See Donald walk.
Walk, Donald, walk.
See Donald walk down the ramp.
Oh, Donald! You walk funny!
See Donald drink.
See Donald sip water from a glass.
Sip, Donald, sip.
See Donald sip from a glass using only one hand!
Is that a sippy cup, Donald?
See Donald read.
Hear Donald read.
Read, Donald, read.
No, there are no pictures.
Just words, Donald.
Don't tear the pages, Donald!
Trump says the report is a "hoax".
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.
of the anti-mask screamers can tell us.
local government officials that "By God!" NO ONE is gonna make them wear a face mask.
(As an aside, the adjective "local" has become unnecessary when used in front of "government". "Local" is now the only government we have.)
These brainless tools insist that their "rights" would be violated and their "liberty" infringed by a mask requirement and that "the government has no business" weighing in on such a "personal decision".
A few questions for these children:
If your family is T-boned by a drunk who ran a red light, is it "ok" if the drunk insists it is his "right" to drive drunk and that "the government has no business" telling him where to stop?
Is it ok with you if the man who lives next door to your grandkids' daycare playground claims a "right" to let his pair of Bengal tigers out to frolic in his unfenced yard?
If the nursing home where your parent or grandparent resides hires unlicensed nurses, addicts and felons to staff the place, is it the "government's business" to shut them down?
Some people believe it should be their "personal decision" which side of the highway they drive on, whether they can cook meth in your apartment building and how young their sexual partners are. Are you one of them?
Wear a damn mask and stop whining about it or we are going to tattoo "I'm a big ol' DUMBASS!" on your forehead!
Personally, I totally understand that wearing a mask just "isn't you". You are a master communicator and anyone knows that effective communication depends not just on what is said, but how it is said. The expression on a speaker's face can give depth and nuance to mere words that only an orator of your skill would fully appreciate.
So, my suggestion is that you obtain one of those clear plastic bags that is large enough to fit over your head without mussing your hair. Slip it on before your next public appearance and then---this is vital---use duct tape below your collar line to form an airtight seal around your neck. Button your collar, cinch up your tie and there you have it!
Virus can't get in; virus can't get out. And, you can see and be seen!
I think I can guarantee that in no time at all, no one will be bugging you to wear one of those silly masks!
You're welcome, sir.
the fact that nothing will get better---nothing will get better---as long as Trump is in the White House IS going to bite us in the ass and the wound may be fatal.
BEFORE NOVEMBER, if it has not already happened, people we know---perhaps love---are going to die.
BEFORE NOVEMBER, the desperate cornered rat that is Trump, will lash out in ways we cannot even imagine and do his best to set American against American so that he can steal another election under cover of the chaos.
BEFORE NOVEMBER, US troops and assets will be deployed on any pretext he can cobble together so that his campaign can play the "rally round the flag" card.
The fate of our nation---our children, our grandchildren---may well be decided before we ever get to the polls in November.
Ms McEnany declares that they "continue to evaluate" the intelligence regarding Russian bounty payments for killing US soldiers. This, she claims, is necessary because there is "no consensus" as to "the underlying allegations".
"Underlying allegations"---what could this mean?
That Russia is paying insurgents to kill our soldiers and Trump has done nothing about it for months after being briefed about it are not "underlying" allegations; they are THE allegations. Underlying allegations would be those bits and pieces of information which, taken together, support THE allegations.
Intelligence is much more art than science. It rarely yields any information that would be termed "certain". Pieces of info are collected, evaluated and either discarded or "ranked" at one of several levels of reliability. Human intelligence from source "A" may be considered "highly reliable" ( known source who has provided accurate info in the past ) while the same report received from "B" may be "possibly accurate" ( new informant, no history, motivation unclear ).
If "A" and "B" provided essentally the same "underlying" info about the Russian bounties, those in the Intel community considering the allegation of "A" would find it likely or probably true while those evaluating the same allegation made by "B" would be unwilling to recommend accepting B's uncorroborated word.
And, so, "voila!" There is "no consensus as to the underlying allegation."
Profile InformationMember since: 2002
Number of posts: 15,124
- 2023 (371)
- 2022 (1010)
- 2021 (902)
- 2020 (1085)
- 2019 (39)
- 2018 (3)
- March (3)
- 2017 (1)
- November (1)
- 2016 (1)
- November (1)