Gromnir

well, strictly ballroom were funny, but that yahoo serious movie failed to amuse. if we had to pick a winner from the debates, we would go with warren. is kinda a winner by default though 'cause nobody challenged her and she were the only candidate who were offering anything o substance. am wondering if same is gonna happen with bernie sanders in the second debate. bernie has a plan (albeit one we don't embrace... at all) but am suspecting the democrats is so conscientious o' not appearing to be like trump that they ain't gonna attack or even criticize bernie's platform... which were no doubt crafted in the back o' the mystery machine while enjoying "scooby snacks." all the tax the ultra-rich schemes o' the leading democrats ignores realities. the genuine ultra-rich ain't gonna be affected much by a change in tax bracket schemes. as has been noted previous, the rich is affected far more by capital gains rates than income tax brackets. is particular difficult to fix problems with capital gains 'cause americans is still way too invested in their personal residence, which for even middle-class is gonna represent a large sum. even so, hold property for at least a year and fed tax on gains is gonna cap at 20%, and there is so many loopholes for functional reducing such even further. the thing is, explaining capital gains is not good tv. tax the rich is simple and resonates. resonating with a short attention span audience is gonna be the goal. is far tougher to come up with a pithy slogan for capital gains reforms. regardless, if we had to pick a debate winner, regardless o' personal feelings and preferences, we would go with warren. though again, watching folks avoid warren confrontation were a bit like a scene from highlander. HA! Good Fun!

Inside American Gaylen Grandstaff's 2-year odyssey in Russian prison on apparently trumped-up drug charges purposeful didn't put in politics thread. if somebody else wanna copy and paste in politics to address concerns 'bout russian "justice" system, feel free to do so. such weren't our goal in sharing. we read story and were genuine moved by galen and anna's plight. fact story don't have an end makes even more compelling for us. make of it what you will.

is not really a "case file" in this situation. case file for whom? didn't ever have a grand jury specific review trump for charges. mueller made clear he could not consider charges. investigation only. there is a difference and such minutiae can be important. specific nomenclature aside, this started 'cause we asked for clarification. "It would be funny to watch how quickly would they back off if someone would give them the case papers and say "- ok, bring this before the judge" so we asked sharp what he meant by case papers? we were not hair-splitting when we asked for a little illumination. "am not sure what "case papers" you is talking 'bout. am pretty sure you don't know what you is talking 'bout. volume 2 o' the mueller report is 182 pages and volume 2 is largely unredacted. fraking dream scenario for any prosecutor to have a bob mueller team o' all-stars do all the grunt work so they can slap together a formal charging document?" sharp clarified. "Case papers as the name suggests are papers for the case. You know the pieces of cellulose with ink on them in the shape of letters. Seems pretty simple to me. Oh well ." sharp, as is typical, is trying to bluff his way through this. doesn't know enough to carry the bluff. @Guard Dog we got at least a little compassion for the folks in oregon. whether the clowns is dressed red or blue, the senators should be able to forge a compromise. yeah, the funding bills being held up ain't like trump's unilateral shutdown which cost the fed government billions o' dollars and saw fed workers go w/o pay-- oregon state workers aren't in danger o' seeing an end to paychecks anytime soon. even so, there will be delays on projects and independent contractors at some indefinite point in the future might suffer... maybe? gonna need delay hiring a few additional state troopers, and budget money were gonna expand caseworker numbers to aid foster-care system. etc. nothing immediate and dire, but is important stuff. *shrug* playing hooky as a last resort don't bother us, particular as is not even the first time the oregon senators have resorted to such. converse, a state senator advocating militia violence? another threatening violence 'gainst state troopers performing their duties? y'know, one thing those old movies get wrong 'bout the boston tea party is how civilized it all were. sure, the rebels dressed as indians to kinda/sorta hide their identities, but the Americans were extreme careful to not hurt anybody and to actual avoid any property damage save for the tea and the lock on the hold where the tea were kept. were no other damage to ships, persons or cargo. to be clear, am not suggesting the oregon senators should next engage in property damage as a form o' protest 'gainst 2019 version o' taxation w/o representation. am only bringing up to show that one o' the more dramatic and memorable examples o' unruly Americans carrying out protest were entire bloodless and carried out with almost urbane flair. even so, we agree oregon ain't gonna fall to pieces, or even suffer great, if a handful o' republicans hide out in "idaho" for days or weeks. however, we personal do draw a hard line at violence, but again, the threats o' violence started after gifted's hand wringing. HA! Good Fun!

Proposed bill would rescind Medals of Honor given for Wounded Knee massacre conflicted. rescind is fine if there is specific recognition o' removal retained. erase the entries feels like a waste of effort and ultimate counter-productive. example chosen at random: https://themedalofhonor.com/medal-of-honor-recipients/recipients/nolan-richard-indian-campaigns full award citation reads: For bravery in action on 30 December 1890, while serving with Company I, 7th U.S. Cavalry, in action at White Clay Creek, South Dakota. kinda vague for a medal of honor citation, no? erase the entry makes seem like the award were never given. hand out twenty medals for massacre o' women, children and old men? *shrug* am not losing sleep on this one, but is a wasted opportunity in our mind. we would leave on the rolls with a "rescinded 2019" tag. in entry for each removed medal, include a synopsis o' the events of wounded knee. aside: am actual not one o' the proponents o' the narrative wounded knee were a planned massacre. our read o' the admitted one-sided and nevertheless conflicting accounts is that wounded knee were a result o' bad planning coupled with multiple mistakes. am doubting twenty-five members o' US 7th cavalry woulda' been killed and another 39 injured if the event were part o' some planned event. somebody got twitchy. there were a mistake. gatling gun emplacements had been set up in case things went south, and when they did, there were no hesitation in mowing down indians. revenge minded 7th cavalry likely wanted to kill indians, but am doubting they planned to do so on that day. recognize that root 'causes were human error instead o' overt villainy doesn't make event any less tragic. and serious, twenty medals? each citation is unenlightening as the one we offered as example. leave the entries, but use as a teaching lesson. then again, am the guy who has suggested leaving aggrandizing confederate civil war monuments where they are just so long as they is given a paint job which makes 'em appear as if covered in blood.

you specific distinguished case papers. distinguished as celulose with ink on it. nobody refers to case papers. had no idea what you thought were case papers... but your bullet point evasion once again fails to make sense-- you suggested if the lawyers got 'em, whatever they are, they would balk at going before a judge. the lawyers in our link, all +1000, got the stuff barr and rosenstein got. they got the same papers. duh. you were dismissive o' the +1000. again-- "They sound like every retired militaryman who "would win every war" and retired policemen who "would solve every crime" etc. if only they were younger." the actual abilities and experience o' the +1000 is thus quite relevant. were core. nevertheless, even though it were an evasion by sharp, am still not knowing who these retired military folks is you speak o' as you can't produce any (irony.) "We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country. "Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice." there is a list o' 1025 names attached. knock yourself out. fact that they cannot bring the case with barr as ag don't in anyway diminish the expertise o' the +1000. just as there is no doubt more than one expert on bumblebee aerodynamics in the world (HA!) there can be multiple people with expertise on legal questions. the best neurosurgeon in the world suffers tennis elbow and cannot perform a surgery. doesn't mean his opinion is invalidated, eh? the +1000 have the bona fides to qualify a experts; a few o' them is daunting qualified. fact that only one person has power to make a decision or perform an action hardly precludes others from being capable o' contributing valuable and even superior insights. evasion. as to gifted, is good to know you don't need sympathy, 'cause with all the whining and hand wringing 'bout senators and free press and not enough chinese style do the last few pages, you sure seemed like you needed a hug. ... aw, what the heck. can't be stingy with the hugs. now dontcha feel better? HA! Good Fun! ps this shouldn't be necessary, but given how blunt sharp has been since returning, am thinking it just might be necessary to clarify how graham's observation regarding nobody on earth who could were an observation o' ability rather than capacity. wouldn't be a point if the senator's total pool o' earthlings were limited to barr.

... am kinda old, but isn't it customary nowadays to use an emoji or "rofl" or similar to denote sarcasm? HA! Good Fun!

is a funny enough joke, particular in full with the "Adolph Blaine Charles David Earl Frederick Gerald Hubert Irvin John Kenneth Lloyd Martin Nero Oliver Paul Quincy Randolph Sherman Thomas Uncas Victor William Xerxes Yancy Zeus" one assumes he went by hubert blaine 'stead o' adolph blaine 'cause o' the whole adolf taint... which in itself is kinda amusing. that is the part o' the name you alter? HA! Good Fun!

weren't you talking 'bout case papers before... y'know, the "cellulose?" stuff with the ink on it? *snort* somehow by looking at the case papers (presumable stuff other than the mueller report as otherwise your observation would be complete pointless) a lawyer would have a change o' heart and balk at going before a judge with a charging document. what on earth do you think were the purpose o' the report? the report were the basis for barr and rosenstein's determinations. +400 of your case papers. didn't have barr or rosenstein complain 'bout insufficiency o' mueller's case papers, eh? you don't know enough to know how little you know... you know? *chuckle* would only need ask one knowledgeable attorney in poland? puts you in quite a pickle as over 1000 experts on US fed crim law and procedure has expressed their opinion... but we are going in circles. buzz. talk 'bout trying to spin. but try and stay focused. you were dismissive o' +1000 former prosecutors. for what should be obvious reasons, you can't get opinions from current fed prosecutors regarding the mueller report. "former," btw, don't mean they is no longer practicing. heck, a few is teaching at prestigious law schools, which also don't preclude an attorney from practicing. news to sharp? likely. more than a few o' the +1000 is now state prosecutors as 'posed to fed. etc. and any one o' those guys could tell sharp what is requirements for a charging document rather than nonsensical observations 'bout the case papers. HA! while we know you wanna evade, the issue were you dismissing the opinion o' +1000 former fed prosecutors who read the same report as barr and rosenstein. heck, would be similar foolish to harken to all those experts declaring bumblebees were incapable o' flight, yes? "They sound like every retired militaryman who "would win every war" and retired policemen who "would solve every crime" etc. if only they were younger." and yeah, you can't even identify the multitude o' retired military men on this board who would win every war. regardless, you don't know enough to discuss w/o the benefit o' expert help. https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1 1025 who is willing to help you keep from making more laughable mistakes. HA! Good Fun! ps add something new. have gone past point where all we is doing is repeating, and you evade.

only if spoken aloud, three times in succession, and w/o any mistakes. still need some kinda sacrifice though. sounds german...ish. add in the adorable dachshund sacrifice requirement and am guessing we would all be safe from even intentional attempts to summon y'ha-nthlei. HA! Good Fun!

yeah, the threats o' violence is indefensible. we noted earlier-- "the newish militia threat? now that deserves a horse whipping. if a minority group can't get honest input and consideration because the democratic process is rigged, am in favor o' creative means o' protest and resistance, but thin veiled threats o' violence is 'bout as blunt and uncreative as is possible to imagine. 'course those threats came after your post so am not giving you the benefit o' the doubt on those. nevertheless, we would agree that the minority senators should public condemn the militia threats in no uncertain terms." 'course you do realize stuff in quotes means you believe we said such, yes? find "working as intended," from Gromnir regarding oregon senators. will wait. ... *jeopardy music plays* ... no? we actual said equivalent o' opposite, so is easy to see how gifted would be confused. perhaps you did a trump air quotes reversal? in any event, situation is 180 from working as intended. worse, is stoopid and utter avoidable. no excuses. horse whipping frenzy? nope. situation is hardly unique and the senators playing hooky isn't alone as responsible parties deserving chastisement. thanks to excessive gerrymandering by both parties, we got states and districts which is so polarized it is now possible to levy a targeted tax which affects those who didn't vote for the majority. is so the opposite o' working as intended that politicians is resorting to extreme measures to resist. in a pure democracy, the minority gotta swallow whatever bitter pill the majority forces 'pon 'em. thankful the US ain't that kinda republic. use quorum rules to avoid tyranny o' majority? given current political climate, gifted shouldn't be shocked by this and is not historical new. oh, and seeing how gifted is equal frenzied when senators showup and pass legislation, is tough to work up any kinda sympathy for poor, frazzled gifted. "politics gonna politic," right? HA! Good Fun!

as usual, when it comes to irradiated creatures, the japanese are ahead o' the curve. HA! Good Fun!

isn't panic worthy, but it is dangerous for democracy. quorum busting has a fair bit o' history in US politics. the tyranny of the majority has always been a problem in democracies. am knowing it is difficult to sympathize with what appears to be a bunch o' republicans fighting climate change legislation (a gross oversimplification) but keep in mind this sorta action is typical the last resort o' the minority group. looks different when is the seeming only option for the black caucus in deep south states post civil war, eh? US Constitution's Bill of Rights were penned as a check on democracy, but there is few practical limits on democracy, particular at state and local levels. founders were afeared o' quorum busting and is referenced in legislative history as well as federalist papers-- they were aware, and they instituted no great limits on quorum busting save the democratic process itself. US politics has become so polarized and intransigent, am suspecting you are gonna see this kinda thing more often. if democrats in a red state walk out to prevent a vote which would criminalize abortions, will be little surprise from us. yeah, quorum rules will be changed... democratically. the senators hiding? well, they can be voted out o' office. even so, quorum busting is dangerous for democracy. other than the Bill of Rights and a few other amendments, isn't too much to challenge the tyranny of the majority. HA! Good Fun!

hmmm. for some reason am feeling embarrassed. aw, what the hell... will indulge our inner cliff clavin. a group o' pigs is a sounder, but a group o' bears is a sloth. always thought that were odd. HA! Good Fun!

damn. beat us to it. in any event, sharp ain't being too sharp by using worst possible example support his conclusion. am glad he focused on every 'cause it means he realizes his former military folks and cops ain't "every." so who are they? sharp points to imagined folks at a bar or on internet message boards to counter? uses worst possible example o' experts being wrong to defend proposition? now don't get us wrong. as we said, is not good logic or good sense to be over reliant on experts. one expert might be right while the multitude is wrong. rely on experts, particular using number o' experts to support, can be dangerous. even so, keep in mind that with the initial point we aren't even referencing objective science. talking 'bout something inherent subjective-- would any prosecutor charge? this is a cost 'n benefit analysis weighed out based on objective and subjective factors. is no strict formula. ask a multitude o' former prosecutors whether or not they would charge? +1000 says yes, and they has public attached name to memorialize such a position. Gromnir, btw, has just over a year experience as a fed prosecutor, so we coulda' added name to the list...but we didn't. why? in spite o' technical being a former fed prosecutor, we don't consider our self an expert on such matters and would be misleading to add name. am hardly gonna be unique in this regard. one suspects the clowns talking their arse off in a bar or message board site is unlikely to attach name to the kinda public list we see. so, sharp goes into his alternate reality bar or internet message board where all the retired corporals who think they is alexander hang out. he finds a former fed prosecutor and shows the guy ~200 pages o' AG office fact finding which suggests sharp could be charged with _______. sharp asks the prosecutor should he be worried... could he be charged with a crime and should he get a lawyer? sharp repeats question to fed prosecutors over and over. is broad range o' expertise 'mongst people he asks, from relative untested to folks who were considered best prosecutor in their respective office for decades. eventual he gets more than a thousand fed experts to commit to the notion sharp could be charged. would sharp be worried? no doubt 'mongst the multitude who says "charge," some would say sharp got nothing to worry 'bout. 'course is noteworthy we ain't seen such a competing list, eh? nevertheless, how many nays would it take to make sharp sleep better at night? again, keep in mind the, you are skrewed with the sharp end o' a rusty knife list includes men and women considered premiere experts on the subject. 1? 10? 100? 1000? 2000? 10000? as an aside, am at a loss trying to identify even a single former military guy on this board who genuine believes he could win every war. not one. if you can't even get us the bumblebee guy... ... gd might be a cheat option 'cause am suspecting he would tell us that avoid fighting any foreign war is key to real victory. HA! Good Fun! ps we didn't respond to your "case papers" silliness 'cause you did a fantastic job illuminating your own ignorance. thanks.

that doesn't sound like most o' the retired military personnel who frequent this board, or most o' the military folks in our family. oh sure, is probable a couple would-be hannibals on these boards, but "every?" hmmm. sharp must know a different breed. am admitting we don't know many retired cops. know lots o' current cops and have only ever met one guy who seemed to think o' himself as soopercop. hard to imagine that when they retire, they sudden will become sages o' all things police procedure. most cops we know lament that so many crimes is destined to go unsolved and unpunished. rely on experts is not great logic, but is reasonable. get a thousand former prosecutors to commit to any position is noteworthy. scotch v. bourbon? maybe. might be only other thing you could find a thousand lawyers care 'bout enough to commit to an answer. the thing is, the fed prosecution success rate is extreme high. is something approaching 90%... or better. these folks is used to winning and that is in part 'cause they know how to pick their horses. and am not sure what "case papers" you is talking 'bout. am pretty sure you don't know what you is talking 'bout. volume 2 o' the mueller report is 182 pages and volume 2 is largely unredacted. fraking dream scenario for any prosecutor to have a bob mueller team o' all-stars do all the grunt work so they can slap together a formal charging document? to not give any special weight to the opinion o' +1000 prosecutors strikes us as bordering on obtuse. +1000, the number, don't make 'em right, and we would caution against blind acceptance in supplanting your ignorance with their numbers. nevertheless, to be dismissive o' such a number o' former prosecutors is even more perplexing than would be blind faith. so, where you stand on holocaust denial? human impact on climate is a myth? 85 bears as the all-time best nfl defense? HA! Good Fun! ps in our experience, the consensus 'mongst litigators appears to be bourbon. am not a drinker our self, so no vote.

fisa is complete immaterial to mueller testimony. whether fisa were valid doesn't change what mueller discovered. if criminal charges were being pursued, then fisa validity would be meaningful as there is fruit o' the poisonous tree doctrine with which to contend. ain't relevant to Congressional investigations or even possible impeachment. am expecting mueller and others will point out quick how fisa is irrelevant as to Congressional determination o' conspiracy and obstruction. and portray as a waste o' time has hinged on repeated mantra o' "No Collusion, No Obstruction." is gonna be difficult for republicans to tell mueller he found no collusion and no obstruction w/o looking silly for the cameras. am actual most curious 'bout how mueller deals with the inevitable william barr questions. mueller might need work hard to keep from throwing barr under the bus. pretty much everybody on both committees is a lawyer, but is only a couple ex-prosecutors. perhaps ironic, but intelligence might have better lawyers than judiciary, albeit with fewer numbers. indulging morbid curiosity, am looking forward to hearing gaetz questions for mueller. the guy is a carnival barker in a button-down shirt. kinda the exact opposite o' mueller. HA! Good Fun! ps we did say we would update when the number passed 1000, but am admitting we didn't check for awhile. https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1 1025 former fed prosecutors says but for trump being President, obstruction charges woulda' been pursued. kinda funny as reason we checked the numbers is 'cause this eve we saw an interview with lindsey graham on fox. "Graham said regardless of Mueller's testimony, it would be hard to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice. ""There's nobody on Earth who could bring an obstruction case based on these facts," he said." +1000 former fed prosecutors disagree.

andrei, you are whining 'bout another group o' senators? more significant, Mueller to testify publicly on July 17 following a subpoena am thinking many people will be disappointed. mueller specific noted he believes he cannot consider obstruction. am not believing mueller will say anything which risks trump's chance for a fair trial. as trump cannot be prosecuted at this time, mueller is not gonna be able to say much more than has already been said. as to "collusion," which, once again, were Never considered by the special counsel, am thinking mueller testimony may prove enlightening IF democrats allow mueller to speak. as with comey being grilled by senators 'bout clinton emails, am predicting the Congressmen get distracted in their attempts to force mueller to declare trump actions criminal. democrats will lose a real opportunity to get useful information 'bout the degree o' russian-trump entanglement displayed in a public setting w/o barr or media editorializing. should also be gruesome public with details as the lengths the trump campaign went to avoid answering questions 'bout conspiracy... and the flat-out lies the campaign indulged to make the special counsel's job more difficult. mueller couldn't find legal sufficient conspiracy, but he stated such a conclusion were materially affected by trump organization lies and evasions. need Congressman questioning mueller to be smarter than were republicans when questioning comey if we are to get anything useful. worse odds than vegas. HA! Good Fun!

is less 'bout acres than is 'bout population, though no doubt geography (as 'posed to raw acreage) plays a significant role. as silly as it sounds, we can't help but recall the original red dawn movie. in the movie, the US stopped the invading cubans and russians at the rockies. likely got that right. apennine mountains were nightmarish in ww2. high country in vietnam were no better. a large % o' iran is mountainous. even so... win a war with iran, if you could somehow keep localized to iran, is one thing. keep peace and make victory anything other than another kinda loss will take many troops. nobody wanted to listen to honest estimates pre-iraq regarding projected peacekeeping numbers. in contemplating post-war iraq, there were a shared fantasy that the liberated people would police themselves after the real shooting war ended. iran post-war scenario is far more bleak from a peacekeeping perspective than were iraq not least 'cause iran is more than 3x the population o' iraq during previous conflict. sure, popularity o' government in iran is low, but they hate americans even more. aren't gonna be able to sell liberation to the iranians when you had a hard time doing so in iraq. unfortunate, there is always a few ted cruz types hanging 'round. one suspects ted is a kindred spirit with john bolton. HA! Good Fun!

... THAT was our point. welcome to the thread. HA! Good Fun!

so what? doesn't specific translate to anything in polish. it does translate exact as sharp one. take with other factors... so, you wanna buy a watch? none of which is relevant to the thread. Trump warns Iran of ‘overwhelming force’ in the event of an attack on ‘anything American’ sadly, the drones likely have chinese parts, so chances are they don't count. heck, trump didn't even believe obama were properly american enough for Presidency. HA! Good Fun! ps would it even count as a doppelganger if he were so obvious as to have used polish translation for sharp one? that would simple be an overt fu to the mods, no?

fair enough, but am suspicious you knew the gender o' his secretary before we made our comment. speaking o' suspicious, as to the likelihood o' a poster who is polish and showed up short time after sharp one disappeared and is using same posting style and opinions as disappeared sharp one (save for overt racism and misogyny... excepting for some sketchy bits in "funny" thread) and whose name literally translates as sharp one being a coincidental doppelganger... have always wondered who is the people who buy those $30 rolexes being hawked on nyc street corners. however, when we says "sharp," am referencing the sharp sabre in all sharp's posts. heck, am suspecting even if the sword were removed, we would have difficulty forgetting. has had profound impact on us. very sharp. in our heart am gonna forever link the poster with his very sharp sword. HA! Good Fun!

miss the "point." good one. very sharp. the secretary, whom in your sexist way you assumed were a woman, doesn't have the options buffet does. buffet's secretary is unlikely to be able to start a foundation and funnel earnings into it. can't use company planes and cars at will. from a practical pov, the secretary can't shelter funds same as does buffet. get earnings below $19500? first thing he (gender neutral) would need do is quit being a secretary... which would invalidate the comparison. am betting buffet pays his secretary much better than $19500. your point is perhaps less sharp than you believe. HA! Good Fun! ps russia's infrastructure programmes has numerous fails in the first year, and is numerous issues in remaining projects. the sakhalin rail project is dead and moscow train to kazan is also a non-starter. typical russian cronyism will gut most o' the projects o' usefulness even if they do live past drawingboard stages. growth continues to be projected less than 3%, which is effective a negative particular in light o' pain endured so recent and fact crude is current in russia's target range.

no. we insisted that russia wouldn't be able to laugh off sanctions as you suggested. those currency reserves you pointed to got hit hard and russia even had to enact austerity measures targeting pensions. in addition to vulnerability to oil values, which will remain a problem for russia until they change their economy, we noted that such a precarious situation made 'em particular susceptible to sanctions... which were the exact point o' the bloomberg graphic you still don't seem to grasp. drop in oil, in spite o' similar % o' total exports for norway and russia, hit russia much harder. sanctions are particular painful for a moribund economy, but you reimagine whichever way makes you feel better. and no, they really hasn't made changes, which is why every time crude changes values from unexpected events. russian growth projections dramatic change too. HA! Good Fun!

am not seeing sharp's confusion. buffet is being taxed at a lower rate than his secretary because he earns less. "The letter pointed out that fellow billionaire Warren Buffett has said he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. " he is taxed at a lower rate precise because, as ridiculous as it seems, he doesn't earn as much as his secretary. HA! Good Fun!

she appears to be a well-fed sow... not that there is anything wrong with that. HA! Good Fun!