Search options (Page 18 of 58)

I guess it slips your mind or you just can't see it through tunnel vision that it was a freaking republican who initiated the dossier and some Dems only took it over for what Trump would claim is opposition research. But regardless, Clinton isn't the fracking President, Trump is, and if all the die hards who have clamored for more and more and more Clinton investigations would've put that much effort in finding the truth about Trump, he'd already have been impeached. After all the too-many-to-count investigations of Clinton, the Pubs have produced nothing to charge her with. Are they that incompetent? The Pubs concern over some inconsequential classified emails is a farce when Trump out right gives the Russians classified material. Oh well, the truth will out sooner or later despite Trumps continued tactics with the full support of his lackeys in the White House and congress. Take care. Vern

It is still not listed in the entries. Did you post it to the contest; you must do that directly not just publish it per se. Good luck. Take care. Vern

NJC, I was going to counter pretty much each point you've made (pretty simple to do), but it occurs to me that with all the evidence to do so would most likely land outside your field of tunnel vision as has everything to date so I won't waste my time or yours. Trump's outrageous insistence that there was no Russian interference with the election (and constant attacks against the investigation into such) despite all the evidence to the contrary is more than enough to make him suspect. Most of the Pubs are too far up his ass to do their job of reigning him in when he attacks pretty much every standard of democracy and decency. Now even his own intelligence agencies are warning against the Russian meddling which will continue and most likely get worse without some push-back by the US which Lord Trump is loath to do because even if he is innocent of colluding (a long shot at best), his lard-ass ego won't let him say or do anything against Putin for fear of somehow delegitimizing his presidency. I understand there is no amount of evidence to convince Lord Trump's disciples  that he is never wrong, but at least I'll put out this link showing his own agencies warning of the danger and to a person has gotten no direction from Trump to do anything about Russian meddling in our and other countries elections.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/intel-ch … d=53054932
Take care. Vern

You are right on; the cancerous corruption will get a lot worse for Lord Trump and his flock once the Russia investigation and all the sidebars of collusion, conspiracy, money laundering, etc. is over. Not hard to believe that 50% of the Rasmussen poll think the FBI meddled in the investigation to hurt Trump. Let's face it, they stupidly withheld info of the Russians trying to help Trump and at the same time opened up new inquiries into Clinton emails which were proven erroneous for the umpteenth time after the damage was done. To paraphrase, you can fool all the people some of the time and with enough lies you can fool the majority of Trump's flock all the time. When Trump says his shit don't stink, they hold their noses and say you're right, can't smell a thing. Take care. Vern

Whew, when I saw the subject, I was afraid we'd lost Ursula Andress who of course I pronounced Undress after seeing her coming out of the water in her bikini to the delight of James Bond. A beautiful body is a terrible thing to waste. Take care. Vern

My computer  was killed by the power company so I've been without for a while, so what do you expect for my first post back, lol. Take care. Vern

I agree with Corra that we would not get to know many people on site if not for the forums; we don't all read everybody else and the forums at times sparks an interest in a person enough to explore their writing. I know several people have told me they looked into my writing first because of the forums. Sure there will differences of opinion, that is life. Sometimes those differences might get a little heated -- I've been in a few heated discussions myself -- but I don't think anything said on either side of any of them would warrant closing the forums. Sol, has closed a few threads because of the heated rhetoric I suppose, but only a very few. Though I don't think there was any need to close them personally, that is his right as owner of the site. And he has shown great restraint and given warnings before taking drastic action.

There have been suggestions and offers before of certain threads where "anything goes" but the problem with that is that one never knows where a discussion is going to lead. Practically every thread of any duration on this site and probably anywhere else is going to go off subject at some point. It is natural. Somebody says something and that sparks an unexpected response from someone else and a tangent is born. Conversation is like that. Life is like that. The spontaneity is what makes the conversations/discussions interesting and informative. The forums would a dull dull dull place without such spontaneity. What is the most active enduring thread in the forums? It is the one which asks us to "Say the first word which comes to mind" and the reason it has gotten so many responses and people go to it time and time again is that you literally never know what one word will bring to mind in someone else. That is its strength. And that is the strength of all the threads which have staying power. They evolve. If they don't, they simply die on the vine after a few responses over a few days or less.

I guess it boils down to the fact that the forums with all their imperfections and differences of opinion, heated or not, are what keeps the site vibrant and especially so in the absence of contests to stir the creative juices. That's my say and it would be a real shame and loss if Dill or any other member were forced out for participation which though it may be heated at times for some, it is not close to a capital offense. Nor are the vast majority of the discussions which take place in the forums regardless of subject matter or where they lead. Take care. Vern

I suppose Sol could confine some folks to the Shred Group for his own reasons, but that is not the natural or usual way to join. I'm a member of the Shred Group and can still access the Premium Group and any other open group the same as always. And I know that all the other members of the Shred Group were/are not confined to that group any more than a member of let's just say the Hodge Podge group is confined to that group. If you join any group, that does not confine you to that group. I'm not sure why the confinement theory exists, but it is certainly not the rule. Join or not, it's up to the members. Take care. Vern

It is your place just as much as anyone else to have a say. I probably know of which "single" person you refer and I agree they are a fine writer, but I don't believe the Shred Group was created for that person alone. The idea for "shredding" has been around for a very long time with its own thread. The group merely makes it easier for folks who wish to participate. Take care. Vern

You are correct, merely having a Shred Group will not automatically protect new writers, but it would certainly offer a different environment for some reviewers who prefer the type review that some new members may not be accustomed. And conversely some authors might appreciate just the type review some "shredders" provide but would not necessarily receive in the normal channels by oft times random selection.

In any case the Shred Group would be no different for those who don't join than any other group on site which you don't join. Just as you have joined many groups beyond Premium because you evidently feel they will offer something different, so too it would be with the Shred Group for those who join.

If there wasn't some minimal support for such a group as the Shred, it wouldn't have been established. The same could be said for all the groups you have joined. The real difference being that as far as I know, there is no one opposing all those other groups despite the fact that most are seldom used and offer nothing to benefit or entice most members.

In short, why would you "protest" an already established group you don't have to join or even acknowledge its existence? Put the shoe on the other foot for the groups you belong to. Just my opinion. Take care. Vern

I think the separation is because some people, certainly not all, but enough, may not be prepared for the sometimes overly blunt reviews which some (again certainly not all or even a large percentage) provide. There are those who are more sensitive to criticism and there are those who are less tactful in reviewing. It only makes sense that the two have the option for a different environment. No one is required to function in one or the other; there is flexibility for using either or, or both. With the added option, what might be considered "rude' in one forum might be run of the mill in the other. Different skins for different folks or even the same folks at different levels of development. That's the way I see it and applaud the new option. Take care. Vern

I would say it is not only the Dems who "hate" Trump, a lot of Pubs just won't admit it on record now that he is president. That goes to show they like power as much or more than the Dems. Right now the Pubs have almost absolute power and they have demonstrated the effects of that. There should be some type provision that any law must have bipartisan support so they would be forced to compromise when needed. Furthermore, once this stupid shutdown is solved, they should unanimously pass a law that from this point on every bill must pass on it's own merit and not tied to something else just to get the votes to pass something that won't pass on it's own merit. And then they should all freaking resign. Take care. Vern

The first lie which comes from Trump's version of the announcement is that it's not 350 billion, rather around 250 billion. Yeah, that's a lot of money, but there was nothing in Apple's announcement that it would spend that money in the U.S. It doesn't need that money for any foreseeable U.S. investments.

The second lie in Trump's version is that Apple did not need the tax change to park that money in the U.S. They would not have to pay the tax until the money was spent which is probably no time soon since as stated they have enough U.S. generated profit to cover their needs. No spending, no taxes.

I've stated this in other forums, but I'll say it again here that if the Republicans or Democrats want to reduce the taxes on business, it is a simple solution. Do away with the business tax totally instead of playing their sham game. Change the code so that any profit must be passed on to individuals whether owners, stockholders, or employees. A certain percentage could be set aside for future funding of research or capital needs, but even that must be used within a reasonable time say ten years. Any additional needs beyond that could be funded by standard means of borrowing or bringing in more investors.

But politicians of either stripe won't make such a simple change to the tax code because the wealthy donors would then have to pay fair taxes on what they can now avoid and couldn't cry all the way to the bank about unfair business taxes. And the beat goes on. Take care. Vern