of it will be for show is yet to be seen. They HAD to have already gotten something behind the scenes to allow the negotiations to get to this point. (Our western European allies probably got something as well.) Which likely means they knew sanctions wouldn't be lifted until the nukes were gone. And if that is the case, their call for the sanctions lifting will be more kabuki than real. What happens next will let us know if this was as useless as the past 3 negotiations or if this is the start of something different. IMHO it seems different this time. (The f-t-f meeting, hostages being released w/out a ransom being paid, the already destroyed test site & launch site (realizing there are more there), are things that haven't happened in the past.) We haven't bent over on this one (yet, at least). That in itself is different. I'll remain hopeful until that proves out to be misguided. That you remain skeptical is understandable, hopefully that proves out to be misguided in the end.

The GOP could have / could do better. But if 60% of the things that seem to have happened in '15-'16 actually happened & 60% of the things that seem to be happening in our courts, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, & North Korea are happening, not really sure that we the people could've done better. NEVER would've seen an upside (other than not having another Clinton in the WH & not sure that even that wouldn't have been viewed as a wash back then) back in '15 of having the Cheeto dusted golem in the WH.

And the bolded is why this APPEARS to be far more Reagan/ Gorbachev series of negotiations than any of the prior negotiations w/ NK of the past ~25 years. Other than optics, the US hasn't given up anything to Kim. And the US got them also as well as everything else you've mentioned. As several have stated, thisis only step 1 and there may be backtracking from here. But this is the biggest legitimate 1st step towards a resolution in my lifetime.

So THAT's where the idea for the infamous "pee tape" originated. Interesting.

Not to speak for him, but pretty sure the answer's: no^2, yes, hell yes.

Based on the title, shouldn't this thread be about boobies?

1st thread on page 2 of this subforum. (Tried to link it for you, but my tablet is acting screwy. Sorry.)