With Comey, I have the same question as George Stuffinenvelopes had in the interview: why did Comey bloody up HRC? (George wanted her to win, I wanted her to lose, but we were both surprised.) Since Comey was gonna exonerate her later in the speech ("no reasonable prosecutor" baloney) why present enough evidence that a conviction is a slam-dunk? Why just not present the evidence?
I am surprised, but of course grateful, that he did "bloody her up".
I mean "why not just skip the evidence".
I think astragalus works pretty well for anti-aging. But instead they kill babies and probably never tried herbs. Fuckheads.
This isn't "racism" in any conservative sense. Here we argue about affirmative action, policing issues, etc. and some people in those debates are called racists.
It has nothing to do with farming black people harvesting their organs, destroying their cities. Calling that "racism" can end up terribly smearing those who merely have a point of view on current overt political debates in the USA and some other countries.
Obama admin worked for China, did everything to open our secrets to them.
I had assumed Van Wyck was a law firm, when some anon posted their client list. They put on "edible schoolyard" dinners!?
oh come on, it was included in my education, because I had a good 10th grade history course.
Our education isn't that bad, maybe some people don't pay attention enough.
heh yeah I could always do it, just that this is the first time in my life that someone's wanted me to do it.