And we all believe that Trump is an honest and t***hful man, right?

I h**e to break it to you, but the amount troops are getting paid has everything to do with the Pentagon. They have bankrupted the armed services with their insistence (obsession) with ridiculously ludicrously over budget toys that half the time the military doesn't want or need. The number of classified multi billion dollar fails would freak the public out if they ever got that true story. I was closely involved with enough major fails that were all about managing wastes of money, all highly classified because of the money and often being built without congressional approval for the money. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle, it was a fail before it was ever built, the prototype was a disaster. Pentagon damage control? Use them as barrier reef structural foundation (otherwise known as dump em in the ocean), and start over with new prototypes and production on a better one. Nevermind the fact that it was a worthless vehicle whose only thing it did was supposedly carry a few soldiers in armored safety. I worked for FMC, I saw the creativity with which that defense contractor could think of things to overbill the pentagon for.

Obama was trying to hold the pentagon accountable for the $6.5 Trillion they could not account for. An investigation that died when Trump took office. Just as the conclusion of the two year long audit and investigation that had determined that there was $2 Trillion unaccounted for early in the Bush administration.

Obama tightening on the pentagon was designed to cut waste and fraud, something the military truly excels at. Wages and how the troops are outfitted as in armor and gear is a tiny tiny fraction of what the military spends. The GAO did an investigation on pentagon waste and fraud, and reported that there was significant money to be saved, double digit percentages. Along with that they concluded that counter to the argument that cutting funds would harm the mission, it was their conclusion that careful oversight and accountability would actually result in higher quality goods and services at less money.

I know guys that are members of what they call the 1000/1100.1200/1500 yard club (wh**ever they shoot a ground squirrel at with witnesses). They are using exotic cartridges like .338 magnums necked down to .24/.25 caliber. I personally feel like a 500 yard shot that can fairly consistently be made on a ground squirrel is pretty good. I figure if I can make a shot at 500 yards on a ground squirrel 1000 would be easy with the right rifle. I used to be able to shoot a 5 inch group at over 1000 yards with a .50 caliber sniper rifle, the scope was incremented out to 1500 yards.

To me it isn't about needing to keep trying to make the hit, it's about what you can go out and expect to do consistently. The relevant records to me are the world record for a 1000 yard group, that is ten consecutive shots in the smallest circumference or group. The record is ten shots in a two inch group.

An unbiased judge is a centrist. What makes them a centrist is that it doesn't matter whether they are republicans or democrats, they are fully capable of going against the positions of their party when their sense of legal precedence and fairness comes into play. If you have a right conservative leaning judge it's because they can and have brought their beliefs and political ideology into decisions.

Judges have to be able to listen to the arguments and evidence brought into court and forget wh**ever their personal beliefs are. They have to be able to look at the precedents set in past similar cases and adhere to past rulings unless strong cases can be made that those judges got it wrong.

In the case of the Supreme Court, cases are going to come up where states may be violating the federal constitution, but because the states legislature has supermajorities they don't care. These states are going through legal challenges where the state's supreme courts are challenging these violations and getting it right, they are ruling that constitutional violations have occurred. The supreme court is only needed in cases where a court bias exists and the constitutional violation was not upheld.

The supreme court needs judges that can rule on behalf of the constitution, not the conservative ideological position. Not God and the bible because they have such strong christian values. Not on behalf of corporations challenging rulings where states shot them down.

The right considers any ruling that goes against the conservative point of view to be a liberal bias. There is no ability for someone on the hard right to accept rulings that go against the conservative point of view as anything else but a hard right view. A well based middle decision based on what the constitution says goes along with the constitution, and just because the constitution finds in favor of protecting the rights of gays does not make rulings that support gays liberal. It's the conservative view that has the well loaded bias, and the point can be made that many conservatives believe that if a conservative religious view doesn't line up with the constitution that the bible should prevail.

A good choice for the supreme court is going to make rulings that go against conservative views, and they won't be making the hard left happy all of the time either. All we can expect from judges is a history as a judge that shows a consistent history of being fair and being able to rule against their political and religious beliefs when it's called for. If this isn't the standard we have judges making new laws from the bench.

I talk to friends on the right about what was up with Merrick. He is a republican, and had a long history of being a centrist judge. He was respected by both republicans and democrats and had been easily confirmed for the federal circuit courts.

To the issue of supreme court justice terms, they need to be subject to both ethics standards and dismissal, and held liable for non centrist rulings that don't come with logical and compelling arguments. The conservative Scalia court was known to make right leaning rulings without the benefit of intelligent positions.

As a t***h, if right wing conservative activist groups feature a supreme court judge as a speaker, or they are awarded their merit awards for supporting conservative values, they are not centrist judges. Kennedy is looked at like a Judas horse because he is fully capable of ruling against conservative positions.

As a t***h, if a judge like Thomas, who was an attorney for Monsanto, who's wife has been paid substantial money lobbying on behalf of Monsanto doesn't recuse himself from Monsanto versus the people, he should be removed from the bench, it's clear he can't understand bias and conflict of interest. And on that topic it's actually very clear he does know there is a clear conflict of interest. He failed to claim $750,000 of his wife's income on his taxes. That wasn't the crime (although it actually was tax evasion), the crime was that she made that money lobbying on a case that Monsanto had going before the supreme court. Thomas knew that if he claimed it he would have to declare that his wife had presented a clear cut case of conflict of interest. That's unacceptable bias right there, bias that should have demanded a resignation.

Many many decisions are centrist and correct that are in support of the constitution, yet I have virtually never heard a right winger ever admit that a ruling that's against the hard conservative position was fair or unbiased.

Conservatives have made some of the worst anti constitutional rulings in a hundred years.

Corporations have the same rights as people? Hobby Lobby and it's religiously inspired implications (where is the concept of the government staying out of religion)?

Do you know what an example of what a lack of bias is? It's someone (who will be labeled as a liberal) who h**es everything about a******n, in no way personally believes in it, but who says they have to uphold the current constitutional law that protects each individual's right to have one if they want to. That is keeping your bias out of the law and government.

Defying the constitution by undermining the existing laws and making it harder for any person to exercise their rights to do what they want is violating the law and constitution in the name of religious beliefs.

Taking bias out of the bench is a hard thing, it means rulings that go against your personal beliefs. Meanwhile the right that sees nothing wrong with conservative judges ruling alongside their beliefs see any ruling that is against that as being liberal when it is nothing more than adhering to the law and constitution. The right sees nothing wrong with deviations of the constitution if they are following the bible.

Our country reached the tipping point where it is no longer a christian nation as defined by more atheists and agnostics, people who do not believe in the bible, nor do they want religious beliefs brought into law.

And I suppose there is no litmus test for conservative justices? The right sees nothing wrong with a conservative bringing religious values to the court. It sees nothing wrong with them openly stating that they hold themselves to a higher religious values over the constitution. And they see nothing wrong with them speaking for conservative oriented groups, something SC justices are not supposed to do, open positions of ideolic views are supposed to be refrained.

The litmus is the score that can be applied in an unbiased manner, judges need to be ranked on decisions they have made, and part of it is whether they can uphold other related precedents without going another direction that happens to tie in with their personal values and beliefs. A judge needs to be able to go against their personal beliefs when the law indicates decisions that do not fit with their beliefs.

And in a case involving religious beliefs? The court has to treat anything involving christian beliefs and the bible exactly the way they see anything involving Muslims or other beliefs. The right sees an entirely different perspective on a christian's right to "practice" their religious beliefs on the job. If a christian's rights to practice their beliefs (wh**ever that i***tic concept is) are upheld, so does a Muslim's same rights apply.

The point I'm trying to make is that wh**ever is good for god and the bible is going to be good for Muslims.

Does anyone know what this case was about, and how it applies to god and the bible (because wh**ever it says does apply exactly like that)?

The right is getting a wakeup call they aren't hearing.

Did you catch where during the t***sition, a period of time the new president and the t***sition team is prohibited from interfering in foreign policy, something about one president and the one going out is it until the inauguration, Obama imposed some rather harsh responses to Russian hacking? He made diplomats and their families leave immediately, and seized Russian enclaves and property. Kisliak was furious when he found this out. We now know (FBI was listening to the call because Flynn was being tapped) that he went outside and called Flynn. Flynn told him to calm down and not react because as soon as Trump took office it would be fixed.

That call, that undermining of policies the acting president was taking was a violation that is illegal and covered under the Logan act.

Intelligence during the t***sition, knowing the way Trump people were communicating directly with Russia could have blown the administration out of the water, and probably in hind sight should have. None of this would have been okay for Hillary or any other democrat to be doing.

It's peek, not peak...

What's coming into focus is that the FBI isn't politicizing things like security clearances, they are seeing the things that run up red f**gs on anyone seeking the highest forms of clearances. You know, things like communication with Russian spies, d*****t behaviors that make a person susceptible to blackmail or coercion. You know what's different here, what's indicative of being unprepared to run an administration? Obama for all his disfavor with the right, started the process of identifying those professionals who already had clearances, and starting FBI checks six months in advance, they had over 200 people ready to assume positions of high security level trusts. Obama left Bush security people in place until replacements were properly identified and vetted.

What's coming to light goes deeper. During the t***sition the FBI had a full awareness that Trump people were taking classified or unacceptable information directly to the Kremlin. It was a valid concern to question whether the likes of Flynn could be trusted with the most sensitive information, such as names of undercover operatives and a hundred other security sensitive things. Trump was accused by Israel of divulging their sensitive intelligence directly to Russians. The party of patriots seems to be missing in action here when we are under serious cyber and other threats by Russia. It's almost assured that Trump would share information on what the CIA knows.

So while for Hannity and the right this is about what the FBI has done wrong, where is the outrage about what Trump officials have done wrong? The GOP is ignoring the crimes that are coming out in a steady stream, and letting people who cannot pass the standards of high security vetting see the most secret and damaging information intelligence has is beyond i***tic, it poses a threat to our country.

Care to be honest about whether Obama had done what Trump people have in terms of undermining sanctions against Russia? He's have been impeached a long time ago.

The GOP and Trump during the e******n were all over how unfit Hillary was because of the way she handled classified information, yet Gowdy and other staffers have done the same thing. Nothing when they do the exact same thing, not a ripple.

The white house was told very early on that Porter could not pass the security clearance standards. The FBI was instructed to complete the investigation anyway and report on their findings in order to give Kelly and the president plausibility for using someone that couldn't get a clearance. Kelly is the national security advisor, nobody in the white house should be more aware or taking top level clearances more seriously. Security advisors get terminated for the littlest breaches of security.

This is huge, and this bulls**t of allowing this president and administration to violate every standard there is needs to stop. If the Congress will not do their job overseeing these breaches they need to be impeached as well.

Instead it's all about what the FBI did wrong.

How is it you counter the negativity, putting more money in or paying lip service support for a due to fall market with your blind faith?

All of the people I know that are traders have been pulling out, they will make money ducking in on stock drops and selling when they go up, but that is nerve wracking game in a market like this. I did it in 07/08 and made a lot of money day trading, but won't take the chances now.

Rather than doing anecdotal analysis of ups and downs, it would be better to pay attention to how these things work from a factual standpoint. 2007/2008 gives us a perfect recent example of what we are looking at. I have reason to know the market as I was day trading at that time. The market went through ups and downs, and those ups and downs got worse and worse. Weeks or months of them that ended in devastating losses.

It was working people, retirees with IRA's and Keogh's that got hammered, and this time will be worse. 07/08 took out an estimated $15 Trillion from people's savings and investment accounts. Of course record losses will make rallies, for one thing as stock prices fall many companies will buy back their own stocks at the cheaper prices. Great companies were seeing their stock prices go to under a dollar when they had been at $25 to $75. If you stay in a dead market you will be a loser. If you lost money in 07/08 and made it back during Obama's terms why would you leave your money in the market to take another loss?

And by the way, when the market takes a dump, and a $40 stock is trading for under a buck, buy a few thousand dollars worth. I picked four that went up as much as 10,000% 25 cents to $35.

We are due for a huge "adjustment", and all of the little flip flops that take place over the next few weeks or months won't change that.

And this by the conservative institute, must be 100% fact based, right?

Which attitude perfectly illustrates the divide in this country. No different than saying you won't socialize with anyone who doesn't profess strong christian bible values

This is pretty bad coming from people who listen to FOX news, that makes it particularly distasteful. Probably ought to lose the word enemy for someone who has different beliefs than yours.

Banks, the big ones give you 60 days to catch an error they make, if you don't they may not give you your money back.

I found out about this because it happened to my mother twice. She got about $2300 a month in retirement and social security, it was deposited automatically every month. My mom has never balanced her checkbook, and I suspect there are a lot of others who don't either. She kept a one month buffer of around $2000 so that she didn't have to worry about overdrafts or running out of money toward the end of the month. She called me crying that she overdrew her account when she should have had at least $2000 in it.

She doesn't even keep her statements, doesn't use them so can't be bothered, so I went to the bank and had them run a year's worth of monthly statements. In about ten minutes I worked backwards and could see where the bank had not posted her government check several months back. Being an easy paper trail verified bank error I figure it's an easy one for them to fix. We sat down with a customer service rep, she says okay I see where we didn't make the automatic deposit that should have happened, but that was over 60 days ago, so you won't get that back. I told her she better get the manager over here, because yes we were going to get that money posted to her account.

The manager comes over and maintains their legal position, I was getting lit, but staying cool. I asked him to pull up my account information that linked to a business account as well. I asked him what the balance was when he got it up, he said the number that was over $185,000. I asked if he was sure that he couldn't credit the bank's error back to my mom's account, he said sorry but he couldn't. I told him fine, draw me a cashier's check for the balance in my accounts and close them out because I was not going to bank with Wells Fargo ever again.

He had a remarkable change of perspective, and told me to hold off, he could look at doing a one time favor to me for my mom, I got a bit snide and told him I was sure he could.

So six months later they do the same exact thing for a bit over $2000. My mom called me much calmer thinking I will fix it for her, and I told her I was not putting a high cash flow business in turmoil over her lame and sloppy banking habits, it was a one time shot.

People need to ask their bank what the policy is, it is shocking to think that a bank can and will keep your money when they make an error in their favor.

Oh, and you'll be further interested in what the policy for an error in your favor, the bank gives you 60 days to catch an error, but they get six months, I kid you not. I had my other business bank (not Wells Fargo) make a $6000 error in my favor. Because it was triggered by cashing a large cashiers check and the teller entered cash out and cash deposited numbers wrong, it couldn't be spotted in an audit. I felt no remorse keeping it when errors the other way result in losses for customers due to no fault of their own.

People tend to be rather shocked when they ask about this at the bank and it's verified.

Good day up until the cop part. I have tremendous respect for those dealing with a constantly difficult responsibility like this.

Yes you could expect people to be a bit more intuitive about the fact that you are not dealing with a normal child. That said there is no real harm in people reporting a situation where they think they are seeing a kid that isn't being well cared for. Thank god it wasn't escalated out of control by bad cops with an attitude.

You see this from your eyes, who is used to a difficult situation. It was seen differently by those who have no way of knowing why the hair was not brushed.

Come on (some humor here), in California most people here would have have a far better grasp of a challenging situation for you, it was Texas for god's sake, ya'll have some deeply judgemental people there.

My heart goes out to those dealing with challenges like this.

Right...

Obama's billions as you refer to it as was explained a long time ago, the US froze bank accounts, the US agreed to give back their own money. Thank F**e news for it being represented as a US giveaway.