User Controls
Posts by stl1
-
2021-12-12 at 7:34 PM UTC in Buy oil, thank me later.
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 20 million barrels a day more than right now.
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/oil-consumption
TL/DR
How many times was Rump impeached? -
2021-12-12 at 7:31 PM UTC in Buy oil, thank me later.
-
2021-12-12 at 7:28 PM UTC in Im gonna send you guys some sound clipsSound clips?
Who wants to listen to slurping and spitting of corn? -
2021-12-12 at 7:24 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-12-12 at 6:31 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sCompare the above Biden video praising a dead Senator and war hero to Rump denigrating a dead Senator and war hero:
-
2021-12-12 at 6:10 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-12-12 at 5:48 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ You don't seem capable of understanding that partisan opinions are not examples of constitutional violations. If Trump really had broken the law, you can be sure the rabid Democrats would have nailed him to the wall for it, once and for all. But the truth is, they couldn't get anything at all on him.
WRONG.
What I am sure of is that fellow Republicans shield him from any and all transgressions because they believe only in being in power rather than the good of the country.
How many times was Rump impeached? -
2021-12-12 at 5:45 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-12-12 at 5:15 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-12-12 at 4:48 PM UTC in What Are You Doing For Christmas?Suggest
Pregnant Working Mom Cancels Christmas After Husband Invites Family Of 26 People Over For 5 Days, And HE Demands Written Apology
Melanie A. Davis
Coordinating family time during the holidays is anything but holly and jolly. There are countless moving parts, pressure to impress, and holiday traffic to face.
Add in the stress of being pregnant, and it becomes tinseled torture. But when one expecting mom tried to cancel her Christmas plans, she was met with an unpleasant surprise. Not only was her husband furious, but he also demanded a hand-written apology.
The woman, who shared her horror story on Reddit, works full-time, is six months pregnant, and is the mother of a toddler. Her husband, a 39-year-old, works night shifts three times a week.
The wife explained that her husband has a large family that gathers every year for Christmas. When her father-in-law died, her husband volunteered to host the holidays.
“Unbeknownst to me, he sent out invitations for a five-day Christmas celebration to his entire family, which is about 26 members in total,” the woman commented. “I found out by accident and was too shocked to react.”
Understandably, the woman wasn’t comfortable cooking, cleaning, and hosting 26 people for a week on top of her work and child care duties. The husband, however, was anything but empathetic.
“I demanded he cancel, but he refused, saying ‘over my dead body.’” She writes. When she sent a mass text canceling the event, “he went off on me, calling my behavior outrageously appalling.”
“He said that I broke his word to his family and made him look small and with no authority,” she continued.
Disrespectful Or Justified?
Despite feeling like the new head of the family, the husband clearly expected his pregnant wife to keep the wheels turning for this week-long visit. Sidestepping this irony, he accused his wife of disrespecting him.
“He talked about how I disrespected his father and him with what I said,” she said. “He demanded a hand-written apology for canceling the event and for being insensitive.”
The husband also wanted his wife to apologize for “undermining his authority in front of his family,” (yikes). Even the MIL joined in, giving the woman “a stern talk about how out of line I was for disrespecting my husband’s decisions,” (double yikes).
Even if the husband had offered to host, cook, cater, and clean (he didn’t), the only one disrespected in this situation is the woman in her third trimester of pregnancy. Cramming 26 people in a modestly sized home for a week sounds bleak on a good day.
The wife refused to apologize, and I (and the rest of Reddit) hope she never does. One user commented, “Is he delusional? A written apology? What are you, his servant? …that’s repulsive.”
Another user offered some great advice for that handwritten letter the husband demanded, “I’m sorry I didn’t see you were a misogynistic a****** sooner. I’m sorry I didn’t rectify that oversight sooner—time to do so. These are divorce papers. Sign them.” -
2021-12-12 at 4:41 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sRand Paul Two Faced? Whodda Thunk?
Newsweek
Rand Paul Opposition to Previous Disaster Relief Resurfaces as He Seeks Aid for Kentucky
Andrew Stanton
Critics slammed Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for requesting federal aid to help his state recover from devastating tornadoes after he previously voted against relief when other states were struck by natural disasters.
Tornadoes swept across several midwestern and southern states Friday night and Saturday morning, leaving a trail of devastation in their paths.
More than 70 people across Kentucky—one of the hardest hit states—were feared to be killed during the storm. Videos and photos of towns like Mayfield show the extent of the catastrophic damage.
In the aftermath of the storm, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear requested federal assistance to help the state recover from the tornadoes. Paul wrote a letter to President Joe Biden echoing the need for federal relief.
"The Governor of the Commonwealth has requested federal assistance this morning, and certainly further requests will be coming as the situation is assessed," the senator wrote, according to a press release from his office. "I fully support those requests and ask that you move expeditiously to approve the appropriate resources for our state."
Many were quick to draw comparisons to his previous votes against relief bills.
In 2013, after Hurricane Sandy devastated parts of the northeast including New York, he voted against a bill that provided recovery funds to the state.
He said he would have supported the bill if it reappropriated funds from other areas, rather than add on additional spending, WFPL, a Louisville-area news radio station, reported.
"I would have given them 9 billion and I would've taken the 9 billion from somewhere else," he said. "I would have taken it from foreign aid and said you know what, we don't have money for Egypt or Pakistan this year because we have to help the Northeast."
Paul also voted against relief for Puerto Rico after it was hit by Hurricane Maria in 2017, as well as a bill that provided assistance for Texas against it was struck by Hurricane Harvey.
He explained the vote in an opinion piece for The Hill, pointing to his opposition for raising the national debt and again arguing for making cuts elsewhere to support relief funding.
"They say we are out of money to pay for hurricane relief. So instead of finding that money somewhere else in the budget, they simply want to raise the limit on our credit card," he wrote. "This has to stop. We spend too much. We owe too much. We cannot keep spending money we do not have."
In 2019, he also voted against a bill that appropriated $17.2 billion in disaster relief funding to several federal agencies. The bill ultimately passed, with 85 senators voting in its support, while former President Donald Trump signed it into law.
He faced mounting criticism for his past votes.
"Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell suddenly find our *socialist* government useful," wrote Twitter user @Scentabulous.
"Today, Rand Paul asked Joe Biden for federal help for Kentucky — even though Paul has voted against every federal disaster relief package of the last 10 years," wrote lawyer Tristan Snell. -
2021-12-12 at 7:54 AM UTC in STICK IT, Damn It!Are you denying my statement or just being a racist?
-
2021-12-12 at 6:46 AM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sAll my life.
The same as you've been passing yourself of as being unable to comprehend simple subjects like, let's say...impeachments.
How many times was Rump impeached? -
2021-12-12 at 6:41 AM UTC in STICK IT, Damn It!That blacks and Latinos would have a higher percentage of those affected by Covid is not surprising insofar as they are the ones least able to work from home or have the means to not work.
Pretty simple math. -
2021-12-11 at 11:56 PM UTC in "Get that little 16 yr old ass on the fuking bed already..."
-
2021-12-11 at 11:53 PM UTC in "Get that little 16 yr old ass on the fuking bed already..."A HOLE lot higher than yours, dummy.
-
2021-12-11 at 11:31 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-12-11 at 11:29 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sNBC News
Why Fifth Amendment pleas won't keep these Trump allies safe
Teri Kanefield
Roger Stone, a long-time adviser to former President Donald Trump, just became the latest Trump ally to refuse to cooperate with House’s Jan. 6 investigation by invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The growing list includes John Eastman — a former law professor and legal adviser to Trump, and Jeffrey Clark, who served as an assistant attorney general from 2018 until 2021. Alex Jones, a radio show host and a staunch supporter of Trump’s re-election campaign, has also threatened to plead the Fifth in response to his own House subpoena.
While these witnesses may be able to avoid testifying before the select committee by standing on the Fifth, they are merely postponing — and perhaps increasing — their future legal woes.
On Dec. 2, committee Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., noted that, “People sort of talk about the Fifth Amendment without stopping to think about what he is saying if he invokes the Fifth — that he won't answer a question because he's worried about criminal prosecution.” Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., struck a similar note, saying those who plead their Fifth Amendment rights in front of his committee “in some cases are part and parcel guilty to what occurred.” Trump himself famously said, “The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”
Cheney was correct. It is important that the public — as well as the members of the select committee — understand exactly what it means that these witnesses are pleading the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects a person from being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” While the language of the amendment appears to apply only to criminal cases, the Supreme Court has said that it extends to civil and other proceedings if the testimony can be used against the person in a criminal case.
In a criminal proceeding, a defendant’s silence cannot be used against him. In fact, the jury can be instructed not to draw any inferences from the defendant's silence. But in a noncriminal proceeding, the invocation of the privilege is limited to those circumstances in which the person invoking the privilege reasonably believes that his disclosures could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that could be so used. But if invoked, an adverse inference can be drawn when “independent evidence exists of the fact to which the party refuses to answer.”
In the cases of Stone, Eastman and Clark, compelling independent evidence exists. Eastman is the author of a two-page memo outlining a scheme to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results Jan. 6. A Senate report details Clark’s “efforts to aid Trump” in "Trump’s relentless effort to coopt the Department Of Justice into overturning the 2020 election.”
No doubt both Clark and Eastman understand that in pleading the Fifth, they are admitting that they have reason to fear their testimony can be used against them in a criminal proceeding. Both are lawyers, and one is also a former law professor.
And criminal proceedings are likely. The select committee has said it intends to make criminal referrals where appropriate, and in fact, this is one of the reasons Eastman offered for refusing to comply with the select committee referral. The select committee has also stated that to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts, it will work with other investigatory agencies.
Pleading the Fifth and failing to show up do not exempt witnesses from contempt charges. For one thing, the Fifth Amendment is asserted on a question-by-question basis. In other words, a witness must first show up for the deposition and then decide line by line what answers could expose the person to criminal liability. This serves the purpose of targeting for investigators exactly where the witness’s potential criminal liability lies.
Stone flat out refused to be deposed. Eastman implied that he would also ultimately refuse. Clark initially failed to appear for his deposition. Because he invoked the Fifth Amendment, the select committee gave him another chance to appear. He failed to appear for that deposition as well, claiming illness. The committee postponed the hearing until Dec. 16.
These defendants can’t — and shouldn’t — be forced to talk once they exert their Fifth Amendment privilege to individual questions, but the public, the committee — and criminal investigators — can theorize about what that silence means.
We can also assume that their refusal to talk will not derail the work of the committee. Because of the Fifth Amendment, prosecutors are accustomed to putting cases together without help from defendants. More than 250 witnesses, including White House and other administration insiders, are cooperating. Records are often duplicative. An email, for example, can show up in the inboxes of lots of people. All you need is one willing to show the email to the committee.
The committee will keep pushing for the truth, with or without their testimony. -
2021-12-11 at 6:47 PM UTC in This is the 3rd consecutive $32 deep dish pizza I've gotten for free from Lou Malnati's...Do you?
-
2021-12-11 at 6:46 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
