MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,926
Word Wrestling Federation
In The News...
- Thread starter MasterBlaster
- Start date
- Replies 12K
- Views 641K
BlackSmith
Uncivil
Probably more credibility Boss...
L
Levi
Guest
Okay, so let's assume that they over shot their figure big time, 100%. Meaning that the real figure is half of their claim. That should still be alarming, or no?
BlackSmith
Uncivil
Yes, if it were true. I wish I had a dollar for every sky is falling story I've heard. No word on who these WWF peeps are?
L
Levi
Guest
Bob, you are saying that there is no need to change the way we live, in regards to our effect on wildlife?
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
What changes are proposed? Besides of course sending all your money to the WWF.
Worse than a damn televangelist.
Worse than a damn televangelist.
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
Seriously?
For who?
For who?
Limbrat
TreeHouser
Rednecks and deplorables
L
Levi
Guest
Exactly
PCTREE
Treehouser
Don't yaal worry, there's a war headed to you soon. Hugely effective method of population control.
Not going to be great for the critters though
Not going to be great for the critters though
Watched a spot on this on French news station.
The Macroeconomic Consequences
of Mr. Trump’s Economic Policies
The Macroeconomic Consequences
of Mr. Trump’s Economic Policies
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
I am always amazed at the level of guilt that humans have for merely existing.
BlackSmith
Uncivil
Don't spin what I said Levi, just answer my question.
August Hunicke
TreeHouser
Indeed
L
Levi
Guest
Why Bob? You never answer mine, and frankly I don't gaf about whether or not you think a source is credible or not. It may come as a surprise to learn that you are not the end all litmus test for the truth.
woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
Presumably congress and the courts can pretty much stop Trumps policies if they are bad for the country, I still believe that's better than rewarding a criminal with being the president, and the other and probably even worse criminal with the same last name gets an office in the east wing of the white house. Young interns beware, not only because Bill wants to have sex with you, but because he will want to smear you after, just like Monica as a predatory stalker, as labeled by Bill's aids after the situation surfaced.
Why don't they just throw open the doors to white collar criminals from everywhere within the country, and learn new tricks to much greater increase their wealth. The promise to stop dealing with unscrupulous characters feeding their foundation only applies to people outside the USA. Booze and cigar ash stains on the white house carpets, no biggie... Get that white house staff person that Hillary called a (I've ran out of vocabulary) to clean it up.
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
I am sure the Clinton Policy story will end with a full French orgasm.
The post wasn't about the hate Jay (I thought you were tired of this?)...well aware of your intense dislikes. It was only meant to be informative. It is about economics.
They were supposed to put out a paper on HRC economic policy also. Haven't looked it up yet...may not be much better, or it might be.
Crashing the economy is better? Please remember...not indicted, not charged, not convicted. We do have standards here supposedly of "innocent until proven guilty"
Hell the Bundy's even got off...don't ask me how...must've truly been a jury of their peers.
They were supposed to put out a paper on HRC economic policy also. Haven't looked it up yet...may not be much better, or it might be.
Crashing the economy is better? Please remember...not indicted, not charged, not convicted. We do have standards here supposedly of "innocent until proven guilty"
Hell the Bundy's even got off...don't ask me how...must've truly been a jury of their peers.
woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
Agreed Dave, my post is no doubt over the top in response to yours, my apology. I expect that Moodys will be saying better things about Clinton's plan, I've seen snippets of what they are coming out with, if what I read was authentic. I figured to aim my guns in advance. It's hard to trust policies, so often they get changed after someone gets into office. Character seems to be something a whole lot more tangible to look at and accept for fact. With former presidents we've learned some displeasing things during or after they left office, but with these two characters in the race today, we know a lot of perplexing stuff even before somebody wins.
I will say with regard to never having been found guilty, the evidence against the Clintons has hardly been tested for offering guilt or innocence by a non-biased third party with the power to move forward on indictment if they saw fit, or with the power to convince the American public that such activities are clearly without leaving blemish on personal integrity so they can best be forgotten. Not enough to convict, not too little or so clear that we can forget and no longer have questions, very much an unhelpful stalemate.
It's interesting to read about the subject of jurisprudence, the study and theory of law. Law is really a part of something much more encompassing than just itself, is only an aspect of the much larger subject of society, including the political situation. Within all that is where law stems from and survives, it seems to me to be only a kind of abbreviation for convenience in terms of how we consider and define each other. Judging the accountability that someone should be held to for their behavior just simply on whether they were found to have broken the law or not, seems a very perfunctory way to assess if they are of sufficient character to hold the immensely important and highly responsible job of being president. Perhaps it's a direct reflection on the country today that things like lying and cheating, favoring the rich over the poor, i.e. the moral laws, seem to be of very minor importance when choosing someone to govern our lives. Without that element in our scrutiny, it would seem that history has taught us very little. Lots of bad people that became leaders have driven their populace to the gates of hell.
I will say with regard to never having been found guilty, the evidence against the Clintons has hardly been tested for offering guilt or innocence by a non-biased third party with the power to move forward on indictment if they saw fit, or with the power to convince the American public that such activities are clearly without leaving blemish on personal integrity so they can best be forgotten. Not enough to convict, not too little or so clear that we can forget and no longer have questions, very much an unhelpful stalemate.
It's interesting to read about the subject of jurisprudence, the study and theory of law. Law is really a part of something much more encompassing than just itself, is only an aspect of the much larger subject of society, including the political situation. Within all that is where law stems from and survives, it seems to me to be only a kind of abbreviation for convenience in terms of how we consider and define each other. Judging the accountability that someone should be held to for their behavior just simply on whether they were found to have broken the law or not, seems a very perfunctory way to assess if they are of sufficient character to hold the immensely important and highly responsible job of being president. Perhaps it's a direct reflection on the country today that things like lying and cheating, favoring the rich over the poor, i.e. the moral laws, seem to be of very minor importance when choosing someone to govern our lives. Without that element in our scrutiny, it would seem that history has taught us very little. Lots of bad people that became leaders have driven their populace to the gates of hell.
BlackSmith
Uncivil
Great post Jay. Excellent description of law, as it should be.
Unfortunately, there can never be an unbiased third party sit in judgement. It's a great theory, but the system of law has been usurped by lawyers and used to their own benefit as a business for profit and power (at least here in the US). Besides, I think it is human nature to be biased whether one believes they are or not...we each have only what we believe we know for the facts, and what knowledge, morals, personal experience, etc. we've accumulated in our journey, to come to a conclusion in any circumstance.
Myself I am amazed and disappointed that so many of the characters who are in, or running for, office are so suspect. I tend to think it comes from people having a severely myopic view of the world and what they consider important.
Unfortunately, there can never be an unbiased third party sit in judgement. It's a great theory, but the system of law has been usurped by lawyers and used to their own benefit as a business for profit and power (at least here in the US). Besides, I think it is human nature to be biased whether one believes they are or not...we each have only what we believe we know for the facts, and what knowledge, morals, personal experience, etc. we've accumulated in our journey, to come to a conclusion in any circumstance.
Myself I am amazed and disappointed that so many of the characters who are in, or running for, office are so suspect. I tend to think it comes from people having a severely myopic view of the world and what they consider important.
