Tab Content
  • Danke's Avatar
    Today, 08:10 AM
    Had to look that one up, still don't know what it means. Go back to bed.
    1290 replies | 119669 view(s)
  • Working Poor's Avatar
    Today, 08:01 AM
    Ron is right as rain as usual. :)
    1 replies | 42 view(s)
  • Working Poor's Avatar
    Today, 07:49 AM
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyle-j-dennis-md/buckminsterfullerene_b_1449974.html Thanks for the chart Zippy. I am pretty sure that they did not give the rats only water, oil or oil+ c60. They used 60 rats in 3 different groups. Not only 6 rats in each group. I did a search to see if there is any documented proof of death as a result of using c60 in humans or animals. I found a case of death in a person and their dog who were both using it for 2 weeks and both individuals died. But it was not a doctor's report that said the 2 individuals died it was just someone who knew someone who was taking it. It does seem like if it was killing animals and people there would be a lot of information about it especially from the dog and cat owners. It is not approved by the FDA which it probably won't be until someone comes up with a patent able formula that causes side effects and death. Maybe someone will put aspartame in it and get it approved.:nauseated: A lot of the different sites that talk about dosages say to take more in the beginning to load up. I will be giving my dog small doses and if she seems to be doing okay on it I may continue using it on her.. If I were to ever try it for myself I think I would put it on my skin for a few months before I ever take it internally and I would probably mix a few drops in another oil before using it straight out of the bottle. I will also be doing it this way with my dog. I have a very fast metabolism so anything ingested will act much quicker on me than people who have a slower metabolism. I usually put something new that I want to try on my skin first. My skin reacts fast to things too and, often I can taste what ever it is on my skin although not as intensely as if I put it in my mouth. I put things I want to try on band aids with a few drops of some kind of oil I have handy.
    9 replies | 235 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:18 PM
    The National Enquirer also broke the John Edwards story.
    10 replies | 204 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:10 PM
    How do you know they can't do that? Have you heard the tapes?
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:07 PM
    That ol' freedom lover John McCain tried to limit that, but SCOTUS nixxed it. A candidate can spend unlimited amounts of his/her own money on the campaign. Since you're geeky like me, note that McCain kept Senate filers from electronically filing. All filings had to go through the Senate first, via hard copy, then to the FEC As soon as he was in the ground, they finally changed the law so that Senate reports didn't have to be submitted via hard copy. But not before.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    21 replies | 151 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:15 PM
    Not, it is not inflatable. I order some resistors online since Radio Shack went under.
    1290 replies | 119669 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:59 PM
    Ya got that right, comrade. :mad: #policestate Betcha Boobus in KS and elsewhere will shrug this off as saaaaafety or some such nonsense, too. :P :down: :bigpoo:
    3 replies | 99 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:00 PM
    Nope. You can't use campaign funds to buy clothing unless we're talking about t-shirts for the staff and such. You can't buy food unless it's a dinner for a fundraiser or staff. You can't buy jewelry unless it's a gift to a non-family member. They have all been definitively addressed, both by statute and by precedent.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:16 PM
    "Because fuck your rights, mundane. We know you haz drugs. Open the fucking door." -Officer Friendly Heads up, @Anti Federalist https://www.ksn.com/news/kansas/court-officers-can-use-smell-to-justify-search-of-homes/1652786479?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KSN_TV&fbclid=IwAR1eEc-O4xQndcR2cd38efUumMENs8cffIXZYm-i2GiVyKqvnKnIomnkXbI TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - A divided Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that police can rely exclusively on their sense of smell to provide probable cause to do preliminary search of a home for drugs.The ruling came in a case where Lawrence police entered a man's apartment to search after saying they detected a strong smell of raw marijuana. Lawrence Hubbard appealed his conviction on misdemeanor drug charges, arguing that the Lawrence officers could not justify the search without a search warrant based only on their ability to smell. The state argued that probable the security sweep the officers conducted before getting a search warrant was appropriate to ensure no one inside Hubbard's apartment destroyed possible evidence in the case. The Topeka Capital-Journal reports the court ruled Friday on a 4-3 vote.
    3 replies | 99 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:12 PM
    I'd abolish all the spending restrictions. But you should stop using Adams' Botox and clothing examples, because the law (which exists whether or not we agree with it) clearly addresses those issues. This isn't that. This also is WHY analogies suck.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:03 PM
    We have not heard the recordings, so we don't know what he did or said.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • AuH20's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:40 PM
    Great idea until gas is $8 per gallon. This may not be what it seems. And this coming from someone who is not a fan of the Saudis.
    17 replies | 266 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:32 PM
    This all raises the uncomfortable issue of trustworthiness. The way things are going these days (and have been since 5000 BCE) everyone is so crooked and full of lies, it becomes impossible to know who is telling truth, lies, and most deleterious of all, deceptive mixes of the two. I don't trust the Chinese to the end of my nose. They are nasty, vile people. But so are we. So in the end, humanity is just what it is. We appear incapable or unwilling to escape that which we are, so perhaps we should just put the pedal to the metal and go for broke without all the nonsense pretenses of nobility.
    6 replies | 297 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:53 PM
    Those Indians are party animals! Did ItsBack attend?
    2 replies | 58 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:48 PM
    Send them to San Clemente Island. :D
    34 replies | 395 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:41 PM
    Ah. I see where I lost you. The money was donated but not to the campaign. It never went through the campaign coffers, so it was never campaign money, so he was never charged with embezzling campaign funds for personal gain. He was charged with failing to report the money as campaign donations, and also failing to report the expenditures. He was acquitted on one charge and the jury hung on the other counts. So at this phase, the money was never campaign money.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:25 PM
    i just saw this tribute to Shemdog a 2016 rally.
    107 replies | 10515 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:21 PM
    I do not have questions about the Edwards case. (Sadly, neither do you.) Both parties had relationships with Edwards that predated the campaign. I am just patiently trying to explain why the Edwards scenario bears some similarities to the Trump scenario. In the Edwards case, the alleged violations were multi-pronged. If Trump used his own money, then there's no excessive contribution violation, which was alleged to have been triggered in the Edwards case when he accepted the money (via a third party.) But the questions about the expenditures is the same: Were the donations for the purpose of hiding the affair from his family or was the sole purpose to influence the campaign. Neither of us know what is on the Cohen recordings, so neither of us know the answer to that question.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • Todd's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:13 PM
    I guess you could call him a one hit wonder with the fist song....but so many were good.
    233 replies | 6699 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:04 PM
    Edwards was aquitted on one count, the jury hung on the other 5 counts. And I'm not clear as to why you think that Edwards was using campaign money. He was taking money from 2 wealthy donors and funneling it to Ms Hunter.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:56 AM
    I think the biggest point to be made here is that this has absolutely nothing to do with Russia, which is what Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:45 AM
    Having dealt with the FEC, they're pretty easy to get along with. They do require compliance to the laws but they never seem hostile when I've dealt with them. I would guess they would call this a personal expense and move on. But again, we do not have all the evidence. And I seem to recall that Cohen recorded his meetings with Trump. And I am not a lawyer but i think that attorney-client privilege does not apply when they are colluding to commit a crime. That's quite a conundrum.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:40 AM
    I do not want to trigger Dannno, but I think we can also make a case that Melania knew he was a philanderer before they married, though. It would be helpful to find a history of hush-money payments that pre-dated the campaign.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:32 AM
    You seem to be emotionally invested in this outcome. The reason i brought up John Edwards is because that's a very similar case. As a matter of logic, it does not matter where the money came from because a candidate can make unlimited donations to the campaign. I don't disagree that the whole thing is ridiculous, but I am not going to assume any outcome at this point. I don't have all the evidence. Neither do you.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:58 AM
    Apparently I also know a little more about Adams' methods and the tells he looks for than you do as well, then. Like I said, you might want to look into those things rather than shooting from the hip like that. I did not answer the question about Botox because nobody is alleging that Trump did not report his Botox. As for clothing, if they are donated then the candidate has to report them. By statute, candidates are prohibited from using campaign funds to purchase clothing. Therefore, clothing purchases should not be reported as a campaign contribution. Quoting from the manual here, since they state it pretty succinctly. This paragraph is at the end of the section that talks about food, rent, tuition payments, travel expense. There's a long list of questions that are already answered, and for items that are ambiguous; I am fairly confident that the commission would find that Botox would qualify as a personal use expense. Thanks for asking. I am happy to explain what the laws are.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:51 AM
    If you read the article, that's sort of the point they made. They cited searching NRA as an example. If you are doing that search from California you get much different result than you do in the Midwest. This inadvertently creates a bubble, where people are not exposed to anything new or different views.
    8 replies | 173 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:42 AM
    You should probably check out what Scott Adams says about analogies and how they can relate to cognitive dissonance. Check what he says about starting a sentence with the word so as well. Campaign finance is probably the one thing i know a lot more about than Scott Adams does. If the money was spent to influence an election, it is considered a campaign expense and is subject to all the laws pertaining to such. The case I have previously cited as a comparison is the John Edwards case. He was ultimately exonerated because his lawyers successfully argued that the money was spent primarily to conceal the affair from his wife, and the influence on the election was secondary.
    65 replies | 592 view(s)
More Activity

26 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    I thought you were banned
  2. View Conversation
    Thanks for your help in the past Bobby.

    I think you'll fit in better as a member than a mod.
  3. Tom Woods is Spam???
  4. View Conversation
    Hey man, what's w/ the forum spam?

    Title: Article: Tom Woods: How to Make History for Ron Paul
  5. View Conversation
    Hey Bobby!

    Why use the drudgetw referrer link instead of a direct link to politico?
  6. View Conversation
    hxxp://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/21/happy-presidents-day-comment-registration-is-open/

    Last time she trashed us (over Kokesh) there was much moaning that "we" didn't have people registered there to counter the points they put out.

    Pass it on to grown ups.
  7. View Conversation
    Thanks for that article. I enjoyed it.
  8. View Conversation
    Hi bobby,

    I'd like to buy Rothbard's book from you. What is your mailing address and I'll send the $10

    yum
  9. View Conversation
    Please help! I'm counting on RPF! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251175
  10. View Conversation
    As is the case with any online situation, opinions change over time (ideally). I have no idea why that thread was resurrected, but I'm glad it was so I could state my change of opinion.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 26
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
About bobbyw24

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
14,097
Posts Per Day
3.43
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
26
Most Recent Message
02-18-2013 11:40 PM
General Information
Last Activity
06-26-2014 10:08 AM
Join Date
09-10-2007
Referrals
2
Home Page
http://www.twitter.com/AbolishTheFed

122 Friends

  1. Acala Acala is offline

    Member

    Acala
  2. Adam Kokesh Adam Kokesh is offline

    Member

    Adam Kokesh
  3. AlexanderSnitker AlexanderSnitker is offline

    New Member

    AlexanderSnitker
  4. AlexMerced AlexMerced is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via AIM to AlexMerced
    • Send a message via Yahoo to AlexMerced
    AlexMerced
  5. American Nationalist
  6. american.swan american.swan is offline

    Member

    american.swan
  7. amy31416 amy31416 is offline

    Member

    amy31416
  8. angelatc angelatc is offline

    Member

    angelatc
  9. Aratus Aratus is offline

    Member

    Aratus
  10. aravoth aravoth is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to aravoth
    aravoth
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 122
Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...