waitforufo

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-campaign-aides-had-repeated-contacts-with-russian-intelligence/ar-AAmWODE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp In other words, they have nothing. So now you are counting on Comey? You folks crack me up.

I have known a few people who became addicted to oxycodone / oxycontin. All of them started taking these drugs on a prescribed basis, generally after a significant surgery. All of these people told me that there doctors told them that they couldn't become addicted if they were truly in pain. What nonsense. Once adequately healed, and they attempt to go off the oxy, they have normal withdrawal, which they associate with their recent surgery pain, so they stayed on the oxy addicted. Then slowly there lives fall apart, particularly after their doctors pull the meds and they sought illegal sources. The only other issue I can think of is the volume of pills prescribed to one individual. When my mother was dying from cancer, I would pick up her meds from the pharmacy. One of the pill bottles contained a huge volume of oxy meds. I would guess greater than 100 pills, maybe 200. So many I was worried that someone would break into her home to steal them. When my mother was connected to a morphine pump, they did not take these pills back. After my mother passed, hospice gathered up my mother's meds and destroyed them in my presence. The hospice nurse mentioned during this destruction process that I could have made a tidy sum on the street selling those meds. I bet.

Well, maybe you want the government tucking you in at night, placing a kiss on your forehead, and telling you everything will be just fine, but I'll keep my liberty thank you. By the way the banking problems we had were caused by government lowering lending standards and then driving those standards through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Ask Maxine Waters. By the way, let's talk again about how you feel about government after eight years of Trump.

No, I don't want the government controlling what my money is invested in via regulation of investment firms. What gives the government the right to tell me how much risk I take with my retirement accounts? Isn't the money I invest mine, and can't I choose to invest it however and with whomever I choose? So if my options are limited by government regulation based on a government imposed fiduciary rule, can I sue my investment managers for not taking enough risk and thereby not making me enough money?

Let's go back to your post that started this little conversation shall we. Your compliant above is focused on Obama's Fiduciary Rule which "requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients." This rule was issued on April 6, 2016. This was less than year ago. I was doing just fine less than a year ago. This rule has had no impact on my or anyone else's savings or investment performance. Somehow, without this rule and by simply following age old investment advice I and many like me have done just fine financially. Sure, over the 35 years I have been saving and investing both the stock and bond markets have had their ups and downs, but remember I invest with that sage advice about having a long term strategy. Sure, the downs were nerve wracking but I simply rode them out. I invested in mutual funds with diversified portfolios so the downs weren't too bad. In fact I put little thought into investing because investing is colossally boring. I just looked at Morningstar and picked funds with a 7 out of 10 risk assessment, paid myself first by setting up automatic monthly checking withdrawals, and forgot about it. You know, like my local news paper business section advisor's recommended that I do. When I started doing this, I was putting in as little as $100 a month. I laugh when people tell me investing is difficult. All Dodd-Frank did was reduce the availability of credit thereby reducing economic growth. That is why our recovery from the last recession was the slowest since the great depression. I'm sure I and everyone else would have more today without Dodd-Frank.

Yep, I have all those things and more. How did I do it? Well I just took all that cliched good old investment advice you always hear and read about. You know like in the business page of your local news paper. Things like always pay yourself first, invest with a long term strategy, diversify to avoid risk and stuff like that. Well guess what? It works like a charm. Yeah, your friends might drive nicer cars, live in bigger houses, and go on really nice annual vacations, but you got money. When you have money the store is just a place that keeps your stuff until you need it. Who knows, maybe their way is better, they sure do seem like they are having fun. It is hard to feel sorry for them when they go broke and can't retire. On the other hand, they had their fun, and I'm just having mine now. Things always seem to work out in the end don't they?

Removing protection from the ninety-nine percenters? 63% of Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#ad25afa6dde1 70% of Americans don't have $1000 in savings. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/09/savings-study/91083712/ So you are not talking about 99% are you? You one percenters with your fancy STEM jobs ain't fooling anyone.

Is money all you one percenters care about?

Who cares? Only rich people have money and if they lose it, that only serves them right.

It wouldn't matter if 100% of the Senate and 100% of the House were Democrats if President Donald Trump has not committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. He cannot be impeached unless he has committed one of these offences. Come on, let them talk about it, the meltdown is so much fun to watch. Perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes. If you recall, Mr. Clinton was also disbarred, both before Arkansas courts and before the Supreme Court, and was also fined $25,000.00. By the way, to date, only Democratic presidents have been impeached. That makes me even more confident that Trump will not be impeached.

Your opinion and you are welcome to it. He also warned about the scientific technological elite dominating public policy. Why do liberals always forget that warning?

I'd call them Republicans.

I think it will take Trump committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Popularity has nothing to do with impeachment. Let me stick my neck out and predict that Trump will never be impeached. Not in his first term or his second.

There are a lot of used to be Democrats.

The religious left also has quite a lot of power in US politics.

This is the lament always given when one wants to ignore the obvious answer. The Democrats screwed up by picking Hillary for their candidate. Case closed.

Much of the above was simply campaign strategy on the part of both Trump and Clinton. Trump aggressively worked at getting headlines and succeeded. Clinton sat back and watched believing that Trump was making a fool of himself and that his own actions would lead to his defeat. Trump simply had the winning strategy. The above link opens with the following. My vote is for "Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate." Read that link.

Proving once again that alcoholism and domestic violence go hand in hand.

If you were a victim of a random assault and as a result you lost an eye, did you have a choice in the matter? Can the state return to you a functioning eye? In the rape case in question, the victim was assaulted and received a financial burden. What's the difference? Again, it sucks to be a victim of crime.

This is possible but difficult. Even if the mother was required to involuntarily terminate there parental rights, I'm not sure that necessarily releases the father. My guess is the father would have to do that voluntarily. In your rape example where the father is known, I don't see that as a problem if that is his desire. The father could also choose to keep the child. http://family.findlaw.com/adoption/birth-parent-rights.html 1. Yeah, it sucks to be a victim of crime. Why would the state be responsible? Why should others, tax payers, be forced to take on your parental responsibility? Even if you have current financial difficulties, is their not public assistance that you can access during your financial difficulties? After your difficulties are over however, you may still be held responsible. 2. In the case of adoption, the adoptive parents are both responsible for there adopted children after divorce. I'm not sure, but sperm donation may be different. Perhaps the non birth giving parent would have to adopt your child to insure full release a financial responsibility and you would have to voluntarily give up your parental rights. I have never donated sperm, but my guess is voluntarily giving up your parental rights is part of the process.

Perhaps you should think of it more from the perspective of the child. Sure, I crime was committed against you, but was the child to blame? Why should the child be punished? Are you not be the child's parent? Would you let your child live in poverty because you were the victim of a crime committed by someone else? You would really feel no responsibility for your own progeny? With regard to being responsible for children produced through sperm donation, isn't donating sperm an intentional act of procreation? Are you not responsible for your intentional acts?

Because parents are expected to support their children. This by the way includes married men who's spouses were impregnated by other men either by consent or rape. The financial needs of the child out way that of adults involved.

Again, I never suggested that science budgets should be eliminated. With regard to government supported science being biased toward promoting more government, your provide an excellent example. Well, for what primary purpose does the government use atomic clocks? GPS. For what purpose does the government use GPS? Precision weapon targeting. Tracking individuals via their mobile phones. No bias? I think not. I'm surprised that my comments on bias have drawn such ire. Do corporations not fund science? Is their science funding not biased toward their corporate objectives? What makes the government different? I find this ire particularly interesting in the United States. A nation founded on the principal of distrust of government. Is it simply that many of your salaries are dependent on government sponsored research?

America first, the Netherlands second.

So you believe that on his inauguration day, "in the hours around Trump’s swearing-in as president", President Donald Trump had so much influence on the capitol police force as to orchestrate these arrests? Bit of a stretch don't you think?