Testing Comments

  

Category:  Entirely New

By:  tig  •  3 years ago  •  44 comments

Testing Comments

xxx


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
TiG
1  author  TiG    3 years ago

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

 
 
 
TiG
2  author  TiG    3 years ago

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

 
 
 
TiG
3  author  TiG    3 years ago

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

 
 
 
TiG
3.1  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @3    3 years ago

TEST

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

xxxx

 
 
 
TiG
3.2  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @3    3 years ago
This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

xxxx

 
 
 
TiG
3.3  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @3    3 years ago
This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

xxx

 
 
 
TiG
3.4  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @3    3 years ago
This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

xxxxx

 
 
 
TiG
3.5  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @3    3 years ago
This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

xxxx

 
 
 
TiG
3.6  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @3    3 years ago

xxxx

 
 
 
TiG
3.6.1  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @3.6    3 years ago

ccc

 
 
 
TiG
4  author  TiG    3 years ago

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

 
 
 
TiG
4.1  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @4    3 years ago
This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  
This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.    
This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.  This is a brand new comment in a brand new article and it should have enough characters to pass the 200 character minimum.

xxx xxx xxx

 
 
 
TiG
5  author  TiG    3 years ago

The "economics/international relations" further shows her ignorance ...

New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed on Friday that the low unemployment rate is “part of the problem” of capitalism failing to help America’s working class because people think the economy is doing well when it’s not.

“The economy is going pretty strong … there’s roughly 4 percent, 3.9 percent unemployment,” Margaret Hoover, host of PBS’ “ Firing Line ,” told Ocasio-Cortez during an interview. “Do you think that capitalism has failed to deliver for working-class Americans?”

“Well, I think the numbers you just talked about is part of the problem, right?” Ocasio-Cortez said. “We look at these figures and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low, everything is fine, right?'”

Ocasio-Cortez also seemed to misunderstand the difference between unemployment and underemployment, asserting that unemployment is low because people are working multiple jobs.

“Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs,” she said. “Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.”

 
 
 
TiG
6  author  TiG    3 years ago
This means they are heavily invested in continuing to pay the scratcher price each Sunday by [1] dropping cash in on the plate, because if they stop paying, they feel like they would lose all that imagined investment. This is called the [2] "sunk cost fallacy" in which future costs may be incurred or changed if an action is taken. In that regard, both retrospective and prospective costs could be either fixed costs (continuous for as long as the person has been investing in their faith) or variable costs (dependent on new reasons they must rely on their faith i.e illness, injury, death in the family etc.). These people often fear losing their retrospective costs they've sunk [3 ] if they admit or accept anything that reduces their faith, that challenges their faiths veracity. Like a gambler not wanting to get up from their slot machine for fear someone is going to sit down and hit the jackpot, the faithful continue dumping in their nickels and quarters because they have already made a huge investment so don't want to risk losing out on the possible jackpot they've been promised.

1. The New Testament teaches once saved always saved . So what is this loss fallacy you mention have to do with faith?

John 10: 27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

2.  We are not saved by works. So what is this ' purchase plan ' you mention to do with faith?

Ephesians 2: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

3.  We ask and we receive spiritual truths, according to the Spirit of Truth. Spiritual truth is sufficient and needful to a spiritual man or woman. So what is this 'truth' that has the power to separate the faithful from the love of God?

John 6: 63   It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64  But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65  And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 66  From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

 
 
 
TiG
6.1  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @6    3 years ago
This means they are heavily invested in continuing to pay the scratcher price each Sunday by [1] dropping cash in on the plate, because if they stop paying, they feel like they would lose all that imagined investment. This is called the [2] "sunk cost fallacy" in which future costs may be incurred or changed if an action is taken. In that regard, both retrospective and prospective costs could be either fixed costs (continuous for as long as the person has been investing in their faith) or variable costs (dependent on new reasons they must rely on their faith i.e illness, injury, death in the family etc.). These people often fear losing their retrospective costs they've sunk [3] if they admit or accept anything that reduces their faith, that challenges their faiths veracity. Like a gambler not wanting to get up from their slot machine for fear someone is going to sit down and hit the jackpot, the faithful continue dumping in their nickels and quarters because they have already made a huge investment so don't want to risk losing out on the possible jackpot they've been promised.

1. The New Testament teaches once saved always saved. So what is this loss fallacy you mention have to do with faith?

John 10: My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

2.  We are not saved by works. So what is this 'purchase plan' you mention to do with faith?

Ephesians 2:For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

3.  We ask and we receive spiritual truths, according to the Spirit of Truth. Spiritual truth is sufficient and needful to a spiritual man or woman. So what is this 'truth' that has the power to separate the faithful from the love of God?

John 6: 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

 
 
 
TiG
6.1.1  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @6.1    3 years ago
This means they are heavily invested in continuing to pay the scratcher price each Sunday by [1] dropping cash in on the plate, because if they stop paying, they feel like they would lose all that imagined investment. This is called the [2] "sunk cost fallacy" in which future costs may be incurred or changed if an action is taken. In that regard, both retrospective and prospective costs could be either fixed costs (continuous for as long as the person has been investing in their faith) or variable costs (dependent on new reasons they must rely on their faith i.e illness, injury, death in the family etc.). These people often fear losing their retrospective costs they've sunk [3] if they admit or accept anything that reduces their faith, that challenges their faiths veracity. Like a gambler not wanting to get up from their slot machine for fear someone is going to sit down and hit the jackpot, the faithful continue dumping in their nickels and quarters because they have already made a huge investment so don't want to risk losing out on the possible jackpot they've been promised.

1. The New Testament teaches once saved always saved. So what is this loss fallacy you mention have to do with faith?

John 10: My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

2.  We are not saved by works. So what is this 'purchase plan' you mention to do with faith?

Ephesians 2:For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

3.  We ask and we receive spiritual truths, according to the Spirit of Truth. Spiritual truth is sufficient and needful to a spiritual man or woman. So what is this 'truth' that has the power to separate the faithful from the love of God?

John 6: 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

 
 
 
TiG
6.1.2  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @6.1.1    3 years ago
This means they are heavily invested in continuing to pay the scratcher price each Sunday by [1] dropping cash in on the plate, because if they stop paying, they feel like they would lose all that imagined investment. This is called the [2] "sunk cost fallacy" in which future costs may be incurred or changed if an action is taken. In that regard, both retrospective and prospective costs could be either fixed costs (continuous for as long as the person has been investing in their faith) or variable costs (dependent on new reasons they must rely on their faith i.e illness, injury, death in the family etc.). These people often fear losing their retrospective costs they've sunk [3] if they admit or accept anything that reduces their faith, that challenges their faiths veracity. Like a gambler not wanting to get up from their slot machine for fear someone is going to sit down and hit the jackpot, the faithful continue dumping in their nickels and quarters because they have already made a huge investment so don't want to risk losing out on the possible jackpot they've been promised.

1. The New Testament teaches once saved always saved. So what is this loss fallacy you mention have to do with faith?

John 10: My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

2.  We are not saved by works. So what is this 'purchase plan' you mention to do with faith?

Ephesians 2:For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

3.  We ask and we receive spiritual truths, according to the Spirit of Truth. Spiritual truth is sufficient and needful to a spiritual man or woman. So what is this 'truth' that has the power to separate the faithful from the love of God?

John 6: 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

 
 
 
TiG
6.1.3  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @6.1    3 years ago
This means they are heavily invested in continuing to pay the scratcher price each Sunday by [1] dropping cash in on the plate, because if they stop paying, they feel like they would lose all that imagined investment. This is called the [2] "sunk cost fallacy" in which future costs may be incurred or changed if an action is taken. In that regard, both retrospective and prospective costs could be either fixed costs (continuous for as long as the person has been investing in their faith) or variable costs (dependent on new reasons they must rely on their faith i.e illness, injury, death in the family etc.). These people often fear losing their retrospective costs they've sunk [3] if they admit or accept anything that reduces their faith, that challenges their faiths veracity. Like a gambler not wanting to get up from their slot machine for fear someone is going to sit down and hit the jackpot, the faithful continue dumping in their nickels and quarters because they have already made a huge investment so don't want to risk losing out on the possible jackpot they've been promised.

1. The New Testament teaches once saved always saved. So what is this loss fallacy you mention have to do with faith?

John 10: My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

2.  We are not saved by works. So what is this 'purchase plan' you mention to do with faith?

Ephesians 2:For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

3.  We ask and we receive spiritual truths, according to the Spirit of Truth. Spiritual truth is sufficient and needful to a spiritual man or woman. So what is this 'truth' that has the power to separate the faithful from the love of God?

John 6: 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

 
 
 
TiG
6.1.4  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @6.1.3    3 years ago
This means they are heavily invested in continuing to pay the scratcher price each Sunday by [1] dropping cash in on the plate, because if they stop paying, they feel like they would lose all that imagined investment. This is called the [2] "sunk cost fallacy" in which future costs may be incurred or changed if an action is taken. In that regard, both retrospective and prospective costs could be either fixed costs (continuous for as long as the person has been investing in their faith) or variable costs (dependent on new reasons they must rely on their faith i.e illness, injury, death in the family etc.). These people often fear losing their retrospective costs they've sunk [3] if they admit or accept anything that reduces their faith, that challenges their faiths veracity. Like a gambler not wanting to get up from their slot machine for fear someone is going to sit down and hit the jackpot, the faithful continue dumping in their nickels and quarters because they have already made a huge investment so don't want to risk losing out on the possible jackpot they've been promised.

1. The New Testament teaches once saved always saved. So what is this loss fallacy you mention have to do with faith?

John 10: My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

2.  We are not saved by works. So what is this 'purchase plan' you mention to do with faith?

Ephesians 2:For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

3.  We ask and we receive spiritual truths, according to the Spirit of Truth. Spiritual truth is sufficient and needful to a spiritual man or woman. So what is this 'truth' that has the power to separate the faithful from the love of God?

John 6: 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

 
 
 
TiG
7  author  TiG    3 years ago
I’m not surprised that you don’t understand this.

Sadly livefree I'm not surprised that you try to pass off a obviously false statement as fact. 

Trump responded on the fact that an attack on Montenegro could easily produce a Third World War.

No he didn't...This is his exact quote. 

Trump ... suggested Montenegro's "aggressive people" could spark a global conflict. "By the way, they're very strong people — they're very aggressive people," Trump said. "They may get aggressive. And congratulations, you're in World War III."

That in no way confirms your comment on what he said. 

im beginning to believe the left wants war with Russia

I'm beginning to believe that you have no idea of what this article is about.

 
 
 
TiG
8  author  TiG    3 years ago

Trump wasn't the topic, and they stayed away from that today.

However Whoopi got to give her side of the story in rebuttal to Pirro's's appearance on Hannity.

The Daily Beast confirmed Goldberg's claim that Pirro said a word she couldn't repeat.

"Those cocksuckers! This is exactly what I told them would happen," Pirro said as she exited the stage.
 
 
 
TiG
8.1  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @8    3 years ago

dddd

 
 
 
TiG
9  author  TiG    3 years ago
Trump sent 60 Russians packing after the poison attacks in Britain.

Yeah, from Seattle.  Not quite as far from D.C. as he could go but good enough, er?  By the way here's the list of the rest of the things Obama did to Putin:

Executive Order 13660 , signed on March 6, 2014, authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, or for stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people. These sanctions put in place restrictions on the travel of certain individuals and officials and showed our continued efforts to impose a cost on Russia and those responsible for the situation in Crimea.

Executive Order 13661 , issued on March 17, 2014, under the national emergency with respect to Ukraine that find that the actions and policies of the Russian government with respect to Ukraine -– including through the deployment of Russian military forces in the Crimea region of Ukraine –- undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets.

A new Executive Order, "Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine," issued on March 20, 2014, expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, and expanded by Executive Order 13661 of March 16, 2014, finding that the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation, including its purported annexation of Crimea and its use of force in Ukraine, continue to undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Executive Order 13685 was issued December 19, 2014. Utilizing these Executive Orders, the United States has steadily increased the diplomatic and financial costs of Russia’s aggressive actions towards Ukraine. We have designated a number of Russian and Ukrainian entities, including 14 defense companies and individuals in Putin’s inner circle, as well as imposed targeted sanctions limiting certain financing to six of Russia’s largest banks and four energy companies. We have also suspended credit finance that encourages exports to Russia and financing for economic development projects in Russia, and are now prohibiting the provision, exportation, or re-exportation of goods, services (not including financial services), or technology in support of exploration or production for deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects that have the potential to produce oil in the Russian Federation, or in maritime area claimed by the Russian Federation and extending from its territory, and that involve five major Russian energy companies.

These actions, in close coordination with our EU and international partners, send a strong message to the Russian government that there are consequences for their actions that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The United States, together with international partners, will continue to stand by the Ukrainian government until Russia abides by its international obligations. The United States is prepared to take additional steps to impose further political and economic costs. A secure Ukraine, integrated with Europe and enjoying good relations with all its neighbors, is in the interests of the United States, Europe, and Russia.

Executive Order 13694 was issued on April 1, 2015 and authorized the imposition of sanctions on individuals and entities determined to be responsible for or complicit in malicious cyber-enabled activities that result in enumerated harms that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States. The authority has been amended to also allow for the imposition of sanctions on individuals and entities determined to be responsible for tampering, altering, or causing the misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions in E.O. 13757.

Executive Order 13757 issued on December 28, 2016, amends EO 13694. E.O. 13757 focuses on specific harms caused by significant malicious cyber-enabled activities, and directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to impose sanctions on those persons he determines to be responsible for or complicit in activities leading to such harms. The U.S. Department of State and other U.S. government agencies work to identify individuals and entities whose conduct meets the criteria set forth in E.O. 13694, as amended, and designate them for sanction under the delegated authority of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Persons designated under this authority are added to OFACS’s list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).

Obama also ordered the seizure of two Russian properties and closed the San Francisco consulate.  

 
 
 
TiG
10  author  TiG    3 years ago

Test for link with text but no actual link.

 
 
 
TiG
10.1  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @10    3 years ago
Test for link with text but no actual link.

xxxx

 
 
 
TiG
11  author  TiG    3 years ago

deleted

 
 
 
TiG
12  author  TiG    3 years ago

first sentence

The Gateway Pundit - Right Bias - Fake News QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence ( Learn More ). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source.  See all Questionable sources.

Bias:   Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake News

Notes: The Gateway Pundit is a hard-right website that is not afraid of conspiracy theories and the occasional flirtation with outright white supremacists.  Not a credible source that occasionally publishes fake news.  (10/4/2016) Updated (6/20/2017)

 
 
 
TiG
13  author  TiG    3 years ago

Given your repeated use of this I know you are excited by the meme, but at least try and use it when it makes sense.  Any idiot can post a meme in a random thread, the trick  is to use when it's actually appropriate.  You are 0 for 2 from what I've seen, which is kinda sad.

Here's a helpful hint, use the meme when the subject of article is Trump and someone says Obama did so and so.. An article about Clinton's emails has nothing to do with Trump, so  that  meme is pathetically out of place. 

 
 
 
Groucho
14  Groucho    3 years ago

Problems

[moderation]

 
 
 
Groucho
15  Groucho    3 years ago

Given your repeated use of this I know you are excited by the meme, but at least try and use it when it makes sense.  Any idiot can post a meme in a random thread, the trick  is to use when it's actually appropriate.  You are 0 for 2 from what I've seen, which is kinda sad.

Here's a helpful hint, use the meme when the subject of article is Trump and someone says Obama did so and so.. An article about Clinton's emails has nothing to do with Trump, so  that  meme is pathetically out of place. 

 
 
 
Groucho
16  Groucho    3 years ago

Given your repeated use of this I know you are excited by the meme, but at least try and use it when it makes sense.  Any idiot can post a meme in a random thread, the trick  is to use when it's actually appropriate.  You are 0 for 2 from what I've seen, which is kinda sad.

Here's a helpful hint, use the meme when the subject of article is Trump and someone says Obama did so and so.. An article about Clinton's emails has nothing to do with Trump, so  that  meme is pathetically out of place. 

[ moderation ]

 
 
 
Groucho
17  Groucho    3 years ago

Given your repeated use of this I know you are excited by the meme, but at least try and use it when it makes sense.  Any idiot can post a meme in a random thread, the trick  is to use when it's actually appropriate.  You are 0 for 2 from what I've seen, which is kinda sad.

Here's a helpful hint, use the meme when the subject of article is Trump and someone says Obama did so and so.. An article about Clinton's emails has nothing to do with Trump, so  that  meme is pathetically out of place. 

[ Moderation goes here ]

 
 
 
TiG
18  author  TiG    3 years ago

New comment

 
 
 
TiG
19  author  TiG    3 years ago

first sentence

The Gateway Pundit - Right Bias - Fake News QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence ( Learn More ). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source.  See all Questionable sources.

Bias:   Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake News

Notes: The Gateway Pundit is a hard-right website that is not afraid of conspiracy theories and the occasional flirtation with outright white supremacists.  Not a credible source that occasionally publishes fake news.  (10/4/2016) Updated (6/20/2017)

 
 
 
Harpo
20  Harpo    3 years ago

A new comment

 
 
 
Chico
20.1  Chico  replied to  Harpo @20    3 years ago
A new comment

 
 
 
Harpo
21  Harpo    3 years ago

Another new comment by Harpo

 
 
 
TiG
21.1  author  TiG  replied to  Harpo @21    3 years ago

Whenever scientists get around to hunting for the Boy Scout gene, they should start with the genome of Francis Collins. President Obama's nominee for director of the National Institutes of Health has a folk résumé a mile long: He plays his acoustic guitar during commencement addresses and national prayer breakfasts, likes to talk about his motorcycle, and grew up on a 95-acre farm in Staunton, Va., where his parents ran a summer theater production among the oak trees. One summer, there were so many actors staying with the family that he and his brother Fletcher had to sleep in the farm's corn crib.

 
 
 
Harpo
22  Harpo    3 years ago

commenter update

 
 
 
TiG
22.1  author  TiG  replied to  Harpo @22    3 years ago
 
 
 
TiG
23  author  TiG    3 years ago

commenter update

 
 
 
Harpo
24  Harpo    3 years ago

commenter update

 
 
 
TiG
25  author  TiG    3 years ago

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Admits Conservative Employees Don’t Feel Safe Expressing Their Opinions At Work

  by Aleister   September 15, 2018   100 Comments
  • 30 Share
  • 45 Tweet
  • Email

Have you ever been the lone conservative working in an overwhelmingly liberal environment? It can be very uncomfortable, especially if you think expressing yourself could cost you your job. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has admitted that some employees at Twitter are in that situation. At least he acknowledges it.

The   Washington Times   reports:

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey laments conservative employees ‘don’t feel safe to express their opinions’

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Friday lamented that conservative employees at the social media giant “don’t feel safe” to freely express their political opinions at work.

“I mean, we have a lot of conservative-leaning folks in the company as well, and to be honest, they don’t feel safe to express their opinions at the company,” Mr. Dorseytold New York University professor Jay Rosen during Friday’s episode of “Recode Media with Peter Kafka.”

“They do feel silenced by just the general swirl of what they perceive to be the broader percentage of leanings within the company, and I don’t think that’s fair or right,” the Twitter chief said. “We should make sure that everyone feels safe to express themselves within the company, no matter where they come from and what their background is.

“I mean, my dad was a Republican,” he added. “When I was growing up, was on the radio all the time with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, so my mom was on the opposite end of the spectrum … and I always felt safe to challenge both of them…

The question now is what he will do about it, if anything.

A good first step would be to stop banning so many conservatives from the Twitter platform.

  • 30 Share
  • 45 Tweet
  • Email
 
 
 
TiG
25.1  author  TiG  replied to  TiG @25    3 years ago

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Admits Conservative Employees Don’t Feel Safe Expressing Their Opinions At Work

  by Aleister   September 15, 2018   100 Comments
  • 30 Share
  • 45 Tweet
  • Email

Have you ever been the lone conservative working in an overwhelmingly liberal environment? It can be very uncomfortable, especially if you think expressing yourself could cost you your job. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has admitted that some employees at Twitter are in that situation. At least he acknowledges it.

The   Washington Times   reports:

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey laments conservative employees ‘don’t feel safe to express their opinions’

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Friday lamented that conservative employees at the social media giant “don’t feel safe” to freely express their political opinions at work.

“I mean, we have a lot of conservative-leaning folks in the company as well, and to be honest, they don’t feel safe to express their opinions at the company,” Mr. Dorseytold New York University professor Jay Rosen during Friday’s episode of “Recode Media with Peter Kafka.”

“They do feel silenced by just the general swirl of what they perceive to be the broader percentage of leanings within the company, and I don’t think that’s fair or right,” the Twitter chief said. “We should make sure that everyone feels safe to express themselves within the company, no matter where they come from and what their background is.

“I mean, my dad was a Republican,” he added. “When I was growing up, was on the radio all the time with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, so my mom was on the opposite end of the spectrum … and I always felt safe to challenge both of them…

The question now is what he will do about it, if anything.

A good first step would be to stop banning so many conservatives from the Twitter platform.

  • 30 Share
  • 45 Tweet
  • Email
 
 

Who is online