Chocolate

I don't think it's unfair to say that Mueller and team know quite a bit more than we, the public. — Maw

I know Maw, I was just wondering how lawyer/client privilege would ever stand sacred as it is supposed to be.

If attorney/client conspired to break the law, attorney client privilege does not hold. Also if the FBI and Justice Department don't handle the information they seized impartially they are subject to sanction and the case being dismissed. — Cavacava

But the information is not within the scope of the investigation if it happened while Trump was a private citizen.

Ohhhhh. It's a bagless Dyson. Fancy. — Hanover

:lol: :rofl: :lol:

What exactly would be in the vacuum cleaner bag when you emptied it? — Hanover

There is no "bag" and I have faith in the Universe that you will soon find someone who is able to explain it to you in person. :rofl:

Oh and one of my God Son's is pursuing a degree in Fire Science and is working towards becoming a....wait for it.....a FIRE FIGHTER!
:party: :party: :party:
:kiss: Such a proud God Mother over here

Trump's personal attorney Cohen, office, hotel room and his home were raided by the FBI today. The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York executed a series of search warrants and seized the privileged communications. — Cavacava

There is something very unnerving about the lawyer/client privilege being infringed on

Word is, WORD is that we areone week away from my Mother In Laws departure.
@jamalrob going....going....

Is that the thing with the vacuum cleaner? — TimeLine

Hmm no but interesting idea! :lol:

Hey Tiff, I think Timeline is talking about your rabbit thingy. — Hanover

Hanover! I told you the rabbit died!
It was a sad day but he was given a proper send off before being replaced :joke:

The Eagles Peaceful Easy Feeling

@ahmad bilal
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are happy you are here~

B. — Hanover

Tell me what you expected it to look like?
I am pretty sure that it is not the first time that Timeline has been asked to consider the idea. Surely you know how attractive she is both in mind and body~ Why would I assume that she plays on one team only?

B. — Hanover

Okay both hands back up on the keyboard! :lol:

Did that really just happen? — Hanover

The car or the graceful exchange of entertaining intimate thoughts between two beautiful women and how one can respectfully accept the lack of reciprocation?

Sorry lovely, — TimeLine

Had to ask! :blush:

Touch of Gray by the Dead

Your response has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution! — Baden

Baden, I know you know that I am not a bot and I am the one that posts the Facebook posts as of right now and I am sure if that needs to change, I will be informed by you or jamalrob, administrators of TPF or Facebook.

If I had been asked, I would have gratefully explained that there is a reason, that I use the phrase that I do.

When I post a picture on a platform such as Facebook and it is a Watermarked picture or a trademarked image, I obtain written permission to use the image from the artist. I had obtained permission of use from four photographers at PF and I notified them when PF was sold and that I would honor our agreement and let the new owners know that they are not authorized to keep the photos posted but they choose not to delete the pictures. I have obtained the same permission for use at TPF Facebook page which is why their image, when posted, is linked back to their Facebook page. It is a win win and an awesome networking exchange.

I have tried to do the same with notifying any TPF member that a quote of theirs has been posted on a social networking platform. I have done this, which is a change from what I originally started with at PF, which was to quote with no notification. I was approached by Paul, as a PF member was using his real name for his user name and had no idea that his words had even been posted on Facebook until he logged on. I directly apologized to him, I told him I would implement the change and did so.

I remediated the situation with that member in particular, by offering either the total removal of the quote or the removal of his user name and the link back to the thread in PF. I respected his choice and made the changes necessary to not have anyone feel imposed upon with giving them credit due.

It is a fine line to walk and I do the best that I can with what I know. Until I am told of another way, I will continue to do as I have for the last two years.

Did they fit so well you lost your mind looking at its rear end? — Sir2u

You definitely caught my cue~ :up:

@Hanover The irony in our lives continues...
Once I grew up and stopped chasing cars NicK appeared in my life in this sweet ride

and we are still living, happily, ever after that moment but we are not near the "end" that I am currently aware of. :heart:

It is the dog that chases the car and finally catches it and has no idea what to do with it or why he chases cars in the first place. — Hanover

Why did you have to get so personal with it? :gasp:
Btw it was a Corvette and what can I say? It was in the jeans~

It seems more like a mutual hostile walk off. — Hanover

Which means there is still a chance for love to blossom. :heart: :heart: :heart:

@Plato'sView You response has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

@Plato'sView
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Enjoy your view~

@Seastar
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are glad you are here~

Listen here you defender of man, why would I cuddle up to one who has given me no indication that he wants me to crawl all over him like a kitten? — TimeLine

Timeline, male only kitten crawls? :eyes:

By: Hanover von Hanoverstein of Hanoverville (aka "Tater") — Hanover

If you are "Tater" does that make your kids "Tots"?

Yesterday at a celebration of life of a friend, I got caught by a 6 yr old who wanted to tell Aunt Tiffy a "Knock Knock" joke about the Orange. It was ssssssssso painful as she NEVER got to the banana part.

Unnecessary information I know but I don't want to go to church. :halo:

So, every weapon that has ever been legal is protected under the 2nd amendment? And every weapon that has never been legal is not protected? That's your position?? — Baden

I won't say "every" because I know there are always exceptions but yes, if the firearm was legal to own under our 2nd amendment right, I think banning that firearm would be considered an infringement on our 2nd amendment right.

A current example is an armed drone. Has it ever been legal for a private citizen to own and register an armed drone? Not to my knowledge. Would a law making it illegal for a private citizen to own an armed drone be an infringement on our 2nd ammendment right? No, because it was never legal to own.

Now, you are saying it's legality that matters. So, if assault weapons are illegal in illinois now, then it's not a 2nd amendment infringement just as with bazookas being illegal it's not a 2nd amendment infringement. — Baden

Yes legality matters which is why it makes no sense to have the citizens of IL be forced into surrendering their legal firearms. That is an infringement on our 2nd amendment right. Bazookas as far as I know, have never been legal for a citizen to own, so it wouldn't fall under the protection of our 2nd amendment right.

Ok, now you've changed your mind again. A moment ago you said it would infringe their rights if their bazookas were taken away. Can you just pick one position and stick to it, please. — Baden

I really am trying to be as honest and genuine as I can possibly be. I think at the very least the issue is complicated which is why it is necessary to define if the firearm or bazooka is legal to have to begin with. If bazookas were legal to own under the 2nd amendment then it would be an infringement on our right to confiscate them.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180406/uk-struggles-to-combat-gun-and-knife-crime-as-london-murder-rate-tops-new-york-city

I have been reading the same around the net.

Do Americans have the right to bear bazookas or not? Please just answer the question. It's a yes or no. And why is it more absurd than asking if they have the right to bear any other kind of weapon? — Baden

The right to bear bazookas? No, I don't think it is a right to be infringed on to begin with.

So, you are changing your answer now and think Americans have the right to bear bazookas? — Baden

Please don't rephrase the question so it 'fits' into our ammendments. The question was absurd in nature and I tried to answer it with a logically.

(If it's just because they are illegal then we can just make any gun we want illegal and voilà, no infringement.) — Baden

OMG this is exactly what FREAKS out legal gun owners!! :gasp:

Just answer the question, please. Is it an infringment on your 2nd amendment right that you can't? — Baden

I guess if the Peace Officers are showing up on peoples doorsteps with bazookas then I would have to say, yes it would be an infringement on our 2nd amendment right.

I recognize the absurdity of my answer but it was an absurd question.

So what's your answer if not that? — Baden

It's fair for both sides to have the same weapon as long as they are being used legally.

How is it unfair if both sides have the same weapon? E.g. a machine gun or bazooka? — Baden

I got turned around. It isn't unfair for both sides to have the same weapon.

The answer that is popular is that it is not what our founding fathers had in mind when writing the amendments, because such weapons had not been invented.

For me? It is because it makes it an unfair fight with anyone, law or lawless.

I asked you why it's not an infringement to ban machine guns and bazookas etc. — Baden

And I am trying to answer your question but as you can see, I don't have a lot of faith in the answer you are looking for.

I would trust you with a gun — Baden

Why? I am THE LAST one to trust with a gun. I had one used domestically against a loved one and would never, ever, pick up a firearm, loaded or not.