DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus America rolls on...to the grave

Said like a true browns fan! Total defeatist attitude. Heck, why build a website because somebody will just build one that outranks yours...

Seriously, I understand your frustration but coal is not the long term answer. I think a few baby steps toward weaning us off of fossil fuels is more than appropriate. Personally I'd like some adult steps to be taken.

Nobody said energy alternatives were bad. But let's be realistic about it.

That dumb guy in the article was about as delusional as anyone thinking the browns are going to the superbowl next year.

I wouldn't say Richard Branson is dumb, he' just needs to pick better friends. (Obama is a friend of his)

how do we have a labor shortage if conservatives keep telling us there are no jobs?

there's a bunch of different ways to dissect this, but umm.....this doesn't sound like "america first", no matter how hard they spin it.

Trump Administration Adds More Foreign Guest Worker Visas

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-adds-more-foreign-161853553.html

WASHINGTON ― Bowing to pressure from industries that rely on seasonal workers from overseas, President Donald Trump’s administration said Monday it will allow employers to bring in an additional 15,000 temporary workers this fiscal year to deal with what it described as a labor shortage.

Trump vowed during the campaign to discourage businesses from using foreign workers and to focus on hiring Americans first. But as president, he has faced bipartisan demand for allowing more temporary workers, not fewer. The announcement Monday indicates Trump is willing to acquiesce to employers on the issue.

The administration insisted the visa boost is not incompatible with its “America first” pledge.

“We’re talking about American businesses that are at risk of suffering irreparable harm if they don’t get additional H-2B workers, so we do think that fits into the ‘America first’ focus of the administration,” Department of Homeland Security spokesman David Lapan told reporters. “We’re asking these businesses to attest that if they do not get additional workers they will be harmed, so this does help with American businesses continuing to prosper.”

To receive the visas, businesses must attest they would suffer irreparable harm if they cannot bring in those workers. The government does not require them to submit evidence, but requires them to maintain documents that could act as evidence for three years. DHS also created a new tip line for people to report potential violations or abuse of the program.

The Trump administration’s decision to increase the number of H-2B visas, even just temporarily, shows how the president’s campaign talk is now colliding with powerful employers and his own party.

The H-2B program allows workers from places like Mexico and Guatemala to come to the U.S., work for a few months at a government-set prevailing wage, and then return to their home countries, only to repeat the process the following year. Large U.S. industries such as hospitality, seafood processing, and landscaping and forestry have come to rely on the relatively cheap labor supplied through the H-2B pipeline. Trump’s own businesses, including his resort Mar-a-Lago, have used the program.

But there’s been an outcry from employers in those industries saying they can’t find enough workers right now, as they’ve been squeezed by a dearth of visas and the low unemployment rate. Hoteliers in Maine, for instance, say they are barely functioning in what should be peak season. After appeals from employers in their home districts, representatives in Washington have been haranguing the administration to act.

This is yet another example of the administration and Congress failing to keep the Trump campaign promise of putting American workers first. Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA
The way Trump spoke on the campaign trail, one would expect him to limit the number of available H-2B visas, thereby forcing employers to raise wages until local, U.S.-born workers were willing to take the jobs. But now that he occupies the White House, Trump is apparently coming around to the employers’ point of view, which is that there aren’t enough American workers willing to take the jobs at wages employers can afford to pay.

The government hit its cap for H-2B visas in mid-March, which many businesses said left them unable to staff up for the summer. In May, Congress passed a bill instructing the DHS secretary to consult with the Department of Labor to determine if the government should increase the number of temporary nonagricultural work visas available until the end of the fiscal year.

Daniel Costa, an immigration expert at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, said there is no real evidence of a nationwide labor shortage in the industries that rely on H-2B visas, although employers could be strapped in certain geographic areas. In an analysis of 10 occupations, Acosta said he found that wages had remained stagnant or declined in nine of them ― an indication that employers aren’t raising wages the way they normally would if they had to attract workers.

The available data “suggests that raising the H-2B cap is a bad idea,” Costa said in an email. Instead of adding more visas, the White House should focus “on program oversight, on rooting out bad-actor employers who violate H-2B rules, and on protecting the migrant workers who come to the United States in search of better opportunities.”

NumbersUSA, an organization that opposes additional immigration, urged the administration not to increase the number of H-2B visas. Roy Beck, president of the organization, said Monday that the increase could ”reverse the trend of reports emerging around the country of employers working harder and raising pay to successfully recruit more unemployed Americans for lower-skilled jobs.”

“Congress gave Kelly the authority to put around 70,000 more of those jobs out of the reach of Americans; at least Kelly limited the damage to keeping just 15,000 more Americans out of the labor market,” he said in a statement. “Nonetheless, this is yet another example of the administration and Congress failing to keep the Trump campaign promise of putting American workers first.”

and then of course, there's this:

On ‘Made in America Week,’ White House fields questions about what’s not: Trump products

https://www.yahoo.com/news/made-america-...-214811656.html

WASHINGTON — Monday was the start of “Made in America Week” at the White House, a celebration of U.S. industry and products. Along with a showcase of goods made in each of the 50 states, the event came with questions about the wide selection of products President Trump’s family businesses source from overseas factories.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer began his briefing on Monday afternoon by framing the celebration as fulfilling the president’s promise to “deliver for America’s workers.” As further evidence, Spicer cited Trump’s executive order to “maximize … the use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States.” Spicer described that order as a “historic action” though it has been criticized as a piece of political theater that does not include any quantifiable definition of what it would mean to “maximize” American production or how long it will take to accomplish.

Related: Trump unveils ‘Made in America’ week

Yahoo News asked Spicer if the White House push for products to be “Made in America” will include commitments from the companies run by Trump’s immediate family.

The Trump Organization, which produces products that bear the “Trump” brand and the names of the president’s real-estate ventures, has a long history of producing its wares overseas. Last year, the Washington Post conducted an examination and found that the products made abroad by the Trump Organization include shirts, glasses, cologne, housewares and vodka. To mark “Made in America” week, the Daily Beast’s Sam Stein perused the gift shop at Trump’s Washington hotel and found goods from China, Vietnam and Peru. Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who is a White House adviser, has her own clothing line that relies heavily on poorly paid foreign labor.

Spicer responded to the question about the Trump family’s businesses making products abroad by saying the president’s agenda of “regulatory relief” and “tax relief” is dedicated to making sure “that all companies can hire here, can expand here, can manufacture here.” He added it would be “inappropriate” for him to discuss how anything would affect the Trump family’s businesses from the White House. However, he implied there were certain factors that made it much easier for companies to take certain business abroad.

“With respect to his own companies, obviously it’s inappropriate to discuss how anything would affect their own companies. But I can tell you that, in some cases, there are certain supply chains or scalability that may not be available in this country,” Spicer said.

Spicer also suggested Trump is working to change that situation.

“I’m not going to comment on specific products, but I will tell you that the overall, arching goal, of course, though, is to grow manufacturing — to grow and invest here in the United States and to grow U.S. workers here. So that remains the overall objective,” said Spicer.

View photos
A woman browses jewelry at the “Ivanka Trump Collection” shop in the lobby at Trump Tower in New York City. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
More
Trump has not divested from the Trump Organization since taking office. Instead, he passed control of the business on to his sons. Federal ethics regulations prohibit White House officials from endorsing specific companies or advocating for them. Earlier this year, the White House said Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to the president, was “counseled” after she encouraged viewers to buy clothing and jewelry from Ivanka Trump’s line.

At the briefing, Yahoo News pressed Spicer about whether the president’s family could show leadership on this issue by making a commitment to manufacture their products here. Spicer again insisted it would be “out of bounds” for him to discuss the family’s businesses.

“Again, it’s not appropriate for me to stand up here and comment about a business. I believe that’s a little out of bounds. But again, I would go back to the president’s broader goal, which is to create investment here, to bring back the manufacturing base,” Spicer said.

Spicer also argued that measures of confidence in business sectors are at “all-time highs” and suggested that executives are optimistic “that the president’s agenda is going to accomplish that.”

The issue of the Trump family’s array of foreign products came up once more in the briefing when Spicer was asked if Trump was the right person to push this message given his outsourcing of branded merchandise. Spicer argued that Trump’s business background helps him understand the issues that push companies out of the country “very, very uniquely.”

“So I think he actually is — in a very unique way understands the challenges that our regulatory system and our tax system put on businesses that want to hire here, that want to grow here, that need scalability and capacity here in a way that maybe isn’t because of some of our arcane trade laws, our regulations, or our tax laws,” said Spicer.

LOL....good God my man, you really think I place a pet's value over a human?


Now that we have that out of the way, I am not for taking this whole deal away. Nor is the plan being presented. It's about making it a workable deal. That is the hang-up in Congress.

How do you make it workable and realistic? You do know that rates are going up 30% or more as it stands today.

It's easy to say tax the rich. I am far from rich in real standards, but have done OK. Better than most. I don't mind paying a disporportionate share, but there comes a point.

It's not my fault I studied in school, got lucky and got a job that paid me well. It's not my fault I made some good investment choices.

I could have dropped out of school, or not studied and skated by. I could have dropped all my money in to Red Barn Burgers rather than McDonalds, but I didn't. I made the right choices. It ticks me off when people try to make me feel like I did something wrong.


Rant over.....like I said, I don't want to see people kicked to the curb, and this isn't what this is about. We have to make it workable beyond simply some paying for more people on insurance.

Trump says Iran complying with nuclear deal but remains dangerous threat

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-iran-complying-nuclear-deal-remains-dangerous-024510186.html

Lol. Great job Obama!!!! Diplomacy at its finest!!

While it would not be good right now for coal minors, but once again screw Americans for the sake of people in other countries



Far more pleasant for WHO. Anybody who has worked in the mines can tell you it has it's up, and downs. I found working in a mine more pleasant than working in retail. I found it less dangerous, and actually better for my health than working retail. I am also living proof that Branson is WRONG when he said he doubted that there was one coal minor who said I wish I was down in the mine, as many days I would have rather been under ground than above it dealing with the public.



This idiot wants to take steak, roasts, hamburger, chicken, veal, lamb, and any other type of meat off our plates. That tells me all I need to know about his candy ass.

BULLCRAP

We have enough coal to last this country almost 300 years.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves

Yes there is more than enough bullcrap to last 300 years.

I know there is coal in the ground, I'm talking about long term as in renewable energy, cleaner, safer, etc... I also know we need coal for now because we don't have viable alternatives, but we have to do MORE in exploring/developing energy sources for tomorrow.

Well when you went to the "Should we all have a summer home in the Hampton's? I have always wanted a Ferrari. Why can't I have that?", it didn't sound much like you were trying to have a rational discussion. lol

It sounds as if you are under the misgivings that cutting medicaid is going to trim the budget. All they plan to do is move the money around. They plan to cut medicaid to give out tax cuts. And if you really look at it, it's most likely not going to benefit you that much.

You see, that's what baffles me about all of this. Nothing in any proposal by the GOP thus far has anything to do with reducing the cost of healthcare, nothing. So far, everything Trump said about healthcare has been shown not to be true.

He said it would be done quickly. He said he wouldn't touch medicaid. He said it would be a great plan. He said healthcare would be better at a fraction of the cost. He said there would be zero time between repealing it and replacing it. Now he's calling to repeal it and replace it later. Just like Obama said you could keep your doctor.

Moving money from the very poor, those on medicaid, to doling out a tax cut with that money isn't about making healthcare more affordable or saving money. Medicaid could go on in its present form if they simply didn't want to move the money around.

And I believe if you look at it, it would be the elderly and people with pre existing conditions that will have an even higher cost of healthcare than they do now. I will say one thing, if you take away the healthcare mandate, your costs are going to rise more than they are now. When you take a lot of younger, healthier people out of the pool, the people who really need healthcare will be making up the difference.

When the AMA, American Hospital association and the AARP all oppose this, there's cause for concern. I'm not saying changes shouldn't or couldn't be made. But Trump promised better healthcare, not worse. As long as they actually deliver on that, I have no problem with it.

The problem is they're screwed now. Unless you wish to change the free market system, coal is dying. Cheaper natural gas is killing coal. Just like the car killed the horse and buggy. It's not about regulations or some made up war on coal. It's about companies being able to buy a cheaper, more efficient, cleaner fuel source to replace coal.

People try to use coal as some type of political football when the fact is it's the market phasing out coal. If companies don't bring jobs to the mountains, people there will be doing just like my mom, dad, aunts and uncles, grandpa and so many more have done. They'll leave the mountains for work. It's been that way for generations.

Well we can agree that we need to keep looking into and developing more renewable, and cleaner sources. BUT we don't need to regulate the hell out of coal while we do so. Keep the miners working. Keep the cost of coal down, which keeps our energy bills down, and when we have better sources of energy then let the market dictate that. NOT the government trying to shove it down our throats.

Thank you. It is nice to read a post from a rationale person once every now and then.

WOOHOO we get to disagree. Man it's been awhile

The government has been doing everything they can to drive up the cost of using coal

http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-assault-coal-and-american-consumers

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/killing-american-industry-coal/

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicola...-affecting-poor

The market is dictating it. Now that they can dump sludge into rivers and streams isn't going to help.

Yet Trump has already been cutting back those regulations. It's not going to help. But only time will show that.

Who said they can do that? Trump is not trying to drop ALL regulations.

Trump signs bill undoing Obama coal mining rule

President Trump on Thursday signed legislation ending a key Obama administration coal mining rule.

The bill quashes the Office of Surface Mining's Stream Protection Rule, a regulation to protect waterways from coal mining waste that officials finalized in December.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319938-trump-signs-bill-undoing-obama-coal-mining-rule

Congress overturns rule that blocked coal mines from discharging waste into streams

WASHINGTON - Republicans this week kicked off their drive to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations by repealing a "Stream Protection Rule" meant to keep coal mines from dumping waste into streams.

The U.S. Senate approved the measure Thursday in a 54 to 45 vote that went largely along party lines, with backing from Ohio GOP Sen. Rob Portman, and a "no" vote from Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/02/congress_overturns_rule_that_b.html

The articles are longer in case you wish to read them.

I don't think they can pit.

Ever hear of the "rover" pipeline?

Goes from, I think, western PA, through Ohio, and then up into michigan. I couldn't tell you the cost of it, although I've heard as high as $4.9 billion.

And it's running all over around me - taking (when it's done) natural gas to Michigan and possibly Canada.

The company has already been fined for sludge showing up in ditches and rivers, and even farm fields.

I can't say for certain arch, but I believe this is in regards to where coal is mined. And it wasn't changed long ago.

The White House and Mitch McConnell’s office tell very different stories about the failure of the health care bill

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-m...-013701742.html

Is trump gonna take responsibility for anything? What happened to the party of personal responsibility and accountability?

Guess that was just a catch phrase.

Layoffs begin at Carrier plant that drew Trump's criticism

https://www.yahoo.com/news/layoffs-begin-carrier-plant-drew-142834236.html

Tired of winning, yet?

Here's the truth . . . Trump made the headlines and created the impression that he cared about US jobs, especially with the Carrier story. That got a lot of media attention. More people are influenced by the impression that he saved jobs than people who are paying attention to the facts.

It's like the Made in America thing - I don't begrudge Trump maximizing his profits by making product in China or where-ever and then importing .... but then it does boggle my mind that people believe him when he spins media stories to imply that he does care about US manufacturing and jobs and hides the fact that he does that. . .

That's what I've been saying for a while now.

People constantly spoke against these corporations and billionaires doing the country dirty and outsourcing jobs.

So the answer to that problem is to elect a billionaire who outsourced his jobs?

I'd like to add defense spending to that argument as well. He tried to give off the impression that he was saving money and preventing waste on the JSF and AF-1. In actuality, he didn't. Part of his so-called money savings involved a public chastisement of Boeing and Lockheed. Then he turns right around and gleefully promotes a highly increased defense spending measure with Lockheed and Boeing right behind him. I'm sorry if I keep harping on it, but it's something that I deal with often and it really irks me.

Hey no need to apologize. Good job for paying attention. It's the details that matter

Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russia investigation

By Carol D. Leonnig, Ashley Parker, Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger July 20 at 9:58 PM

Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, according to people familiar with the effort.

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,’ ” a close adviser said.

With the Russia investigation continuing to widen, Trump’s lawyers are working to corral the probe and question the propriety of the special counsel’s work. They are actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work, according to several of Trump’s legal advisers.

A conflict of interest is one of the possible grounds that can be cited by an attorney general to remove a special counsel from office under Justice Department regulations that set rules for the job.

The president is also irritated by the notion that Mueller’s probe could reach into his and his family’s finances, advisers said.

Trump has been fuming about the probe in recent weeks as he has been informed about the legal questions that he and his family could face. His primary frustration centers on why allegations that his campaign coordinated with Russia should spread into scrutinizing many years of Trump dealmaking. He has told aides he was especially disturbed after learning Mueller would be able to access several years of his tax returns.

Trump has repeatedly refused to make his tax returns public after first claiming he could not do so because he was under audit or after promising to release them after an IRS audit was completed. All presidents since Jimmy Carter have released their tax returns.

Further adding to the challenges facing Trump’s outside lawyers, the team’s spokesman, Mark Corallo, resigned on Thursday, according to two people familiar with his departure. Corallo did not respond to immediate requests for comment.

“If you’re looking at Russian collusion, the president’s tax returns would be outside that investigation,” said a close adviser to the president.

Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s private lawyers, said in an interview Thursday that the president and his legal team are intent on making sure Mueller stays within the boundaries of his assignment as special counsel. He said they will complain directly to Mueller if necessary.

“The fact is that the president is concerned about conflicts that exist within the special counsel’s office and any changes in the scope of the investigation,” Sekulow said. “The scope is going to have to stay within his mandate. If there’s drifting, we’re going to object.”

Sekulow cited Bloomberg News reports that Mueller is scrutinizing some of Trump’s business dealings, including with a Russian oligarch who purchased a Palm Beach mansion from Trump for $95 million in 2008.

“They’re talking about real estate transactions in Palm Beach several years ago,” Sekulow said. “In our view, this is far outside the scope of a legitimate investigation.”

The president has long called the FBI investigation into his campaign’s possible coordination with the Russians a “witch hunt.” But now, Trump is coming face-to-face with a powerful investigative team that is able to study evidence of any crime it encounters in the probe — including tax fraud, lying to federal agents and interference in the investigation.

“This is Ken Starr times 1,000,” said one lawyer involved in the case, referring to the independent counsel who oversaw an investigation that eventually led to House impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton. “Of course, it’s going to go into his finances.”

Following Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James B. Comey — in part because of his displeasure with the FBI’s Russia investigation — Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel in a written order. That order gave Mueller broad authority to investigate links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” and any crimes committed in response to the investigation, such as perjury or obstruction of justice.

Mueller’s probe has already expanded to include an examination of whether Trump obstructed justice in his dealings with Comey, as well as the business activities of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law.

Trump’s team could potentially challenge whether a broad probe of Trump’s finances prior to his candidacy could be considered a matter that arose “directly” from an inquiry into possible collusion with a foreign government.

The president’s legal representatives have also identified what they allege are several conflicts of interest facing Mueller, such as donations to Democrats by some of his prosecutors.

Another potential conflict claim is an allegation that Mueller and Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia had a dispute over membership fees when Mueller resigned as a member in 2011, two White House advisers said. A spokesman for Mueller said there was no dispute when Mueller, who was FBI director at the time, left the club.

Trump also took public aim on Wednesday at Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Rosenstein, whose actions led to Mueller’s appointment. In an interview with the New York Times Wednesday, the president said he never would have nominated Sessions if he knew he was going to recuse himself from the case.

Some Republicans in frequent touch with the White House said they viewed the president’s decision to publicly air his disappointment with Sessions as a warning sign that the attorney general’s days were numbered. Several senior aides were described as “stunned” when Sessions announced Thursday morning he would stay on at the Justice Department.

Another Republican in touch with the administration described the public steps as part of a broader effort aimed at “laying the groundwork to fire” Mueller.

“Who attacks their entire Justice Department?” this person said. “It’s insane.”

Law enforcement officials described Sessions as increasingly distant from the White House and the FBI because of the strains of the Russia investigation.

Traditionally, Justice Department leaders have sought to maintain a certain degree of autonomy from the White House as a means of ensuring prosecutorial independence.

But Sessions’s situation is more unusual, law enforcement officials said, because he has angered the president for apparently being too independent while also angering many at the FBI for his role in the president’s firing of Comey.

As a result, there is far less communication among those three key parts of the government than in years past, several officials said.

Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, it would set off a legal and political firestorm, first around the question of whether a president can use the constitutional pardon power in that way.

“This is a fiercely debated but unresolved legal question,” said Brian C. Kalt, a constitutional law expert at Michigan State University who has written extensively on the question.

The power to pardon is granted to the president in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which gives the commander in chief the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That means pardon authority extends to federal criminal prosecution but not to state level or impeachment inquiries.

No president has sought to pardon himself, so no courts have reviewed it. Although Kalt says the weight of the law argues against a president pardoning himself, he says the question is open and predicts such an action would move through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court.

“There is no predicting what would happen,” said Kalt, author of the book, “Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies.” It includes chapters on the ongoing debate over whether presidents can be prosecuted while in office and on whether a president can issue a pardon to himself.

Other White House advisers have tried to temper Trump, urging him to simply cooperate with the probe and stay silent on his feelings about the investigation.

On Monday, lawyer Ty Cobb, newly brought into the White House to handle responses to the Russian probe, convened a meeting with the president and his team of lawyers, according to two people briefed on the meeting. Cobb, who is not yet on the White House payroll, was described as attempting to instill some discipline in how the White House handles queries about the case. But Trump surprised many of his aides by speaking at length about the probe to the New York Times two days later. Cobb, who officially joins the White House team at the end of the month, declined to comment for this article.

Some note that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a president from pardoning himself. On the other side, experts say that by definition a pardon is something you can only give to someone else. There is also a common-law canon that prohibits individuals from serving as a judge in their own case. “For example, we would not allow a judge to preside over his or her own trial,” Kalt said.

A president can pardon an individual at any point, including before the person is charged with a crime, and the scope of a presidential pardon can be very broad. President Gerald Ford pardoned former president Richard M. Nixon preemptively for offenses he “committed or may have committed” while in office.

Devlin Barrett and Sari Horwitz contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...a7e5_story.html

Look at the red highlight, he's not acting guilty at all... smh.

How does one pardon himself? Is that even possible?

John McCain Cancer Is ‘Godly Justice’ for Challenging Trump, Alt-Right Claims

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/john-mccain-cancer-godly-justice-183429279.html

Those who would lash out at McCain are just plain SICK

Trump truly acts like an innocent man.

You can find whackers on all sides.

I have always found it humorous how the KKK hates your kind just as much as you hate their kind and I am left to wonder if there is really any difference between the two.

You have more in common than you know. Hate.

So I'm the black grand wizard now?

I don't see any bodies hanging from a tree near my house.

He must watch too much Dave Chapelle.

so they hired another hedge fund guy as communication director.

must be that efficiency yall talking about.

Wow.

I'm going to give this one passing shot and then leave it... but you really don't see the difference between hating somebody for their nationality or the color of their skin, neither of which they can control, verses hating somebody for what they believe and what they do?

I mean, terrorists hate you and you hate terrorists... now you finish that with what you said above...

DC,

You said that waaay better than I was about to.

Out of bounds 40. And you don't get to poke at anyone over hate. You're like Mikey.