Friday Funnies: What Does College Tuition Buy You?

Chip Bok - Creators Syndicate

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

So we've gone from drawing penis heads to testicle ears. Seems like a lateral move.

[Libertarian]

It's called symbolism!

[Will4Freedom]

I'm glad they did a Friday Funnies today. I miss them when they are skipped.

As hats go... I can't decide which is worse, this 'crown of barbed wire' or the pussy hats.

Happy St. Patties day, Lads and Lassies! May you find the Liberty you're looking for!

Cheers!

[Radioactive]

pussy & barbed wire are two things that should not be used together in a sentence...and that dude looks way to butch for Middlebury

[Libertarian]

Less is more. No big black sign needed for this one.

[Fist of Etiquette]

It looks like a censor bar. What is Bok hiding?

[DanO.]

Speaking of a thin-skinned man-child:

Trump Digs In on Wiretap, No Matter Who Says Differently

WASHINGTON ? The former president denied it. So did the former national intelligence director. The F.B.I. director has said privately that it is false. The speaker of the House and the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees ? all three Republican ? see no indications that it happened.

But President Trump insists he is right. No matter how many officials, even in his own party, dismiss his unsubstantiated claim that President Barack Obama secretly tapped his phones last year, the White House made clear on Thursday that it would stand by the assertion.

Much like his longstanding assertion that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States, Mr. Trump dismisses contrary information with undiminished surety.

10 million New Jersey Muslims stood on their rooftops and cheered the President's psychosis.
https://tinyurl.com/l2ln3zn

[Will4Freedom]

Yes, and the media just won't leg go of the Russia thing, despite lack of proof.

Sad that folks can't just do their stupid job and shut up already.

[VG Zaytsev]

Does anyone honestly believe that Trump was not under surveillance while a running for the presidency (and before announcing)? Or that Obama somehow got his hands on the reports of that surveillance?

We've only had numerous reports leaked to the effect that all electronic communications are vacuumed up by the NSA - reports that have been tacitly confirmed with the claim that the reporters "damaged national security".

Obama actively campaigned for Hillary, including saying that Trump was singularly an unacceptable candidate.

It's been admitted that the Obama administration surveilled AP reporters, a Fox reporter, Senate Committees, Leaders of Allied countries and others.

Obama's political career was built in the leaking of sealed court records shortly before elections that destroyed two of his opponents.

The NY TTimes has published several stories citing secret evidence against Trump collected via "wiretapping". General Flynn was forced out because of discrepancies between his public statements and a "wire tapped" telephone conversation that took place at Trumps post election HQs. And Hillary referenced information during the campaign that was reportedly used to obtain a FISA warrant before the election.

So there we have motive, means, a pattern of behavior (MO) and evidence that surveillance occurred.
Countering that we have assertions from "top men", whoare all known liars, that it never happened.

[DanO.]

Does anyone honestly believe that Trump was not under surveillance

The burden of proof is on the accuser, who has provided no evidence. But by all means let's accept the "evidence" of an anonymous blog commenter.

[Zeb]

I'm sure they were under surveillance in one way or another. Whether his phones were tapped, which is a lot more specific thing, I don't know.

[Gilbert Martin]

It is certainly possible to spy on somebody without using an old fashioned wire tap on a land line phone.

Various government entities (including local police) use a device called Stingray that mimics a cell phone tower and causes cell phones to connect with it. The Stingray user can record the phone numbers of incoming and outgoing calls and also the content of voice and text communications.

Whether someone was using that on Trump I have no idea, but anyone who had one of those devices certainly could do it.

[ant1sthenes]

The question is, does it matter? Trump's statement might have been a literal untruth, but the arrow was shot close enough to the mark that everyone else couldn't help but catch a glimpse of the truth. Sort of the opposite of his enemies, who use literal truths to distract and deceive.

Yes, his campaign was surveilled (putting the surveillance on the Russian end might have an attempt at a fig leaf of legality, but the opposition campaign was the target), enough that transcripts of conversations were recorded and passed around to ensure leaks. Either the Trump-Russia leaks are totally unsubstantiated BS, or his people were monitored. And yet if anything truly damning had been found, it would have been leaked in its entirety, and they would have already pitched the case to invalidate the election results or immediately impeach Trump, given that the issue in question is collaboration with a foreign power to steal elections. They wouldn't need to worry about prosecution for the leaks since they'd most likely have the presidency and a grateful media touting them as national saviors.

[Gilbert Martin]

As long as Trump succeeds in cutting income taxes and federal regulations, I don't care what he thinks about wiretaps.

Those are things that Hillary never would have done and that automatically makes him superior to her regardless of any other aspect of either one of them.

[DanO.]

the media just won't leg go of the Russia thing

Don't you mean the Congress? They're the ones doing the investigations and holding the hearings. The news media report on what the Congress is doing. That is their job.

[Brandybuck]

NEEDZ MOAR LABELS!!!!11!