... Anything received by an office or agency is included in the record, regardless of credibility at the time of receipt. The veracity is established after receipt if need be, but regardless of veracity, the item is not removed from the file. It remains part of the complete record.
Obviously sticking to the Macro issues...explaining why 1 record is in the pile of 130,000.
What exactly are you trying to say ? That one particular items is the center of my concerns ?
Are you fucking with me just to get me to chase my tail ?
This is my final answer on this whether it means anything to you or not.
I was simply talking about circumstances revolving arounds items (macro) in question in general, not this one (micro) single entry.
I was explaining it to a person in particular in a way that they hopefully would comprehend, if they really cared. (Obviously he does not)
Now I am trying to communicate my explanation in a way that you might comprehend. Obviously, I have failed.
Or you are indeed just playing circular games with me for your own amusement.
That is your interpretation, not mine. Simple as that.
You're into the micro. I'm into the macro.
Yeah.... OK
kurtster wrote:
... Anything received by an office or agency is included in the record, regardless of credibility at the time of receipt. The veracity is established after receipt if need be, but regardless of veracity, the item is not removed from the file. It remains part of the complete record.
Obviously sticking to the Macro issues...explaining why 1 record is in the pile of 130,000.
Overall NY Voter Support: Recent polls from December 2025 indicate that around 31% of registered New York voters approve of Trump's job performance, while 64% disapprove.
I'm a native New Yorker (born in the Jamaica Hospital same hospital as Rumpy Dump) and my parents and grandparents were all born in NY City hospitals, and Noo Yawkahs don't put up with bullshit spewin' dewsch bags - specially criminal asswipes like the tRump family!!!
Pure garbage like Don Don is gobbled up by unintelligent buffoons, ignorant, racist, misogynistic clowns like what they hear when that fraudster sells them the very horrible shit they really like to hear, and it is disgusting.
Merry Christmas!
...
It just seems that you hold me to one standard and the dragon to another one. Or you simply agree with him on everything.
.
What say you...?
Sorry... but did he say something?
I won't disagree argue that I'd tend to support a lot of the positions posted, but there isn't often commentary. I can get meme's from the internet myself if I care to. I'm honestly more interested in your POV.
But ignoring him... you sure seem to know an awful lot about something you said you weren't interested in without a courtroom decision. If you want to take that position....OK... but you can't isolate a singular raindrop with precision and then claim ignorance to downpour.
If you don't think Trump is guilty...again...OK. Just explain why everything he does screams guilt. Everyone around hims actions scream guilt. If he's innocent, he needs to replace every advisor he trusts....because they suck.
You obviously got to the end of my last post... so why is he acting soooooo damn guilty?
I don't disagree with your argument...but that doesnt mean the US government hasn't done and won't do what is arguably more rational...regardless of the party.
Happy New Year
Also, oil services companies (Haliburton/KBR ect.) seem to do just fine in these conflicts. An important/interesting data point would be how what percentage of the countries we deploy troops in seem to be significant oil producers?
Back on topic...again, beating a country in war* doesn't mean anybody gets free oil, or cheaper oil. We still have to buy it, and its price is still set by the world market. If the country with the oil wants to gain any advantage from it they have to sell it. The war changes nothing about the economics or availability of oil.
Saddam Hussein invaded and conquered Kuwait. We invaded and liberated Kuwait. They sold oil before, they sold oil after. There was a brief interruption while burning oil wells were extinguished and refurbished, but fundamentally nothing changed.
We invaded and conquered Iraq. They sold oil before. They still sell oil. Saddam was happy to sell us oil, and wouldn't have been able to run his regime with doing so. The war changed nothing about that.
The US government has been sanctioning various individuals and institutions in Venezuela since 2005, but until recently did not embargo Venezuelan oil. Even now Chevron has a license to export Venezuelan oil; we can't even claim that regime change would simplify the legal environment.
*Just before WW2 Japan was buying most of its oil from the US. The US imposed an embargo on oil sales in 1941, and Japan responded by invading and conquering the Dutch East Indies to secure its supply.
But they didn't buy that oilâthey confiscated it for their war effort. Absent that dynamic (and the world has been free of it for over 80 years) "war for oil" is a false argument.
I don't disagree with your argument...but that doesnt mean the US government hasn't done and won't do what is arguably more rational...regardless of the party.
I'm not so sure...oil is probably a big reason.
Look at what the US produces/ For oil, its light crude, and we export over half of our oil and gas production.
Meanwhile, our refineries are geared for the cheaper, heavier stuff imported from abroad...which are more profitable.
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to you too!
Back on topic...again, beating a country in war* doesn't mean anybody gets free oil, or cheaper oil. We still have to buy it, and its price is still set by the world market. If the country with the oil wants to gain any advantage from it they have to sell it. The war changes nothing about the economics or availability of oil.
Saddam Hussein invaded and conquered Kuwait. We invaded and liberated Kuwait. They sold oil before, they sold oil after. There was a brief interruption while burning oil wells were extinguished and refurbished, but fundamentally nothing changed.
We invaded and conquered Iraq. They sold oil before. They still sell oil. Saddam was happy to sell us oil, and wouldn't have been able to run his regime with doing so. The war changed nothing about that.
The US government has been sanctioning various individuals and institutions in Venezuela since 2005, but until recently did not embargo Venezuelan oil. Even now Chevron has a license to export Venezuelan oil; we can't even claim that regime change would simplify the legal environment.
*Just before WW2 Japan was buying most of its oil from the US. The US imposed an embargo on oil sales in 1941, and Japan responded by invading and conquering the Dutch East Indies to secure its supply.
But they didn't buy that oil—they confiscated it for their war effort. Absent that dynamic (and the world has been free of it for over 80 years) "war for oil" is a false argument.
Wow....that's a lot of engagement from the "call me when there is a conviction" guy. What say you...?
It is a post to one person in particular posted in a public thread. The thoughts included apply to that person based upon their individual posting history, not the at large, unless one has a guilty conscience and thinks that it also applies to themself.
By the way you respond shows me that you have no issues with anything that the dragon posts. Just me. By that I take it that you support and agree with what he posts since you remain silent. You are not alone in that. And that is ok, just acknowledge it.
It just seems that you hold me to one standard and the dragon to another one. Or you simply agree with him on everything.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 24, 2025 - 7:26am
rgio wrote:
. . .
- The DOJ couldn't be more inept. Putting up pictures...taking them down...giving advice on how to interpret. All the best people....
. . .
The DOJ is not supposed to serve as counsel for the President, yet here we are:
The Department of Justice has officially released nearly 30,000 more pages of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.
Nevertheless, out of our commitment to the law and transparency, the DOJ is releasing these documents with the legally required protections for Epsteinâs victims.
Note, especially, the statement that if the âunfounded and falseâ claims âhad a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.â (emphasis added)
This is a political statement and underscores how the DOJ has been co-opted.
Completely agree. The whole idea of going to war for oil never made any senseâwe can buy it from tinpot dictators just as easily as from democracies. Assuming we actually need to buy it, that isâand Chevron is still doing just that in Venezuela.
No, we're going to war with Venezuela for far nobler reasons: to wag the dog and distract from our president's many crimes; to stoke chest-thumping nationalists' sense of pride; to endorse the concept of great power spheres of influence that our erstwhile ally Vladimir Putin pushes; because murdering people in boats makes great television; and oh yeah something about regime change. And drugs. Because oil tankers are a massive conduit for drugs.
But, no, it's not about oil.
I'm not so sure...oil is probably a big reason.
Look at what the US produces/ For oil, its light crude, and we export over half of our oil and gas production.
Meanwhile, our refineries are geared for the cheaper, heavier stuff imported from abroad...which are more profitable.
Pardon me for wasting my time saying the following, but ...
This shows how ignorant you are about the government in general. Anything received by an office or agency is included in the record, regardless of credibility at the time of receipt. The veracity is established after receipt if need be, but regardless of veracity, the item is not removed from the file. It remains part of the complete record.
You could have wrote a letter yourself and have had it included in the file had you done so, regardless of content.
Other examples of this kind of behaviour is what is known as SWATTING. Or reports to Children's Services of abuse by a party with malevolent intent towards the parent(s). These reports must be taken seriously and acted on. They are part of the total record regardless of factuality.
But you do as you do. Willfully deceiving yourself to satisfy your addictions to the outcomes that you want and provide you with a vehicle to deny or rationalize the outcomes if you disagree.
It is how people like you are manipulated as politically speaking, useful idiots.
No doubt the content I am responding to will disappear within a week like the rest of these types of posts you make, showing me to be a fool for even responding. But until it disappears it is relevant.
Have a nice day.
Wow....that's a lot of engagement from the "call me when there is a conviction" guy.
Rail on about the defensible, and then go silent on for the majority of the release including:
- Trump's lie about never being on the plane. 8 times, 4 with Maxwell... at least.
- Speaking of her... lies from her about Trump somehow get her minimum security, private showers, and unlimited toilet paper.
- The DOJ couldn't be more inept. Putting up pictures...taking them down...giving advice on how to interpret. All the best people....
Trump may be innocent, but he sure acts like the most guilty guy on the planet. I mean... why wouldn't we trust the "grab 'em by the pussy", porn star screwing with a pregnant wife at home guy who spent a decade plus writing encoded messages about young girls to a convicted pedophile who he spent an awful lot of time with... but says he barely knew?
To paraphrase my great grand pappy.... That dragon won't hunt.
Pardon me for wasting my time saying the following, but ...
This shows how ignorant you are about the government in general. Anything received by an office or agency is included in the record, regardless of credibility at the time of receipt. The veracity is established after receipt if need be, but regardless of veracity, the item is not removed from the file. It remains part of the complete record.
You could have wrote a letter yourself and have had it included in the file had you done so, regardless of content.
Other examples of this kind of behaviour is what is known as SWATTING. Or reports to Children's Services of abuse by a party with malevolent intent towards the parent(s). These reports must be taken seriously and acted on. They are part of the total record regardless of factuality.
But you do as you do. Willfully deceiving yourself to satisfy your addictions to the outcomes that you want and provide you with a vehicle to deny or rationalize the outcomes if you disagree.
It is how people like you are manipulated as politically speaking, useful idiots.
No doubt the content I am responding to will disappear within a week like the rest of these types of posts you make, showing me to be a fool for even responding. But until it disappears it is relevant.
Completely agree. The whole idea of going to war for oil never made any senseâwe can buy it from tinpot dictators just as easily as from democracies. Assuming we actually need to buy it, that isâand Chevron is still doing just that in Venezuela.
No, we're going to war with Venezuela for far nobler reasons: to wag the dog and distract from our president's many crimes; to stoke chest-thumping nationalists' sense of pride; to endorse the concept of great power spheres of influence that our erstwhile ally Vladimir Putin pushes; because murdering people in boats makes great television; and oh yeah something about regime change. And drugs. Because oil tankers are a massive conduit for drugs.
But, no, it's not about oil.
EXACTLEY !
"I don't know why you and many others still think that the US goes to war in order to seize oil assets from another nation. While it was true in the past, not anymore. We do not need it. We have more than we need. Drill baby drill has taken care of that."
as posted by kurtsey,
Dude,
you take a PART of what I "said" to begin your typical Mr. Smartypants nose in the air about how Herr Rumpler is a clever commander and ignore the absolute bullshit of this Administration doing a "Look Look Over Here!" as a distraction from what a pathetic, narcissistic moron Rump is, he is a destructive clown with a group of minions (many armed frightfully pissed off machismo embarrassments).
I followed that line with them meaning "to keep the media focused on other stinky items like him propping Ivanka look-a-likes on his stained lap.
Susie Wiles is his personalized version Margaret Thatcher barking out ways to distract the dimwits from just how f*cked up his "administration's" activities really are." (Thank you islander for noticing Kurtster's doofishness : )
