Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
A stupid phone was not available the last time I hot a new number.
I avoid google and amazon. What do you use them for? What do you require of them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
A stupid phone was not available the last time I hot a new number.
I avoid google and amazon. What do you use them for? What do you require of them?

---

Wow... really no stupid phones at all anymore?

It's been a while since I had a cell phone at all, but if things haven't advanced THAT far yet, you could always go on ebay and buy a used flip phone and just take the SIM card from your smartphone and put it in the flip phone.


Personally, I use Google quite a bit. Just the search engine on my home computers. But it has quite a lot of great uses to it. Amazon is probably where I do a majority of my purchasing. I don't buy much, but being on my budget I'm always looking for the best price, and usually Amazon is it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What's the diff between eBay and amazon?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The partisan gender gap among millennials is staggeringly large

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/22/17146534/millennial-gender-g
ap-partisan

Women born after 1980 favor Democrats 70-23.

Women are more Democratic than men, and younger voters are more Democratic than older ones. The former has been true for decades, and the latter is a trend that’s at least 10 or 15 years old. But a new Pew survey using a huge sample to allow for insight into demographic details shows that the intersection of these two trends is staggeringly large.

Among millennials, which Pew identifies as people born between 1981 and 1996, men lean toward Democrats by 8 percentage points — far and away a bigger tilt toward Democrats than older cohorts of men. But millennial women favor Democrats by a staggeringly large 70-23 margin.

That means that even as millennial men are the most Democratic-friendly cohort of men, the millennial gender gap is also by far the largest of any cohort. In the Silent Generation, women are 8 points more favorable to Democrats. Among boomers, it’s 10 points. Among Gen-Xers, it’s 11 points, and among millennials, it’s 21 points.

That’s driven by what seems to be an explosive change in millennial women’s political sentiments over just the past two or three years even while most other groups’ views have stayed relatively stable.

Young people are, of course, notoriously fickle midterm voters. So how much this shift in sentiment is translated into a shift in actual policy outcomes will hinge, critically, on whether this big bloc of younger women shows up in November. But it’s fair to say that while a certain amount of gender polarization is nothing new to the political system, the scale that we are now witnessing among younger people is unprecedented.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
After many years of limited success against long-term homelessness, Finland decided to adopt the US 'Housing First' model on a national scale.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
After many years of limited success against long-term homelessness, Finland decided to adopt the US 'Housing First' model on a national scale.

---

Houzing to solv the homeless problem? hqd u xunk?

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
After many years of limited success against long-term homelessness, Finland decided to adopt the US 'Housing First' model on a national scale.

---

Houzing to solv the homeless problem? hqd u xunk?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Unkl Skam providez homez for the homeless who earn it by committing a felony.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
After many years of limited success against long-term homelessness, Finland decided to adopt the US 'Housing First' model on a national scale.

---

Houzing to solv the homeless problem? hqd u xunk?

---

A Republican would exclude it as a solution, insisting that if only the homeless person would do this or that thing, whatever the first thing pops into the Republican's head, the problem would go away.

In Finland, they put a value on everyone and the penniless homeless are worth spending $$109,142 to build them a comfortable living space with a bathroom and a shared kitchen. The $109,000 is paid back to Finland in 6 years because Finnish government has reduced costs for police, courts, prison, social services, emergency room visits when the homeless have a permanent address.

Going in the opposite direction from Finland, in America, their bank account determines an American’s value. Since the homeless Americans don’t have money in the bank, they are not worth helping if it will cost $109,000.

Americans have been cruel to the homeless, even killing them, for centuries. Why change this tradition? Why buy the homeless a house? It can’t be done with taxes because Republicans would be upset by government helping the worthless homeless. Leave the homeless to the charities, not to the merciless local governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Histor
ical_background

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

You claim there is a savings due to the factor of "permanent address" - but that would not cause savings, and is not stated in the story.

From what I read, the savings comes from the centralized community, and the round-thr-clock care. The trained care negates the need for unnecessary emergency medical/police, and the whole group at the same address instead of dozens of dispersed locations, that seems to be where the saving lie.

Focusing on those elements, simulating a more independent and active version of "retirement home" could really be productive across many nations.

If it is shown to save the community money, I would expect many Republicans would agree with it. The ideas throwing away good money on the worthless are the ones Democraps will support - any excuse to waste Government funds.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You claim there is a savings due to the factor of "permanent address" - but that would not cause savings, and is not stated in the story.

From what I read, the savings comes from the centralized community, and the round-thr-clock care. The trained care negates the need for unnecessary emergency medical/police, and the whole group at the same address instead of dozens of dispersed locations, that seems to be where the saving lie.

Focusing on those elements, simulating a more independent and active version of "retirement home" could really be productive across many nations.

If it is shown to save the community money, I would expect many Republicans would agree with it. The ideas throwing away good money on the worthless are the ones Democraps will support - any excuse to waste Government funds.

---

You wrote: "If it is shown to save the community money, I would expect many Republicans would agree with it." You are too late, because it has already been shown to be true and it made no goddamn difference to the GOP.

Republicans strongly believe that no one has a right to a government benefit unless they have proved themselves to be deserving and worthy. Spending money on people who are NOT deserving and NOT worthy is something Republicans will NOT do, even if it would save money. Their hearts are opposed to the idea, calling the approach "public stupidity" rather than "public policy". But there is evidence that Housing First does work and does save money, just no evidence that any Republicans will ever support the idea once they understand what it is. It must be something in the GOP's DNA. https://endhomelessness.org/

http://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/housing-first-fa
ct-sheet.pdf

Permanent supportive housing has been found to be cost efficient. Providing access to housing generally results in cost savings for communities because housed people are less likely to use emergency services, including hospitals, jails, and emergency shelter, than those who are homeless.

One study found an average cost savings on emergency services of $31,545 per person housed in a Housing First program over the course of two years. Another study showed that a Housing First program could cost up to $23,000 less per consumer per year than a shelter program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First

Example of how a Republican would run a homeless program. Hopefully, you'd see how this program is designed to exclude people who are not worthy enough to be helped: Back on My Feet, a nonprofit which challenges homeless individuals to run over a 30-day period to boost self esteem and create a support network. Once they fulfill the requirement, workforce training and house support assistance are provided. (if you can't run, you get nothing because you are a worthless loser)
www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/2018/0326/She-gives-a-sens
e-of-community-and-purpose-to-homeless-through-a-running-club
b

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Not sure if you are intentionally avoiding my point. Perhaps your hatred of sensible Republicans is fogging your viewing device.

You have shown no indication that US Models of homeless housing would have less cost than none. US models seem to have dispersed addresses instead of centralized address/community.
Your only claim of savings is for one wasteful spending spree costing less or more than a different wasteful spending spree, both with equal lack of benefit.

A saving of $16,000 per year while wastefully spending $109,000 per year does not equal a cost savings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Not sure if you are intentionally avoiding my point. Perhaps your hatred of sensible Republicans is fogging your viewing device.

You have shown no indication that US Models of homeless housing would have less cost than none. US models seem to have dispersed addresses instead of centralized address/community.
Your only claim of savings is for one wasteful spending spree costing less or more than a different wasteful spending spree, both with equal lack of benefit.

A saving of $16,000 per year while wastefully spending $109,000 per year does not equal a cost savings.

---

The cost is NOT $109,000 per year per person. The cost is $109,000, for one time only, to build the shelter. And the shelter can be reused if the homeless person gets a job and is ambitious enough to move out. I noticed a character issue or a personality issue with Republicans at fireflyfans.net. The Republicans don't try to understand how something works. That's why JewelStaiteFan sees a $109,000 per year cost rather than a one-time only $109,000 investment. You aren't even trying before you launch into writing: "Perhaps your hatred of sensible Republicans is fogging your viewing device." Driving an idea into the head of a Republican is like driving on a dirt road that has mud a foot deep. The wheels spin and the idea gets stuck. Forward progress requires me to get dirty and push the idea real hard, through mile after mile of mud. I just don't have the energy to do that for Republicans. It is easier to let them stay stuck while I drive around them in my Caterpillar, waving my hat. Good luck to you, JewelStaiteFan, you old stuck-in-the-mud!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Stormy Daniels, this is a delicate subject, but do you have pictures of the President’s, shall we say, executive branch?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

So Anderson Cooper is the new Jerry Springer?
Sounds like Fake News 60 Minutes continues to uphold the finest traditions in yellow smut journalism.
Ho hum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Sins Trump haz a long history uv bragging about hiz sexual encounterz, wut iz it he iz obviously trying to hide about this wun?

Being a porn star, I prezoom that Stormy haz been with fairly well endowed men in the performans uv her job. Therefor, its likely that Spanky didnt compare favorably to them.

Hiz biggest fear: the public revelation that he haz a little dick. Thats also wut Putin iz dangling over hiz hed!

---

Aside from what Stormy Daniels may know about Trumps sexual habits, I think Trump is more afraid of the NDA unraveling. He has many of those type agreements with other women. If this one folds under scrutiny the dam may break. Add to that that his wife must be seriously considering the validity of her own prenup and leaving. Everyday she looks more and more like a fool for staying. She like the other women is another of Trumps victims.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol.

I'm sure she's a victim and didn't know that a powerful and rich man fools around when she married him for the wealth and power.

Stop calling people who aren't victims, victims.

Trump's wife is no more a victim that Clinton's wife was when he was cheating on her all the time.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol.

I'm sure she's a victim and didn't know that a powerful and rich man fools around when she married him for the wealth and power.

Stop calling people who aren't victims, victims.

Trump's wife is no more a victim that Clinton's wife was when he was cheating on her all the time.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Cheating on her?
That is a highly biased phrase for saying he serially raped and sexually assaulted women during his marriage.


I had not heard the news that any of the Mrs. Trumps have been attacking, undermining, suing, covering up the women that Trump had sex with.

Regarding public image, I'm sure that most of his voters were aware he has lived in New York, and when he had enough money to live anywhere he still remained in the City of Floozies. He has never been any Teddy Roosevelt. For a Billionaire in Wyoming, Iowa, Kentucky, Alabama, the image might not sustain the revelation of a harem or stable. But the sleaze of NYC was well known before the election. It's not like Democraps offered an alternative.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Security Clearance Attorney Sean M. Bigley represents clients worldwide in security clearance denials and revocations. He is a former investigator for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. He writes:

The more extreme the lengths a clearance holder goes to facilitate and hide the infidelity, the greater the security issue. [Trump has gone to the extreme, stopping just short of murdering Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to keep them quiet.]

I advise clearance holders involved in such situations to begin taking steps to untangle themselves from any ongoing secondary relationship and, most importantly, to immediately cut any financial ties to that individual (e.g. cash payments, purchases of gifts, or expenditures on rent – or acceptance thereof) that show dependency. From a security standpoint, issues surrounding infidelity can sometimes be mitigated with the passage of time and a showing that no dependency (financial, emotional, or otherwise) remains for either party.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/08/28/sex-lies-sf-86-causes-blackm
ail-among-clearance-holders/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Security Clearance Attorney Sean M. Bigley represents clients worldwide in security clearance denials and revocations. He is a former investigator for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. He writes:

The more extreme the lengths a clearance holder goes to facilitate and hide the infidelity, the greater the security issue. [Trump has gone to the extreme, stopping just short of murdering Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to keep them quiet.]

I advise clearance holders involved in such situations to begin taking steps to untangle themselves from any ongoing secondary relationship and, most importantly, to immediately cut any financial ties to that individual (e.g. cash payments, purchases of gifts, or expenditures on rent – or acceptance thereof) that show dependency. From a security standpoint, issues surrounding infidelity can sometimes be mitigated with the passage of time and a showing that no dependency (financial, emotional, or otherwise) remains for either party.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/08/28/sex-lies-sf-86-causes-blackm
ail-among-clearance-holders/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

It should be noted that nowhere in the article linked did Mr. Bigley once say that "Trump has gone to the extreme, stopping just short of murdering Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to keep them quiet." In fact, the article itself doesn't mention Trump or the position of President at all.

This was just Second putting his own spin on the article in a disingenuous way, with an outlandish claim and no citations.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Security Clearance Attorney Sean M. Bigley represents clients worldwide in security clearance denials and revocations. He is a former investigator for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. He writes:

The more extreme the lengths a clearance holder goes to facilitate and hide the infidelity, the greater the security issue. [Trump has gone to the extreme, stopping just short of murdering Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to keep them quiet.]

I advise clearance holders involved in such situations to begin taking steps to untangle themselves from any ongoing secondary relationship and, most importantly, to immediately cut any financial ties to that individual (e.g. cash payments, purchases of gifts, or expenditures on rent – or acceptance thereof) that show dependency. From a security standpoint, issues surrounding infidelity can sometimes be mitigated with the passage of time and a showing that no dependency (financial, emotional, or otherwise) remains for either party.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/08/28/sex-lies-sf-86-causes-blackm
ail-among-clearance-holders/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

It should be noted that nowhere in the article linked did Mr. Bigley once say that "Trump has gone to the extreme, stopping just short of murdering Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to keep them quiet." In fact, the article itself doesn't mention Trump or the position of President at all.

This was just Second putting his own spin on the article in a disingenuous way, with an outlandish claim and no citations.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Not sure if you overlooked something.
Trump is NOT a Clearance Holder. No President holds any Clearance, nor applies for any Clearance. Otherwise Clinton and Obama never would have been allowed to fill the seat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

All I was commenting on here was the disingenuous way that Second presented the story as if this guy were being interviewed about Trump when he wasn't. Also the conjecture that Trump did everything short of murdering women to hide it when there was no evidence provided for that claim.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Putting the Ex-Con in Conservatism
By Paul Krugman
March 26, 2018

In 2010 an explosion at a coal mine operated by Massey Energy killed 29 men. In 2015 Don Blankenship, the company’s former C.E.O., was sent to prison for conspiring to violate mine safety standards. In 2018, Blankenship appears to have a real chance at becoming the Republican candidate for senator from West Virginia.

Blankenship is one of four Republicans with criminal convictions running for office this year, several of whom may well win their party’s nominations. And there is a much broader list of Republican politicians facing credible accusations of huge ethical lapses who nonetheless emerged victorious in G.O.P. primaries, ranging from Roy Moore to, well, Donald Trump.

To be sure, there have been plenty of crooked Democrats. But usually the revelation of their crookedness ended their political careers. What’s striking about today’s Republican landscape is that people who are obvious crooks, con men or worse continue to attract strong support from the party’s base. Moore narrowly lost in Alabama’s special election, but he received 91 percent of the votes of self-identified Republicans.

And Trump, although unprecedentedly unpopular for a president at this stage of his term, continues to receive overwhelming support from the G.O.P. base. Some Republican politicians have openly admitted that this makes the party’s congressional wing unwilling to hold Trump accountable for even the most spectacular malfeasance, up to and including possible collusion with a hostile foreign power.

What’s going on here? I don’t think it’s an accident that the modern G.O.P. contains so many crooks and that these crooks seem to thrive in intraparty politics. On the contrary, the success of people like Blankenship — or Trump — was an inevitable consequence of the political strategy Republicans have followed for decades. For the simple truth is that ever since Reagan, Republicans have basically played a con game on American voters.

Their sustained, invariant agenda has been upward redistribution of income: cutting taxes on the rich while weakening the social safety net. This agenda is unpopular: Only a small minority of Americans wants to see tax cuts for the wealthy, and an even smaller minority wants cuts to major social programs. Yet Republicans have won elections partly by denying the reality of their policy agenda, but mainly by posing as defenders of traditional social values — above all, that greatest of American traditions, racism.

And this sustained reliance on the big con has, over time, exerted a strong selection effect both on the party’s leadership and on its base. G.O.P. politicians tend disproportionately to be con men (and in some cases, con women), because playing the party’s political game requires both a willingness to and a talent for saying one thing while doing another. And the party’s base consists disproportionately of the easily conned — those who are easily fooled by claims that Those People are the problem and don’t notice how much the true Republican agenda hurts them.

The point is that Trumpism was more or less fated to happen. Trump’s crude racism and blatant dishonesty are only exaggerated versions of what his party has been selling for decades, while his substantive policy agenda — slashing taxes on corporations and the wealthy, taking health care away from lower-income families — is utterly orthodox.

Even his protectionism is less of a departure from Republican norms than people imagine. George W. Bush put tariffs on steel, while Reagan limited imports of Japanese autos. Cutting taxes on the rich is a fundamental G.O.P. principle; free trade isn’t.

More at www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/opinion/conservatism-honesty-crime-gop.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

All I was commenting on here was the disingenuous way that Second presented the story as if this guy were being interviewed about Trump when he wasn't. Also the conjecture that Trump did everything short of murdering women to hide it when there was no evidence provided for that claim.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

You've turned into a regular little philosopher, haven't you? So careful and precise, now using big words. I will give you something to philosophize about, something you can complain about not meeting your rigorous standards. I can not say what is really happening with Trump because that fucker won't tell the truth about anything and Robert Mueller is in no hurry to inform us of what the truth is, since Trump will fire Mueller on the day the truth is even partially revealed:

---

Quote:

---

What happens when fearful Trump absolutely must bribe another woman, maybe a hundred women, but she or they won’t take the bribe, unlike Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels?

What if Trump needs to threaten the mystery woman or women to keep her or them silent, but he can’t because she or they are secretly working for the Russians? It sounds like the movie Red Sparrow with Jennifer Lawrence working for the Russians.

For all we know, foolish old Trump, with complete disregard for any of the guidelines his cabinet members must follow about maintaining national security, has stumbled into a real life version of a Jennifer Lawrence movie. He might be living in a Hollywood script with a screenwriting credit going to Vladimir Putin. Except there won’t be a happy ending to Trump’s movie. Just because a President does not need a Security Clearance, Trump can still be a Security Risk to America. And he is not helping by lying about everything, constantly.

A review of Red Sparrow: “Trying to split the difference between trashy and classy, Red Sparrow is a sleek, juiced-up espionage thriller that overdoes everything: its brutal violence, its dramatic flourishes, its hairpin plot twists, and most certainly its sexpot shamelessness.”
www.metacritic.com/movie/red-sparrow

Trump’s real life story is more like a TV soap opera than a two hour movie. He has entertained us by taking America to strange and dramatic places, one or more new episodes every day, since 2016.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

What if, what if, what if....

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What if, what if, what if...

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What if, what if, what if...

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

It is not all "what if". Trump’s Lawyer’s Lawyer Now Says Trump’s Lawyer Wasn’t Actually Trump’s Lawyer. Reading the article makes me think, "How can these guys get this Stormy Daniels lawsuit so tangled and confused? There is no way this is their best legal strategy. It must be them reacting to Trump's confused thinking."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/michael-cohens-lawyer-sugg
ests-that-michael-cohen-is-not-trumps-lawyer.html

Then there are simplifying tweets, complete with video of Trump's lawyer's lawyer, that make it less abstract:

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/979356845394546689
https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/979355634599645184

The comments in the tweets clarify that Trump and his lawyers were bluffing with legalese, hoping the contract would never see light of day... Now they got called on the carpet and don’t know what to do.

I know what Trump needs to do: Every single one of Trump's non-disclosure agreements must now be disclosed to the public. But Trump has refused, as he refused to disclose to Robert Mueller any year of his last 50 years of income tax returns. If you can believe Trump, all 50 years are being audited by the IRS. "Believe me." -- Donald J Trump

It would be very Presidential and dignified of Trump, the loudmouth who keeps shouting that he is innocent, if he would behave innocently. But I don't think he can do it. He keeps acting too guilty to believably fake innocence. Give Trump a few more years under steady pressure and he will crackup. His screaming nervous breakdown should be entertaining and newsworthy.

---