Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Post inauguration Trump:

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 126, 127, 128 ... 220, 221, 222  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:42 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a surprisingly good summation. Usually don't have time for that guy, but he's set his biases (mostly) to one side to look at this somewhat objectively. As was said some time ago, this whole thing is a big nothing burger. Trump is vulnerable on a lot of issues, including being vulnerable with his base but this theatre of Russia collusion isn't one of those issues.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:16 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

The corruption and criminality is crystal clear, but Mueller was never going to indict.

Not only did Mueller agree that Trump was a liar who had gleefully welcomed Russian and illegal interference in the election, something which alone should exempt Trump from the presidency, but one questioner led him to admit that his own report shows Trump had met the three conditions of obstruction before Mueller even realised what had happened, causing him to backpedal furiously after the fact.

Basically, Trump is a criminal whose sentence is being deferred — perhaps indefinitely — to save national face. But anyone who has read the report will already know that.

Via the BBC wrote:
The Democrat House judiciary committee chairman Jerold Nadler opened questioning on Wednesday by asking Mr Mueller whether Donald Trump had been accurate to claim he was "exonerated" by the special counsel report, to which Mr Muller replied with an emphatic "No".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49100778

Via the NYT wrote:
Asked if Mr. Trump “wasn’t always being truthful” or complete in his written answers under oath to the special counsel’s questions, Mr. Mueller responded, “I would say generally.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/mueller-testimony-takeaways.html

Via The Atlantic wrote:
As Mueller explains in the report, a charge of obstruction of justice requires three elements: an obstructive act, a nexus with an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. And in the report, Mueller’s team laid out several cases where President Donald Trump committed an obstructive act, in connection with an official proceeding, with what Mueller’s team concluded could be a corrupt intent.

But because Mueller had decided at the outset of his report that he could not and would not charge the president with crimes, thanks to Justice Department guidance and in the interest of fairness, Mueller did not make the otherwise obvious jump from laying out the ways that Trump’s behavior met the three-prong test to actually stating that Trump obstructed justice.

...

“Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Buck asked.

“Yes,” Mueller said.

“You believe that he committed—you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”

“Yes,” Mueller said. This time, he had no clarification to offer.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/mueller-wont-say-it-but-trump-clearly-obstructed-justice/594634/

Only a water carrier for Republican billionaires could get away with even a fraction of Trump's overall corruption. It's shaping up to be George W. Bush all over again: corrupt wrecker excites dim nationalists and extreme religionists, cuts taxes for the wealthy, stimulates markets and gets voted in twice — only to become the greatest shame in national history even as the nation declines further and everyone else is left with the bill.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:42 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

On the other hand, there’s this:

https://www.thenation.com/article/questions-mueller-russiagate/

Quote:
These Questions for Mueller Show Why Russiagate Was Never the Answer
Aaron Maté


“For two years, Democrats have waited on Robert Mueller to deliver a death blow to the Trump presidency,” The New York Times observed on July 20. “On Wednesday, in back-to-back hearings with the former special counsel, that wish could face its final make-or-break moment.” The very fact that Democrats had to subpoena Mueller in order to create this final moment should in fact be the final reminder of what a mistake it was for Democrats to have waited on him. If Mueller had incriminating information yet to share, or had been stymied from doing his work, or if Attorney General William Barr had somehow misrepresented his findings, then it stands to reason that Mueller would be welcoming the opportunity to appear before Congress, not resisting it. The reality is that Mueller’s investigation did not indict anyone on the Trump campaign for collusion with Russia, or even for anything related to the 2016 election. Mueller’s report found no evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy, and even undermined the case for it.

That said, there are unresolved matters that Mueller’s testimony could help clarify. Mueller claimed to have established that the Russian government conducted “a sweeping and systematic” interference campaign in order to elect Trump, yet the contents of his report don’t support that allegation. The Mueller report repeatedly excludes countervailing information in order to suggest, misleadingly, that the Trump campaign had suspect “links” and “ties” to people connected with Russia. And Mueller and other intelligence officials involved in the Russia probe made questionable investigative decisions that are worthy of scrutiny. To address these issues, here are some questions that Mueller could be asked.

I should note that missing from my list is anything related to obstruction. This topic will surely dominate Democrats’ line of questioning, but I view it as secondary and more appropriate for a law school seminar. The core issue of the Mueller investigation is alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s potential coordination with it. The obstruction issue only began to dominate after it was clear that Mueller had found no such conspiracy. Although the report does show examples of Trump’s stated intent to impede the Mueller investigation, the probe itself was unhindered.

There is also the fact that Mueller himself declined to make a call on obstruction, and even presented arguments that could be used to refute it. The obstruction section of the report notes that Trump was not “involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.” Although not dispositive, Mueller says that “the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.” In a joint statement with Barr, Mueller also made clear that “he was not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice.” Accordingly, I see no reason why congressional Democrats are so confident that Mueller found otherwise.

1. Why did you suggest that juvenile clickbait from a Russian troll farm was part of a “sweeping and systematic” Russian government interference effort?

The Mueller report begins by declaring that “[t]he Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” A few paragraphs later, Mueller tells us that Russian interference occurred “principally through two operations.” The first of these operations was “a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,” carried out by a Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).

The inference here is that the IRA was a part of the Russian government’s “sweeping and systematic” interference campaign. Yet Mueller’s team has been forced to admit in court that this was a false insinuation. Earlier this month, a federal judge rebuked Mueller and the Justice Department for having “improperly suggested a link” between IRA and the Kremlin. US District Judge Dabney Friedrich noted that Mueller’s February 2018 indictment of the IRA “does not link the [IRA] to the Russian government” and alleges “only private conduct by private actors.” Jonathan Kravis, a senior prosecutor on the Mueller team, acknowledged that this is the case. “[T]he report itself does not state anywhere that the Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency activity,” Kravis told the court.

Kravis is correct. The Mueller report did not state that the Kremlin was behind the social media campaign; it only disingenuously suggested it. Mueller also goes to great lengths to paint it as a sophisticated operation that “had the ability to reach millions of U.S. persons.” Yet, as we already know, most of the Russian social media content was juvenile clickbait that had nothing to do with the election (only 7 percent of IRA’s Facebook posts mentioned either Trump or Clinton). There is also no evidence that the political content reached a mass audience, and to the extent it reached anyone, most of it occurred after the election.

2. Are you still convinced that the GRU stole Democratic Party e-mails and transferred them to Wikileaks?

Between the initial July 2018 indictment of 12 GRU officers for the DNC e-mail theft and Mueller’s March 2019 report, some wiggle room appears. As I wrote this month for RealClearInvestigations, Mueller’s report uses qualified, vague language to describe the alleged GRU theft of Democratic Party e-mails, offers an implausible timeline for when Wikileaks may have received the e-mails from the GRU, and acknowledges that Mueller has not actually established how WikiLeaks acquired the stolen information.

3. Why didn’t you interview Julian Assange?

The uncertainty in Mueller’s account of how WikiLeaks received the stolen e-mails could possibly have been cleared up had Mueller attempted to interview Julian Assange. The WikiLeaks founder insists that the Russian government was not his source, and has repeatedly offered to speak to US investigators. Given that Assange received and published the stolen emails at the heart of Mueller’s investigation, his absence from Mueller’s voluminous witness sheet is a glaring omission.

4. Why did you imply that key figures were Russian agents, and leave out countervailing information, including their (more) extensive Western ties?

In the report, Mueller goes to great lengths to insinuate—without directly asserting—that two key figures in the Trump-Russia affair, Konstanin Kilimnik and Joseph Mifsud, acted as Kremlin agents or intermediaries. In the process, he omits or minimizes extensive evidence that casts doubt on their supposed Russia connections or makes clear their far more extensive Western ties. Mueller ignores the fact that the State Department described Kilimnik as a “sensitive source” who was regularly supplying inside information on Ukrainian politics. And Mueller emphasizes that Mifsud “had connections to Russia” and “maintained various Russian contacts,” but doesn’t ever mention that he has deep connections in Western intelligence and diplomatic circles.

Stephan Roh, a Swiss lawyer who has previously represented Mifsud, has maintained that Mifsud “is not a Russian spy but a Western intelligence co-operator.” Whatever the case, it is puzzling that Mueller emphasized Mifsud’s “connections to Russia” but ignored his connections to governments in the West. It’s also baffling that none of this was clarified when the FBI interviewed Mifsud in February 2017—which raises a whole new question for Mueller.

5. Why did you indict several Trump officials for perjury, but not Joseph Mifsud?

Adding to the puzzle surrounding Mifsud is Mueller’s revelation that Mifsud made false statements to FBI investigators when they interviewed him in February 2017. (Mifsud was in Washington, DC, for a conference sponsored by the State Department, yet one more Western “connection” that has gone overlooked). If Mifsud really was a Russian agent, then it was always a mystery why he was not arrested then, nor indicted since. And given that Mueller indicted others for lying to the FBI—foremost George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn—it is unclear why Mifsud was not.

6. Why did you omit the fact that Rob Goldstone’s offer to Donald Jr.—”official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”—was “publicist puff” (in other words, a lie)?

Mueller devotes a 13-page section to the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, where Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with Russian nationals after Trump Jr. was promised “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia.” Mueller says that “the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects,” but acknowledges that the Russians present “did not provide such information.”

What Mueller conspicuously does not acknowledge is that the information “that the Campaign anticipated receiving from Russia” was in fact fictional, and not from Russia. The offer came from British music publicist Rob Goldstone, who was tasked with securing the meeting at the request of his Russian pop star client, Emin Agalarov. In an act of what he called “publicist puff,” Goldstone said he invented the claims about “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” that would later be widely described as “the smoking gun” for collusion.

Goldstone told me this week that he was disappointed that Mueller chose to omit that critical part of his testimony. “I told them that I had used my PR, puffed-up flourish in order to get Don Jr.’s attention,” Goldstone said. Mueller’s decision to exclude that, Goldstone added, is a “shame.… It would have been opportunity to have closure on that.”

7. Did the Trump campaign receive any Russian government offers of assistance from anyone actually acting on behalf of the Russian government?

The Mueller report obscures the absence of contacts between Trump and Russian government intermediaries with ambiguous, suggestive assertions that the investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign,” or “identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.”

But the cases of Konstantin Kilimnik, Joseph Mifsud, and Rob Goldstone underscore a rather inconvenient fact for proponents of the theory that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government: There are zero documented cases of Trump officials interacting with actual Kremlin intermediaries making actual offers of assistance. The only Kremlin officials or representatives shown to interact with the Trump camp in any significant way before the election are the Russian ambassador who had routine encounters and a Kremlin assistant who declined Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s request for assistance on the failed Trump Tower Moscow project.

8. Were US intelligence officials compromised by Russophobia?

Key US officials behind the Russia investigation have made no secret of their animus towards Russia. “I do always hate the Russians,” Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer on the Russia probe, testified to Congress in July 2018. “It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life.” As he opened the FBI’s probe of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russians in July 2016, FBI agent Peter Strzok texted Page: “**** the cheating motherfucking Russians… Bastards. I hate them… I think they’re probably the worst. $$%^%%$ conniving cheating savages.” Speaking to NBC News in May 2017, former director of national intelligence James Clapper explained why US officials saw interactions between the Trump camp and Russian nationals as a cause for alarm: “The Russians,” Clapper said, “almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned.” In a May interview with Lawfare, former FBI general counsel Jim Baker, who helped oversee the Russia probe, explained the origins of the investigation as follows: “It was about Russia, period, full stop.… When the [George] Papadopoulos information comes across our radar screen, it’s coming across in the sense that we were always looking at Russia.… we’ve been thinking about Russia as a threat actor for decades and decades.”

The fixation with Russia was so great that, as The New York Times revealed in January, on top of the FBI’s initial probe in the summer of 2016, the bureau opened a second probe in May of 2017 over whether or not Trump himself was “working on behalf of Russia against American interests.” The Times story makes no allusion to any evidence underlying the FBI’s concern. Instead, we learn that FBI was “disquieted” by a “constellation of events,” all public:

“Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.”

This account is remarkable not just because it shows that the FBI opened up an extraordinary investigation of the president of the United States as agent of Russia based on its interpretation of public events. It also shows that their interpretation of those public events involved several errors—Trump’s July 2016 comment was a joke, and the story about the GOP platform change was overblown (and later undermined in practice when Trump sold the weapons to Ukraine, a move President Obama had opposed).

The fact that so many key officials carry such xenophobic animus toward Russia—to the point where they felt compelled to act on erroneous interpretations of public events—raised legitimate questions about whether their personal biases influenced their professional decisions.

The same could be asked about the influential media and political voices who, despite the absent evidence and sheer absurdity of their conspiracy theory, elevated Russiagate as the dominant political issue of the Trump presidency. Whatever questions they may have left for Mueller, the now former special counsel and savior figure has made clear that he is not the answer.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Bucks5 Capricorn

Nicky D - Parting the red sea


Joined: 23 Mar 2002


PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:39 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

A little girl leans into a lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

A biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings the girl to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and bravest thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.’

The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right.'

The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page. So, what do you do for a living, and what political affiliation do you have?'

The biker replies "I'm a U.S. Marine, a Republican and I voted for Trump".

The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads on the front page:

** U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT & STEALS HIS LUNCH. **

And THAT pretty much sums up the left stream media's approach to the news these days...

_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:58 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The marine then turned around with a wink and said “My name is Wayne. John Wayne.” Suddenly, a bald eagle flew over and perched on his shoulder, and he turned his horse around and galloped off into the sunset to the tune of The Star-Spangled Banner, leaving the atheist left-wing pro-evolution college professor lost for words. And then the whole bus clapped.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:17 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^Haha.

Great, a children's parable from the Church of Facebook Patriots for the Lord's Holy Army on Earth. Where do I sign up?

The most important point to keep in mind by a country mile is that if an Australian politician gleefully accepted, say, Indonesian interference in an election, or associated with that many criminal lowlifes, or installed unqualified relatives in extremely serious positions of government, or interfered in an investigation, or directly punished companies and impacted markets with tweets, or received business patronage from those trying to influence government, he or she would be...a fictional character.

Nothing at all changes this basic reality. And there will eventually be an accounting of it when the suspension of disbelief collapses, as happened with George W.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:31 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Supreme Court rules Trump can use Pentagon funds for the wall. It's going up.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1154883345546928128?s=19
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:46 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

There's nothing untoward about countries policing their borders thoroughly. This would seem a basic managerial necessity.

However, immigration-related policy can be enormously destructive when it incites groupist hatred and protectionism, and causes political misdirection. And, unfortunately, that is what's happening here.

There's a strong whiff of decline about pretty much everything Trump does. The limits of power dawned with George W's failures, and now the white flag has been unfurled with Trump, a lurid symbol of American decay and corruption.

Imagine if all those trillions of dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan forward were directed towards (1) influencing countries like China, Brazil, Turkey and Nigeria in the interests of mutual betterment and progress; (2) depriving destabilising terrorists and despots of funding by moving the world off fossil fuels; and (3) providing proper healthcare, income protection and decent employment at home. A discipline too far, apparently.

It's like watching the management of a floundering company make panicked decisions which merely announce its demise.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:40 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Wokko wrote:
Supreme Court rules Trump can use Pentagon funds for the wall. It's going up.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1154883345546928128?s=19


“Who’s going to pay for it?”
“The Americans”

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Skids Cancer

Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.


Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175

PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:49 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Record 157,288,000 Employed in July

“The number of people employed in the United States hit a record 157,288,000 in July, according to the employment report released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,” Terence Jeffrey reports for CNSNews.

“That was up 283,000 from the 157,005,000 employed in June.” The unemployment rate also held steady in July at 3.7 percent—a near-half century low.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/westwingreads/

_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:59 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Seriously - you're posting links to actual White House press releases, now?

Or is this some sort of joke site?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Jezza Taurus

2023 PREMIERS!


Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:42 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
Seriously - you're posting links to actual White House press releases, now?

Or is this some sort of joke site?

Says the guy who constantly posts links from The Guardian Laughing

_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:21 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The quality of the Guardian's reportage is - and has always been - outstanding. Some of you need to learn to distinguish between the fellow-traveller opinion pieces and the reporting. There are plenty of extraordinarily important news items that only get attention in the Guardian.

And, yes, of course I post links to the Guardian's opinion pieces. I do so because I know how irritated some of you are by it.

Most intelligent Australians over 40 grew up expecting to get the actual news from the Guardian (Weekly) because most of the important news wasn't available elsewhere. The way many of you deride content merely because it is in the Guardian does not reflect on the Guardian.

For a classic example of that, have a look at the reference to BHP's change of position at the top of page 17 of the "Climate Change-Denying Ididots" thread. The Guardian was, at the time, the only place where that news was being reported that wasn't behind a paywall. The reportage was plainly correct - as BHP's own press release demonstrated - but one of us attacked wpt for linking to the Guardian. I had a broad look to see whether that was reported as news anywhere else. I could not then find it. I was going to post a Breitbart link to the same news for fun - but no such reportage existed. That's the importance of proper in-depth reporting about significant matters - many of them are only mentioned in the Guardian. What you do about investigating an issue once you know about it is in your own business.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:18 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I did not attack WPT. I like him, I think we get along well plus he's bigger than me and would run me over on his bicycle.

If no other mainstream news source reports something that the Guardian does, does that mean that they are leading edge in investigative journalism or that they report stuff that fits their bias that other less biased (or more biased the other way) sources don't consider worth publication?

News sources play to their consumer base. The Guardian knows who it's readership is, as do all the others. There's very few news sources that report things straight down the line, factually.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Skids Cancer

Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.


Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175

PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:49 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

No matter the source, the fact remains.

Trump has overseen record levels of employment, and the economy continues to grow.

Suck it up bitch Wink

_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 126, 127, 128 ... 220, 221, 222  Next
Page 127 of 222   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group