LaxPower Back-Up Stick

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:39 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:39 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:13 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:44 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:35 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:27 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:23 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:44 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:25 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:20 am "Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?

Nothing so fun as that. Helped make some chicken chili for a group of HBS women gathering at our place for lunch with my wife, made a fire, transplanted some pots, prepared a PPT presentation for next week, took a 45 minute Peloton ride...gonna watch the Ravens and Pats tonight.

Not a bad day, but rather been hiking the Adirondacks!

Did I miss it or have you answered the question?
It's actually a pretty easy one.

I did answer it...a couple weeks ago...no one cared then obviously

Sounds like a nice day

It was fine.
Wife appreciate me. Every day is a new opportunity to 'close the deal'...'always be closing'.

But come on, help us out.
Please answer the question. It's a really, really easy one.

good lord...what is the silly question again? That discussion was swallowed in the vortex a week or so ago. And I'll answer your question with a question...why is my opinion so important to you?

Sorry, it's literally at the beginning of this thread.

Seacoaster asked:

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

He then made sure to explain the question in more localized terms to illustrate such examples.

I might have asked it differently, more directly on point about a foreign entity, national security, and election law, but seacoaster boiled it down to a straightforward political corruption/abuse of power issue.

It's a pretty easy question.

Why were you asked?
Because a lot of your comments appeared to suggest you might actually answer quite differently than most of us would. Good, you're right, let's leave it right there.
But seacoaster gave you the opportunity to clarify. Opportunity? seacoaster already made a snarky comment regarding my POV on impeachment, at least a week or so ago, so why he asked again I haven't a clue.

so, yes or no? do a search if it's so important to you

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:19 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:16 pm Nothing on the steak dinner, eh?

I'll take that to me that I've made my point well.....

While you're here, would you care to tell me if you're ok with Trump asking the President of Ukraine to investigate a political rival?

I don't eat steak.

As I've said since day one (way back on LP), if Trump has broken the law, throw him in the slammer.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:46 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:39 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:39 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:13 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:44 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:35 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:27 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:23 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:44 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:25 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:20 am "Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?

Nothing so fun as that. Helped make some chicken chili for a group of HBS women gathering at our place for lunch with my wife, made a fire, transplanted some pots, prepared a PPT presentation for next week, took a 45 minute Peloton ride...gonna watch the Ravens and Pats tonight.

Not a bad day, but rather been hiking the Adirondacks!

Did I miss it or have you answered the question?
It's actually a pretty easy one.

I did answer it...a couple weeks ago...no one cared then obviously

Sounds like a nice day

It was fine.
Wife appreciate me. Every day is a new opportunity to 'close the deal'...'always be closing'.

But come on, help us out.
Please answer the question. It's a really, really easy one.

good lord...what is the silly question again? That discussion was swallowed in the vortex a week or so ago. And I'll answer your question with a question...why is my opinion so important to you?

Sorry, it's literally at the beginning of this thread.

Seacoaster asked:

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

He then made sure to explain the question in more localized terms to illustrate such examples.

I might have asked it differently, more directly on point about a foreign entity, national security, and election law, but seacoaster boiled it down to a straightforward political corruption/abuse of power issue.

It's a pretty easy question.

Why were you asked?
Because a lot of your comments appeared to suggest you might actually answer quite differently than most of us would. Good, you're right, let's leave it right there.
But seacoaster gave you the opportunity to clarify. Opportunity? seacoaster already made a snarky comment regarding my POV on impeachment, at least a week or so ago, so why he asked again I haven't a clue.

so, yes or no? do a search if it's so important to you

I've been resisting saying this, tech, as I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's pretty darn cowardly not to just answer the question clearly.

And, if you'd actually answer 'no', I'd like to understand why.

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:51 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:46 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:39 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:39 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:13 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:44 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:35 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:27 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:23 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:44 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:25 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:20 am "Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?

Nothing so fun as that. Helped make some chicken chili for a group of HBS women gathering at our place for lunch with my wife, made a fire, transplanted some pots, prepared a PPT presentation for next week, took a 45 minute Peloton ride...gonna watch the Ravens and Pats tonight.

Not a bad day, but rather been hiking the Adirondacks!

Did I miss it or have you answered the question?
It's actually a pretty easy one.

I did answer it...a couple weeks ago...no one cared then obviously

Sounds like a nice day

It was fine.
Wife appreciate me. Every day is a new opportunity to 'close the deal'...'always be closing'.

But come on, help us out.
Please answer the question. It's a really, really easy one.

good lord...what is the silly question again? That discussion was swallowed in the vortex a week or so ago. And I'll answer your question with a question...why is my opinion so important to you?

Sorry, it's literally at the beginning of this thread.

Seacoaster asked:

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

He then made sure to explain the question in more localized terms to illustrate such examples.

I might have asked it differently, more directly on point about a foreign entity, national security, and election law, but seacoaster boiled it down to a straightforward political corruption/abuse of power issue.

It's a pretty easy question.

Why were you asked?
Because a lot of your comments appeared to suggest you might actually answer quite differently than most of us would. Good, you're right, let's leave it right there.
But seacoaster gave you the opportunity to clarify. Opportunity? seacoaster already made a snarky comment regarding my POV on impeachment, at least a week or so ago, so why he asked again I haven't a clue.

so, yes or no? do a search if it's so important to you

I've been resisting saying this, tech, as I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's pretty darn cowardly not to just answer the question clearly.

And, if you'd actually answer 'no', I'd like to understand why.

Cowardly?...you're such a joke at times

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:48 pm Here it is: his answer is, he doesn't care.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:19 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:16 pm Nothing on the steak dinner, eh?

I'll take that to me that I've made my point well.....

While you're here, would you care to tell me if you're ok with Trump asking the President of Ukraine to investigate a political rival?

I don't eat steak.

As I've said since day one (way back on LP), if Trump has broken the law, throw him in the slammer.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:51 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:51 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:46 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:39 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:39 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:13 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:44 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:35 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:27 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:23 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:44 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:25 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:20 am "Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?

Nothing so fun as that. Helped make some chicken chili for a group of HBS women gathering at our place for lunch with my wife, made a fire, transplanted some pots, prepared a PPT presentation for next week, took a 45 minute Peloton ride...gonna watch the Ravens and Pats tonight.

Not a bad day, but rather been hiking the Adirondacks!

Did I miss it or have you answered the question?
It's actually a pretty easy one.

I did answer it...a couple weeks ago...no one cared then obviously

Sounds like a nice day

It was fine.
Wife appreciate me. Every day is a new opportunity to 'close the deal'...'always be closing'.

But come on, help us out.
Please answer the question. It's a really, really easy one.

good lord...what is the silly question again? That discussion was swallowed in the vortex a week or so ago. And I'll answer your question with a question...why is my opinion so important to you?

Sorry, it's literally at the beginning of this thread.

Seacoaster asked:

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

He then made sure to explain the question in more localized terms to illustrate such examples.

I might have asked it differently, more directly on point about a foreign entity, national security, and election law, but seacoaster boiled it down to a straightforward political corruption/abuse of power issue.

It's a pretty easy question.

Why were you asked?
Because a lot of your comments appeared to suggest you might actually answer quite differently than most of us would. Good, you're right, let's leave it right there.
But seacoaster gave you the opportunity to clarify. Opportunity? seacoaster already made a snarky comment regarding my POV on impeachment, at least a week or so ago, so why he asked again I haven't a clue.

so, yes or no? do a search if it's so important to you

I've been resisting saying this, tech, as I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's pretty darn cowardly not to just answer the question clearly.

And, if you'd actually answer 'no', I'd like to understand why.

Cowardly?...you're such a joke at times

So, answer the question, tech.

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:53 pm
Keep digging a fan, you'll find it. Here's a clue..."context and intent"...remember that conversation? No, of course not.

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:55 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:51 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:51 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:46 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:39 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:39 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:13 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:44 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:35 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:27 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:23 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:44 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:25 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:20 am "Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?

Nothing so fun as that. Helped make some chicken chili for a group of HBS women gathering at our place for lunch with my wife, made a fire, transplanted some pots, prepared a PPT presentation for next week, took a 45 minute Peloton ride...gonna watch the Ravens and Pats tonight.

Not a bad day, but rather been hiking the Adirondacks!

Did I miss it or have you answered the question?
It's actually a pretty easy one.

I did answer it...a couple weeks ago...no one cared then obviously

Sounds like a nice day

It was fine.
Wife appreciate me. Every day is a new opportunity to 'close the deal'...'always be closing'.

But come on, help us out.
Please answer the question. It's a really, really easy one.

good lord...what is the silly question again? That discussion was swallowed in the vortex a week or so ago. And I'll answer your question with a question...why is my opinion so important to you?

Sorry, it's literally at the beginning of this thread.

Seacoaster asked:

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

He then made sure to explain the question in more localized terms to illustrate such examples.

I might have asked it differently, more directly on point about a foreign entity, national security, and election law, but seacoaster boiled it down to a straightforward political corruption/abuse of power issue.

It's a pretty easy question.

Why were you asked?
Because a lot of your comments appeared to suggest you might actually answer quite differently than most of us would. Good, you're right, let's leave it right there.
But seacoaster gave you the opportunity to clarify. Opportunity? seacoaster already made a snarky comment regarding my POV on impeachment, at least a week or so ago, so why he asked again I haven't a clue.

so, yes or no? do a search if it's so important to you

I've been resisting saying this, tech, as I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's pretty darn cowardly not to just answer the question clearly.

And, if you'd actually answer 'no', I'd like to understand why.

Cowardly?...you're such a joke at times

So, answer the question, tech.

or else...

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:00 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:53 pm
Keep digging a fan, you'll find it. Here's a clue..."context and intent"...remember that conversation? No, of course not.

Nope. That's your opinion on whether or not you think what Trump did was impeachable.

That's not what Mdlax asked you about.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:17 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:50 pm
This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:00 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:53 pm
Keep digging a fan, you'll find it. Here's a clue..."context and intent"...remember that conversation? No, of course not.

Nope. That's your opinion on whether or not you think what Trump did was impeachable.

That's not what Mdlax asked you about.

Trinity wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:17 pm Schiff is so unfair, telling the story in order.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:18 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:17 pm Schiff is so unfair, telling the story in order.

Except when he divulges to the media his version of parts of the testimony, days before the transcript is released.
...while prohibiting other HPSCI members from doing the same.

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:52 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:18 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:17 pm Schiff is so unfair, telling the story in order.

Except when he divulges to the media his version of parts of the testimony, days before the transcript is released.
...while prohibiting other HPSCI members from doing the same.

I'm not sure you are correct about this. The witnesses' opening statements were released, which I think was officially sanctioned. I concede I haven't compared the "leaked" info to the statements to see if anything of consequence was leaked that wasn't in the statements. If that has been the case, I am willing to be proven wrong.

Schiff can try to prohibit the Rs from divulging snippets of testimony, but what effective power does he have to do that? Everybody leaks in Washington. That's the way it is. I like it when a leak helps the side I support. I don't like it when a leak hurts my side. Just as I like a ref's call that favors my team and don't like a call that favors the opponent. C'est la vie.

Wags have observed that the reason the Rs haven't leaked anything a witness has said is because there has been no testimony helpful to Trump. I suspect that is largely true. But we now have two transcripts. Is there anything in either that would have been "leak worthy" to the Rs? If not, isn't this much ado about nothing?

I actually think the Dems "attempt" to keep these depositions confidential is kinda silly. The stated reason is to prevent succeeding witnesses from knowing what prior witnesses said so they won't be able to line up their testimony. First of all, if you are going to release witness statements, you have largely defeated that purpose. Second, I presume the witnesses are free to tell anyone they want what they testified to (like a grand jury witness). Third, the Rs on the committee no doubt have given nightly debriefings to White House counsel who then could tip off any friendly witnesses.

I danced on the day @Rand Paul was beaten up by his wealthy neighbor.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:13 pm At the end of the day a Fan it does not matter what Trump said in a phone call is impeachable.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:12 pm The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical.