Preliminary list shows potential Trump Cabinet picks

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/preliminary-list-shows-potential-trump-cabinet-picks/ar-AAk6VI3?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SK2ADHP

Preliminary list shows potential Trump Cabinet picks


Preliminary list shows potential Trump Cabinet picks
The Hill
The Hill
Nikita Vladimirov
13 hrs ago

Donald Trump's transition team has prepared a preliminary list of potential Cabinet members for his upcoming administration.

The list obtained by BuzzFeed News reveals a number of familiar faces including Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and others being weighed for multiple positions.

In total, the list includes 41 names and covers 14 different departments. A source told BuzzFeed that the list is not final, and will likely be changed in the future.

Attorney general picks include Chris Christie, Jeff Sessions and Rudy Giuliani.

Newt Gingrich, John Bolton and Bob Corker are listed as potential picks for the secretary of State.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is the only name listed under chief of staff, while Sessions is also the only one being considered for director of Office of Management and Budget.

Potential secretary of Commerce picks include Christie and Huckabee, while Carson is under consideration to be secretary of Education.

Christie is also being weighed for secretary of Homeland Security, and Carson, Gingrich and Florida Gov. Rick Scott are potential picks for secretary of Health and Human Services.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin also makes a surprise appearance on the shortlist, mentioned as one of seven potential candidates to become the Secretary of the Interior.

Not too big on Christie or Priebus for any position but the rest are ok IMHO..
The Palin pick is solid gold, if for no other reason than-- it will drive the moonbat leftist dem scum crazy! :beer: :clap:--Tyr

[jimnyc]

I SO hope Palin gets a ticket. Would love to see some lose their lunch for 4 years over her having a position. I think she would do a fine job.

[Elessar]

He is wise in his choices. He's surrounding himself with people of experience, knowledge, power,
and influence.

So many liberals thought he would govern like a loose cannon. But liberals prefer the term 'rule'
rather than 'govern'.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071

[NightTrain]

Palin as Secretary of the Interior overseeing the BLM, NPS and USGS?

Perfect!

How cool is it that I personally know a member of Trump's cabinet? :salute:

[Elessar]

Palin as Secretary of the Interior overseeing the BLM, NPS and USGS?

Perfect!

How cool is it that I personally know a member of Trump's cabinet? :salute:

I've got to imagine that is a real delight.

I knew one who was a temporary Secretary of HLS...a retired USCG Admiral, James Loy.
I was his catcher for our base softball team back in 1978/79, and helped write most of the
survival swimming curriculum we taught to OCS cadets in the wake of the Cuyahoga accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Cuyahoga_(WIX-157)

[Abbey Marie]

Giuliani as AG is perfection!

[NightTrain]

Giuliani as AG is perfection!


He's a natural for that.

Also, I read that Ben Carson will be responsible for getting rid of Obamacare for us.

[revelarts]

It seems to me that if Trump picks the people that have been floated then it's really NOT kicking out the lobbyist and old establishment ... at all.

It's just more of the same, warhawk Neo-Cons (Bolton etc), unconstitutional neo-facist (Rudy etc), soft "conservative" friends under possible indictment (Christy) Goldman-Sach Morgan-Stanley cronies (Mnuchin).


"...But the Trump transition team is a who’s who of influence peddlers, including: energy adviser Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist for Koch Industries and the Walt Disney Company; adviser Eric Ueland, a Senate Republican staffer who previously lobbied for Goldman Sachs; and Transition General Counsel William Palatucci, an attorney in New Jersey whose lobbying firm represents Aetna and Verizon. Rick Holt, Christine Ciccone, Rich Bagger, and Mike Ferguson are among the other corporate lobbyists helping to manage the transition effort...."
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/08/...ion-lobbyists/ (https://theintercept.com/2016/11/08/trump-transition-lobbyists/)

Doesn't look much like a new day from here.
And I have to say, some of what you guys REALLY are happy about doesn't sound like the constitutional, small gov't conservatism that brought me to the republican party years ago.

[jimnyc]

I read an article this morning that stated they need to bring in a total of 4,000 people. Damn, I had no idea that's how many get involved.

But as far as the chief picks, and all of the major cabinet picks being tossed around, I love them! I haven't seen a single one yet proposed that I take issue with!! Not one single problem for me.

[Kathianne]

I read an article this morning that stated they need to bring in a total of 4,000 people. Damn, I had no idea that's how many get involved.

But as far as the chief picks, and all of the major cabinet picks being tossed around, I love them! I haven't seen a single one yet proposed that I take issue with!! Not one single problem for me.

4000 is the minimum. Every 4 years many leave just because they've pumped their resumes enough to move on to more money in the private sector. While of course the cabinet positions are what most pay attention to, that is 1 person in a huge department and all have many locations outside of DC. Patronage has always been part and parcel of the executive-including ambassadors and their staffs throughout the world.

[jimnyc]

4000 is the minimum. Every 4 years many leave just because they've pumped their resumes enough to move on to more money in the private sector. While of course the cabinet positions are what most pay attention to, that is 1 person in a huge department and all have many locations outside of DC. Patronage has always been part and parcel of the executive-including ambassadors and their staffs throughout the world.

I'm naive. I always looked at the cabinet positions as you state. I guess I don't think about details, and down the road and other places and foreign places. That's a lot of jobs to replace.

[Abbey Marie]

4000 is the minimum. Every 4 years many leave just because they've pumped their resumes enough to move on to more money in the private sector. While of course the cabinet positions are what most pay attention to, that is 1 person in a huge department and all have many locations outside of DC. Patronage has always been part and parcel of the executive-including ambassadors and their staffs throughout the world.

Hey, I'm available! Do we have an Ambassador to Bermuda?

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2M1DhF3OMA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2M1DhF3OMA

[revelarts]

Rand Paul on Prospective Trump Secretary of State Pick John Bolton: No Way (http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/15/rand-paul-on-prospective-trump-secretary)

Senator declares: "President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on changing our disastrous foreign policy. To appoint John Bolton would be a major first step toward breaking that promise."



One of the things I occasionally liked about the President-elect was his opposition to the Iraq war and regime change. He not only grasped the mistake of that war early, but also seemed to fully understand how it disrupted the balance of power in the Middle East and even emboldened Iran.
We liberated Iraq, but today their best friend is Iran, their second greatest ally is Russia, and their third strongest alliance is with Syria. Trump really seems to get the lesson. Hillary Clinton never did.

<aside class="ad" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif;">
</aside>But the Bolton news, Paul thinks, casts doubts on whether or not Trump has any non-interventionist sense:
<iframe style="border-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; height: 0px; width: 620px;"></iframe>John Bolton never learned and never will...John Bolton more often stood with Hillary Clinton and against what Donald Trump has advised.
None of this is secret. It's all out there. Perhaps the incoming administration should take a closer look.

Paul goes on to point out that Trump was willing to say that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, based on lies. Bolton also thought that it was right that we should have intervened to overthrow Gadhafi in Libya, another decision candidate Trump decried.
Further, Paul writes:
The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded.


...
Paul concludes bluntly: "President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on changing our disastrous foreign policy. To appoint John Bolton would be a major first step toward breaking that promise."


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rand-paul-condemns-president-elect-trump-sec-state-picks-article-1.2874780


Rand Paul ....I couldn't vote for Bolton unless he repudiated his support for the Iraq War and repudiated his support for regime change throughout the Middle East, repudiated his call for immediately bombing Iran," Paul told CNN's Wolf Blitzer (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/rudy-giuliani-foreign-policy-discussion-secretary-of-state/)."I mean really, you want a diplomat in charge of diplomacy. You don't want a bomb-thrower," said the Republican senator.
As for Giuliani, Paul said it would be "a stiff, uphill climb" to vote for him. "Giuliani and Bolton are very similar," Paul said. "Bolton just has a more extensive cheerleading background with regard to war in the Middle East." (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-push-border-wall-congress-seek-muslim-registry-article-1.2874826)

[Black Diamond]

Obama was against Iraq, yet filled cabinet positions with Iraq proponents: Hillary, Emanuel, Kerry, Biden

[revelarts]

Obama was against Iraq, yet filled cabinet positions with Iraq proponents: Hillary, Emanuel, Kerry, Biden
you're exactly right, Obama was a hypocritical liar in many areas.

[revelarts]

more reasons I've never liked Rudy Giuliani



Supported nationwide licensing & assault weapons ban


Q: One of the raps against you is that as mayor you did things that pleased your city but that weren’t necessarily good for the nation. Case in point: Gun control. You now say that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Montana. But as mayor, you supported the nationwide Clinton assault weapons ban. You supported nationwide federal licensing. And you actually joined a lawsuit to make gun manufacturers liable if someone used their gun to shoot somebody.A: I did everything I could as mayor o New York City to reduce crime. And the strategy against guns, both civil and criminal, was very aggressive.
Q: But that wasn’t just tough in New York City, it was tough around the nation.
A: But so was the strategy I utilized in New York City on everything. I was criticized for being too aggressive about the enforcement of the laws, including the gun laws. But the reality is I began with the city that was the crime capital of America. When I left, it was the safest large city in America.
<center>Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 “Choosing the President” interviews (http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_Fox_News_Sunday.htm), May 14, 2007</center><center>

Things you do in NY about guns may be different than TX</center>Q: As mayor, you supported the nationwide Clinton assault weapons ban, & you supported nationwide federal licensing.A: The quote that I have from the time I was mayor is that the conditions in New York and the things you do in New York about guns may be different than Texas. And the reality is I’ve always looked at it that way.
Q: But at the time you said, in fact, that weak gun laws in other states might actually end up producing guns on the streets of New York, so you needed nationwide laws.
Q: What we were doing was using civil remedies to try to help New York, as well as using criminal remedies to help New York. The reality is as mayor of New York, I looked to do all the things that I could do to protect the people of my city.
Q: And as president?
A: As president, my interest is going to be how to protect the people of the United States of America. When I take that oath of office, it’ll be real clear to me who the people I have to protect are.
<center>Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 “Choosing the President” interviews (http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_Fox_News_Sunday.htm), May 14, 2007</center><center>

Gun control reduces urban crime; no effect on hunting</center>Rudy Giuliani addressed a potentially troublesome issue with conservative voters, saying his policies as mayor to get handguns off the street helped reduce crime in New York. “I used gun control as mayor,” he said at a news conference, “but I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms.” He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.<center>Source: The Associated Press on WHDH.com , Feb 11, 2007</center><center>
NYC sued two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors</center>On June 20th [2000], I was pleased to announce that the City of New York filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. This is an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people. The lawsuit is intended to end the free pass that the gun industry has enjoyed for a very long time, which has resulted in too many avoidable deaths.
Source: NYC.gov press release, “Lawsuit” , Jun 26, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Rudy_Giuliani_Gun_Control.htm
he's a chameleon, Now he says he's ok with less restrictive gun laws and he's a strict constitutionalist.


There are host of reasons why i think Giuliani's BAD NEWS as a cabinet pick.
I suspect many are willing to overlook, gloss over and make more excuses for him though.
and just buy the Americas 911 Mayor myth PR, and his talk rather than take a good hard look at his actions.

[jimnyc]

Rand Paul on Prospective Trump Secretary of State Pick John Bolton: No Way (http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/15/rand-paul-on-prospective-trump-secretary)

Senator declares: "President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on changing our disastrous foreign policy. To appoint John Bolton would be a major first step toward breaking that promise."





http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rand-paul-condemns-president-elect-trump-sec-state-picks-article-1.2874780

[/FONT][/COLOR][/URL]

What policies have Trump and Bolton already laid forward that is such an issue? What are their plans that they have declared that you already take issue with?

[Gunny]

Not too big on Christie or Priebus for any position but the rest are ok IMHO..
The Palin pick is solid gold, if for no other reason than-- it will drive the moonbat leftist dem scum crazy! :beer: :clap:--Tyr

The idiot that has had ZERO control over the RNC for ANY position? I wouldn't make him head hall monitor at an elementary school.

[jimnyc]

I watched Giuliani day in and day out for a long time. He was never perfect, but still a great guy and a great choice for a cabinet position. I have no doubt he'll work hard for what is good for our nation.

[revelarts]

I watched Giuliani day in and day out for a long time. He was never perfect, but still a great guy and a great choice for a cabinet position. I have no doubt he'll work hard for what is good for our nation.

sounds like your glossing over the his actions and flipflopery

this is what Giuliani used to say about gun grabbing
"Anything to get more guns off the street is good... but it's not only solution"
" the more we can reduce the number of guns the better"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olz2JdVbxDM

[Black Diamond]

you're exactly right, Obama was a hypocritical liar in many areas.

I'm just wondering if people should be disqualified for disagreeing with President elect

[jimnyc]

sounds like your glossing over the his actions and flipflopery

this is what Giuliani used to say about gun grabbing
"Anything to get more guns off the street is good... but it's not only solution"
" the more we can reduce the number of guns the better"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olz2JdVbxDM

And?


What policies have Trump and Bolton already laid forward that is such an issue? What are their plans that they have declared that you already take issue with?

[Gunny]

sounds like your glossing over the his actions and flipflopery

this is what Giuliani used to say about gun grabbing
"Anything to get more guns off the street is good... but it's not only solution"
" the more we can reduce the number of guns the better"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olz2JdVbxDM

1993, Rev? He was Mayor of NY and the problem was HIS. Little different when you represent wishes of an administration.

[revelarts]

I'm just wondering if people should be disqualified for disagreeing with President elect
Seems to me that if a candidate say he's against "X", then it seems to me that He wouldn't appoint people who vigorously supported "X". Or set them up to oversee the septs that controls/directs "X".
But If they all have consistently agreed on "Y" then ok sure.

Trump has said he thought Iraq was a mistake. Trumps has said that he's for less restrictive Gun laws.
Giulinni has said the opposite on both.
Bolton has been the opposite on Iraq and Trump non interevention-ish foreign policy. Bolton wants to war and bombing and and controlling other countries, he's pure neo-con interventionist.

seems to me that Rudy is not fit for AG or Secretary of State.
And Bolton should be out of consideration for State and foreign policy post. EXCEPT dismantling the U.N. and some treaties.

maybe put Rudy over something else , though i think Rudy is a crook and should be no where near power again.
but it will take to long to go over all the details why. And some of the reasons have already been dismissed by some here.

[jimnyc]

Seems to me that if a candidate say he's against "X", then it seems to me that He wouldn't appoint people who vigorously supported "X". Or set them up to oversee the septs that controls/directs "X".
But If they all have consistently agreed on "Y" then ok sure.

Trump has said he thought Iraq was a mistake. Trumps has said that he's for less restrictive Gun laws.
Giulinni has said the opposite on both.
Bolton has been the opposite on Iraq and Trump non interevention-ish foreign policy. Bolton wants to war and bombing and and controlling other countries, he's pure neo-con interventionist.

seems to me that Rudy is not fit for AG or Secretary of State.
And Bolton should be out of consideration for State and foreign policy post. EXCEPT dismantling the U.N. and some treaties.

maybe put Rudy over something else , though i think Rudy is a crook and should be no where near power again.
but it will take to long to go over all the details why. And some of the reasons have already been dismissed by some here.

Shouldn't they be judged on what they do going foward - not by what one of them did 23 years ago? Perhaps Trump wants "X" done, and that's what he is bringing these folks in for. That doesn't mean these folks get to come in and do "Y" just because they feel like it, or because that's what Rev believes. I think we should wait at least before we condemn folks on future actions, based on long past history.

[revelarts]

1993, Rev? He was Mayor of NY and the problem was HIS. Little different when you represent wishes of an administration.
He made recommendations for the nation Gunny. He was working with Clinton on National assault ban bills.
He SAYS he's changed.

Why take chances?

[revelarts]

Shouldn't they be judged on what they do going foward -

How can you know what they are going to do going forward Jim?
the only real clue is by looking at there past.
unless you just blindly trust what career politician promises.



not by what one of them did 23 years ago?
So all the comments about what Hillary did during the Nixon Admin, and when she 1st proposed health Care and what she did to the women Bill abused and raped 20 -30 - 40 years WAS NOT worth bringing up jim?
c'mon man. you know better. you're just being selective here.



Perhaps Trump wants "X" done, and that's what he is bringing these folks in for. That doesn't mean these folks get to come in and do "Y" just because they feel like it,...
No it doesn't but it makes it FAR more likely than if he chose someone who has a Record of supporting X in the 1st place.

[jimnyc]

He made recommendations for the nation Gunny. He was working with Clinton on National assault ban bills.
He SAYS he's changed.

Why take chances?

Because it's Trump's agenda, not Rudy's. Because Rudy is a great man, respected by millions and millions throughout the nation. Sure, he's got some haters too, but that's typical of any politician.

Fact is though, he's not taking away guns, regulating guns or anything of the sort. I'd bet anything on that and worry this much about that happening, at the hands of Rudy no less -----> 0000.0000000000000

[Gunny]

He made recommendations for the nation Gunny. He was working with Clinton on National assault ban bills.
He SAYS he's changed.

Why take chances?

Why sit and do nothing for fear of what might happen? Your MO is to find a reason "why not" for everyone and everything. "Cabinet appointment" means "can be replaced".

I'm not a Rudy fan by any means. What I know about this is when he had to man the line in NYC his ass was out front leading. A quality sorely lacking in this nation these days.

The bigger threat to the 2nd Amendment is a Dem Supreme Court with a Dem President. I don't recall your being much involved in those conversations pre-election.

[revelarts]

Why sit and do nothing for fear of what might happen? Your MO is to find a reason "why not" for everyone and everything. "Cabinet appointment" means "can be replaced".
My MO is to find the best people that fit the programs laid out not people that DON'T.


Because it's Trump's agenda, not Rudy's.
So Trump should be picking people that are INLINE with the Agenda.

there are a plenty of "Great People" that AGREE with the agenda.

[jimnyc]

How can you know what they are going to do going forward Jim?
the only real clue is by looking at there past.
unless you just blindly trust what career politician promises.

I trust Rudy as I trust any other republican/right politician. More so in this case as I watched him up close for quite a length of time. I have a huge level of respect for him and would love to see him in a cabinet position.


So all the comments about what Hillary did during the Nixon Admin, and when she 1st proposed health Care and what she did to the women Bill abused and raped 20 -30 - 40 years WAS NOT worth bringing up jim.
c'mon man. you know better.
your just being selective here.

I honestly have no idea what you're referring to here. A lot of things do matter from the past, and some things aren't. OF COURSE anything to do with guns is worth looking into. But realistically speaking, with Trump as president, and the GOP throughout, it's just not happening.


No it doesn't but it makes it FAR more likely than if he chose someone who has a Record of supporting X in the 1st place.

Of course it makes it more likely, but I still see those numbers as next to zilch. You KNOW that this is something that has really really worried me in the past year, I truly believed that this was something Hillary would first get started on if elected. So trust me, it IS a huge concern for me - just guns in general. But even then, I have zero worry.

[jimnyc]

So Trump should be picking people that are INLINE with the Agenda.

there are a plenty of "Great People" that AGREE with the agenda.

IMO, he should be selecting folks that somewhat agree with him, if not outright agree with him - or also select very reasonable folks that want what is best for our country. Strong folks that can work with the party, maybe even have friends or the ability to get some votes from the other side. But no, I don't believe he needs folks that are going to kiss his ass and be inline with him 100%.

[revelarts]

I trust Rudy as I trust any other republican/right politician. ....

That's Fine Jim.
But I have to be Frank I've long given up on trusting republican/right politicians (or Left).
I tend go by what they do... and have done. Seems to be a far better indicator of what they'll do next.

[revelarts]

IMO, he should be selecting folks that somewhat agree with him, if not outright agree with him - or also select very reasonable folks that want what is best for our country. Strong folks that can work with the party, maybe even have friends or the ability to get some votes from the other side. But no, I don't believe he needs folks that are going to kiss his ass and be inline with him 100%.


It's Not a case of "kiss his ass and be inline with him 100%". But in various post a person should already be onboard.

If You're Anti-Climate Change regs You're not going to pick someone to head the EPA that has SUPPORTED and WRITTEN Climate change regs.
they may be a GREAT GUY in General. (maybe) OK Fine make him Ambassador to Cancun. Why Make him lead something in a way that FORCES him the Kiss his Arse and go against his previous ACTIONS and beliefs? it makes no sense. And sends mixed messages .

[jimnyc]

That's Fine Jim.
But I have to be Frank I've long given up on trusting republican/right politicians (or Left).
I tend go by what they do... and have done. Seems to be a far better indicator of what they'll do next.

Rev, looking at it in that respect - I gave up on trusting republican politicians. Of course I gave up on democrats long long ago. After this year I think I gave up on the FBI and the DOJ. I was naive enough to think they kinda worked independently, and we had this fabulous justice system at the top of our chain at least. I've lost a little hope in our SC. So I'm really not sure what trusting individuals does for me at this point. When a kid, thinking that one guy can head to Washington and make a difference, make a dent for that fact, is also naive.

Term limits. Somehow just can each and every last one of them at once. Vote in new folks with these new term limits. Make the salaries extremely minimal, so that these folks will be doing their jobs for the good of what area they are representing, and doing their jobs because they actually want to.

And now you know why I'm on medication!! :lol: :coffee:

[jimnyc]

It's Not a case of "kiss his ass and be inline with him 100%". But in various post a person should already be onboard.

If Your Anti-Climate Change regs Your not going to pick someone to head the EPA that has SUPPORTED and WRITTEN Climate change regs.
they may be a GREAT GUY in General. (maybe) OK Fine make him Ambassador to Cancun. Why Make him lead something in a way that FORCES him the Kiss his Arse and go against his previous ACTIONS and beliefs.

Yeah, I'm not saying he should hire democrats, or folks that are 180 of all of his positions. I agree with what you are pointing out above.

[Gunny]

My MO is to find the best people that fit the programs laid out not people that DON'T.


So Trump should be picking people that are INLINE with the Agenda.

there are a plenty of "Great People" that AGREE with the agenda.

I didn't say Trump should pick anyone. There are a few names on that list that make me cringe. Little late to cry NOW. Where were you 2-4-6 years ago when replacing the flotsam mattered? At the ground floor? I'm betting not at the local and state polls. You and countless others let every one else do the work and make the choices then bitch about them.

Solves nothing.

[Abbey Marie]

Rev, looking at it in that respect - I gave up on trusting republican politicians. Of course I gave up on democrats long long ago. After this year I think I gave up on the FBI and the DOJ. I was naive enough to think they kinda worked independently, and we had this fabulous justice system at the top of our chain at least. I've lost a little hope in our SC. So I'm really not sure what trusting individuals does for me at this point. When a kid, thinking that one guy can head to Washington and make a difference, make a dent for that fact, is also naive.

Term limits. Somehow just can each and every last one of them at once. Vote in new folks with these new term limits. Make the salaries extremely minimal, so that these folks will be doing their jobs for the good of what area they are representing, and doing their jobs because they actually want to.

And now you know why I'm on medication!! :lol: :coffee:

Can't trust athletes, either. If we think about it, trusting the motives of people who are that attracted to money and power is illogical.

The heart of man is corrupt. Just a sad fact, and we know from the Bible that it has always been so.

So, we just shuffle along, and if we are lucky, we find someone to share our life with whom we can trust.

Well, that lifted me up this morning. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Cant trust athletes, either. If we think about it, trusting the motives of people who are that attracted to money and power is illogical.

The heart of man is corrupt. Just a sad fact, and we know from the Bible that it has always been so.

So, we just shuffle along, and if we are lucky, we find someone to share our life with whom we can trust.

Well, that lifted me up this morning. :laugh2:

This is all true, and I believe I found that person, even if her goal in life is to murder me over a 50 year period. :)

[Abbey Marie]

This is all true, and I believe I found that person, even if her goal in life is to murder me over a 50 year period. :)


:laugh2: That is a conundrum, for sure.

[Gunny]

Can't trust athletes, either. If we think about it, trusting the motives of people who are that attracted to money and power is illogical.

The heart of man is corrupt. Just a sad fact, and we know from the Bible that it has always been so.

So, we just shuffle along, and if we are lucky, we find someone to share our life with whom we can trust.

Well, that lifted me up this morning. :laugh2:


This is all true, and I believe I found that person, even if her goal in life is to murder me over a 50 year period. :)


:laugh2: That is a conundrum, for sure.

Y'all are disgusting. Especially Jim, you kiss-ass.
:flameth:

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeV8enRSk_E


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeV8enRSk_E