Search results

Not really. But you can pretend.

Like Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton. :rolleyes:

I object, to no avail of course, to those whom Chomsky has termed "anarcho-capitalists," calling themselves "libertarians". this misuse of the word. common in the U.S., speaks to the woeful lack of education -- antipathy toward it actually-- and lack of intellect found in many on the far right...

What exactly is this thread about, and why is it in the economics forum? Is there someone here claiming to be a brilliant trader because they made money in a bull market?

By the way, the reason I don't respond to many of your posts is I don't like to reward laziness. You have google available to you. Why not learn how to use it.

I am, perhaps unfortunately, a prisoner of both my education and my habit of reading widely and paying attention. My concern is truth. That concern applies equally to both Teddy Kennedy (deceased), President Trump (still alive) and their accusers. Apparently your particular concern is ill...

If you meant no new allegations since he's been in office, that would not be correct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/30/trump-dna-sought/ This new allegation of rape surfaced last summer. god only knows how many more potential allegations are out there that could be launched...

Indeed. I didn't mention corporate welfare, but that is significant!

There is "wealth redistribution" in the opposite direction as well. It is indirect, and most people don't consider it when they mention wealth redistribution. It's presence is easy to identify, but it's cause is not as obvious. You will see it when you look at wealth distribution in the U.S...

I love you too, jem. By the way my record so far: 100% wrong re Trump's chance of getting the nomination; 100% wrong on his chances of getting elected; 100% right about the kind of president he'd be. On hillary: 100% right about everything including the decision not to prosecute. On gun...

and, may I add, ill informed.

On what do you base this idiotic statement?* _________________ * I know this is a nasty question that you won't be able to answer in any way that will make sense. But I can't think of anyone more deserving than you, lest it is our resident, certified lunatic B1S2.

We are not so far apart as you may think. Your calling me a "propagandist", i.e., advertiser, is off base, and you erred in assuming I was "pretending" there is "only one possible solution". There are always, in every situation without fail, wrong decisions possible. But I admit you are not...

The justification may, in fact, according to the Court, disappear in specific circumstances. That is, so long as what is claimed as privileged by one Branch can be shown to be necessary to another Branch in the fulfilling of its Constitutional mandate, the privilege may disappear. At least that...

It is logical there can be no executive privilege in an impeachment trial, so long as communications alleged to be privileged can be shown to be relevant and necessary to Congress's carrying out its Constitutional role.

:rolleyes: I'm sure that even 100 Senators can figure it out if they try.

In the case being discussed no one has yet identified a valid assertion, nor would it appear they will be able to. The existing case law would stand were the issue to get as far as adjudication by the Court. This issue can be settled in a matter of hours not months.

pure B.S.

Yup, just like Al Capone, incumbent upon him not only to fight corruption, but to "root out" corruption wherever it lurks. Are you quoting the little known "corruption rooting" clause in the constitution here? I try to be respectful of other opinions that I don't share. But we all have our...

OK. still we are talking four days.