What is this new lie you're repeating over and over??
What evidence is there on Clinton that was missed in the never ending litany of investigations of her?
What evidence do you have Obama "pulled strings" for either? None that you could produce when I asked before....I seriously doubt you ever will address the question, because you prefer to spout nasty lies and hide when challenged.

I'll go out on a limb and say Obama didn't intervene. Prove me wrong with evidence and fact.....try with innuendo and more baseless Trumpism, be prepared for a serious lambasting.

On the other hand, Trump's "friend like Obama" did unethically if not illegally intervene repeatedly and continuously in every way possible including some extremely unethical ways ....that friend being Trump himself.

Since this is word for word what you wrote to me in private including the silly capitalization, I'm guessing it's cut and paste from a right wing blogger and has zero basis in fact. You are serious about these accusations in private, not sure why you hit sarcasm here except out of embarrassment.

As you know, we MADE money (>$12 million?) proving his cabinet was a criminal organization filled with dozens of felons....a GREAT deal by any measure. Gotta spend money to make money, and we MADE major money on the Trump investigation.

We spent well over $30 million to actually prove Clinton's innocence in just one of many instances Republicans created ridiculous politically motivated investigations, and you support spending tens-hundreds of millions more to get her for....well, you don't even know what. Republicans spent $1.5 trillion per year permanently giving Trump a tax break, you have no fiscal conservatives left in your party and only whine about spending when it's politically expedient.

Only a total proud moron could get "proven innocent" from "this report does not exonerate Mr Trump"....are you a proud moron?

Being a monopoly or a near monopoly is not something that automatically makes a company detrimental to society.

What matters is if that monopoly was established with some kind of violence, or by pulling strings in Washington for political favors.

I don't see Luxottica doing any of that.

America is destroying its own business environment, I'm not surprised when american companies are gobbled up by foreign multinationals.

@RedSky if anti-competitive behaviour automatically equals market failure, are you saying worker unions are bad for the market? Because I wouldn't, I think unions are quite useful.

So defacing or destroying books is a good thing?

>> ^kceaton1:
I would just remove the whole old testament. Just so everybody knows if they want to do the whole, "...we only use the New Testament now!", we can make sure they're not lying--which I think they usual are (... coughs creationism coughs ...).
To be honestly blunt.
/Good show Sir Ian; it truly bugs me for some reason that they feel compelled to put THAT in all the rooms. Not only does it cheapen it (which is fine and everything), but it's a mockery to everyone that doesn't follow it--which is a large amount of the world's population.
//I know they still use some of the OT, but it's fun to pull strings sometimes

I would just remove the whole old testament. Just so everybody knows if they want to do the whole, "...we only use the New Testament now!", we can make sure they're not lying--which I think they usual are (...*coughs* creationism *coughs*...).

To be honestly blunt.

/Good show Sir Ian; it truly bugs me for some reason that they feel compelled to put THAT in all the rooms. Not only does it cheapen it (which is fine and everything), but it's a mockery to everyone that doesn't follow it--which is a large amount of the world's population.
//I know they still use some of the OT, but it's fun to pull strings sometimes

Of course, if you assume everyone's dirty, then "pulling strings" just means getting some due process dropped on someone the law usually turns a blind eye to. Any player with enough connections and patience just needs to wait for something, anything, to come up on any given opponent and then see if they can get the legal system to act on that. Whatever it is that turns up - say, molestation - may well be a valid charge, but the response can be amped up as needed.

@dystopianfuturetoday I noticed a typo in the description, Blagojevich's arrest was on 12/9/2008, not 12/9/2010. You are right this video is from the day before his arrest.

I really can't buy the idea that Bank of America pulled strings to get him arrested, the FBI had been investigating and preparing a case against Blagojevich for 3 YEARS, it's not like they literally threw the charges together overnight.

And the Interpol arrest warrant against Julian Assange was issued on 11/20/2010, 9 days BEFORE Assange's interview with Forbes that lead to all of the speculation about the info he has against Bank of America. So they couldn't have been responsible for the warrant, or obviously for Julian's choice to surrender voluntarily to police custody.

I wouldn't be surprised if both Assange and Blagojevich pissed Bank of America right the hell off. But the dates of their arrest don't even quite rise to the level of coincidence. And motive alone would still be a poor reason to think that B of A was responsible. I'm sure they both have a vast list of enemies, as most politically important figures do.

He Seriously doesn't know where Spain is? I'd like to think he's just so dedicated to his preplanned pull-string answers he doesn't realize they don't fit the question, which is terrible in-of-itself, but not as dumb as not knowing where the freakin country is. I wish she'd asked him to name two countries that border Spain.

I googled around for self cooking meals, but didn't find anything like his pull string food packet, anybody know who makes those?

>The most important jobs are paid the least while the jobs that really dont mean shit in the end are paid the most. So law enforcement, military, teachers, firemen, and so on are shit out of luck. Its not like the safety and education of future generations means anything right. While rappers, athletes, and celebrities are payed shit tons of money cause in this country all we care about is entertainment.

Your idea of most important jobs funnily enough are largely government related. Do you not know by now that every governmental department is inefficient and very useless.
Why do you think entertainers are paid more? Because they are in a market where us as the consumers can choose what we spend our money on and how much these people get. There is nothing wrong with someone earning more than someone else. There is nothing wrong with businesses who earn money. The problem is when the corporations get into bed with the government and pull strings.

I mean it's subjective how much each person should be paid... If a teacher isn't very good I'd like to pay them less and if a cop is a moron like Rivieri, I'd also like to pay him less. At least it gives people incentive to be better at their jobs. At the moment, we are Zero say in how much we'd like to pay, which I believe is largely why there is this problem.

Imagine, if we must have government run law enforcement.
I would like to be the one to decide which police department I would like to give parts of my tax money to, or at least to withhold this month's money from particular departments. Current departments can be split into smaller more independent groups.
So in this case, I will withhold my money from the group that Rivieri comes from because I don't believe that they did the right thing by suspending with pay.
The cops who are good and know how to provide a good law enforcement service will get more money as they alienate themselves from the corrupt and poorly run groups.
If the police departments knew that what they did are held accountable by each and every one of us, they might treat us with a bit more fairness and respect, and vice versa.
It's very similar to how all other normal businesses work. You screw your customers, you will not survive. Provide a great service, you will get more respect, funding and higher salaries.

As for those who are saying OH! It's going to run riot if the government stopped providing law enforcement!!!
Just think for one moment. Of course people would still need law enforcement officers or at least security guards. If the government stopped providing the service, the public are no longer going to think that it's too expensive to get their own private security guards because they would get to keep more of the tax money. With a large demand of course the private market will fill the space in an INSTANT. And because it actually has an incentive to not treat their paying customers like crap.. guess what, customers are not going to be treated with respect and the officers will be much better at their jobs.

The best boot, is that one on the end of the contraption that has the pull-string.....