The Many Faces of US Politics...

[seafoid]

Jaysus Chrisht

Flynn prepared to testify against Trump

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/01/michael-flynn-shares-information-senior-trump-official-fbi-pleading/

Plus

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html

Mr. Flynn's pre-inauguration discussions with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, were part of a coordinated effort by aides running Mr. Trump's transition into the White House to create foreign policy before they were in power, documents released as part of Mr. Flynn's plea agreement show. Their efforts undermined the existing policy of President Barack Obama and flouted a warning from a senior Obama administration official to stop meddling in foreign affairs until after the inauguration.

Court documents do not disclose what Mr. Trump knew about Mr. Flynn's discussions. But in at least one instance, federal prosecutors say, Mr. Flynn was directed by a "very senior member" of the presidential transition team. Mr. Trump's lawyers believe that unnamed aide was Mr. Trump's son-in-law and close adviser, Jared Kushner, according to a lawyer briefed on the matter

[seafoid]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/business/trump-benefit-tax-cuts.html

President Trump likes to argue that the tax-reform legislation hurtling through Congress this week will protect low- and middle-income households, "not the wealthy and well connected." He puts himself forward as Exhibit A.

"This is going to cost me a fortune," he said on Wednesday in Missouri. "This is not good for me."

So surely at least a few of the most egregious loopholes that benefit Mr. Trump and real estate developers like him will be closed.

Not in the slightest.

In fact, the proposals seem almost tailor-made to enrich the president and people like him.

"Commercial real estate came out essentially unscathed," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a conservative advocacy group. Real estate developers "didn't lose anything they care about," and they got even more breaks, like a shorter depreciation schedule in the Senate tax bill, Mr. Holtz-Eakin pointed out.

Mr. Trump still has not released his tax returns, so it's impossible to know to what extent he would personally benefit from the legislation. But there's little doubt that he would.

"Lower pass-through rates and the repeal of the alternative minimum tax — those two alone are so hugely beneficial to Trump that I have trouble imagining any way that he wouldn't come out ahead," said Steve Wamhoff, senior fellow for federal tax policy at the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. (The pass-through reference involves income that typically comes from partnerships and limited liability companies.)


Not only that, but rental income, royalty payments and licensing fees — some of the president's major sources of income — get especially favorable treatment under new rates for pass-through income. (Mr. Trump's assets include more than 500 pass-through partnerships and limited liability companies.)

"Trump will make out like a bandit on all the big items," said Steven M. Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

[Gmac]

Seems to me it was a horrible accident which happens when guns are involved.

Oh come on.

He gave different versions of what happened. First he said he was shooting at a seal then changed it to saying he stepped on the gun.

Then he threw the gun into the sea.

You believe him? Seriously?

If he was trying to shoot her why did the evidence show that the bullet hit the ground first??

Is that how you would shoot someone?#

Plus we're only reading highly summarised versions of testimony and evidence. Surely the jury were best placed to make the call on this and judging by how long they deliberated they didn't take it lightly!!

Do you think a jury in San Francisco would be unbiased, especially when 3 of the 12 members are immigrants themselves? This case had bigger consequences than just a regular homicide. Had he been found guilty it would have been a massive blow to sanctuary cities. I'm doubtful the jury would have been fully focused on the murder itself but what their verdict would mean for their political leanings. The US is just that polarised.

Oh so you're assuming and making stuff up again. . . keep doing that!!! It helps everyone realise that you haven't a clue about the real world outside of your little Fox/Infowars Breitbart bubble!!]

MAGA!!

Yep, that's why they skimmed through the evidence and feigned discussion and came to a quick decision within a mere six days!

Yes. If you want to believe that jurors hadn't already made their minds up based on their political beliefs then I think you're seriously naive.

OK, I'll bite, one more time.

Six days of debate...

Maybe, unlike people like YOU, they were able to separate the FACTS of the case from the political hype and implications surrounding it i.e. they made their judgment based on the evidence before them concerning whether this man intended to or was negligent in killing that poor woman, not on the Trump/Fox News political campaign about sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary city policy was not on trial here. This man picking up a gun and causing the death of this woman was. Completely separate issues.

The man may or may not be really guilty. The cops or the prosecution may have fucked up the case. The jury may have been biased. The judge might have made a balls of things. It would not be the first time for any of those scenarios, amazingly. Or everyone may have played brilliantly and they just couldn't convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no idea, and unless you have something to disclose or you've been watching every utterance and proceeding in this trial, neither do you.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we'll not have to wait too long before the various people are on the morning news shows selling their stories.

whar sort of a city releases a felon illegal immigrant onto the street to commit more crimes when ice has told them to keep him locked up so he can be deported after he just served a sentence for drug possession,SAN Francisco is now a lawless city it was once a beautiful city but now its a kip full of homeless bums shitting and pissing everywhere breaking into cars and harassing the public with no repurcussions  . The county sheriff who released this guy should be charged and it's all because they want to give the middle finger to trump

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Big crowd at the tree-lighting ceremony last night

[whitey]

Whitey?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/01/blake-farenthold-taxpayer-funds-sexual-harassment-274458

Rep. Blake Farenthold used taxpayer money to settle a sexual harassment claim brought by his former spokesman — the only known sitting member of Congress to have used a little-known congressional account to pay an accuser, sources told POLITICO.

Lauren Greene, the Texas Republican's former communications director, sued her boss in December 2014 over allegations of gender discrimination, sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment.

Greene claimed in the lawsuit that another Farenthold aide told her the lawmaker had "sexual fantasies" and "wet dreams" about Greene. She also claimed that Farenthold "regularly drank to excess" and told her in February 2014 that he was "estranged from his wife and had not had sex with her in years."

When she complained about comments Farenthold and a male staffer made to her, Greene said the congressman improperly fired her. She filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, but the case was later dropped after both parties reached a private settlement.

No information was ever released on that agreement.

House Administration Committee Chairman Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) told GOP lawmakers in a closed-door Friday morning meeting that only one House office in the past five years had used an Office of Compliance account to settle a sexual harassment complaint. Harper said in that one instance, the settlement totaled $84,000.

Are you bringing this story to my attention, or are you implying I resemble someone in the photo?

[heganboy]

Tax bill passes 51-49

If you earn more than 344k pa in the US you just got an early Christmas present.

If you didn't, well tee hee and screw you!

The Republican pretty which wants to decrease the deficit, has just added 1.5 trillion dollars to it.

But perhaps they are right on trickle down economics for the first time in human existence, maybe all the other attempts at it were wrong, and this bill has nailed it, despite no one reading the bill before voting for it....

Of course the fact that it passed yesterday when kushner Flynn pled guilty was a huge coincidence.

[J70]

Seems to me it was a horrible accident which happens when guns are involved.

Oh come on.

He gave different versions of what happened. First he said he was shooting at a seal then changed it to saying he stepped on the gun.

Then he threw the gun into the sea.

You believe him? Seriously?

If he was trying to shoot her why did the evidence show that the bullet hit the ground first??

Is that how you would shoot someone?#

Plus we're only reading highly summarised versions of testimony and evidence. Surely the jury were best placed to make the call on this and judging by how long they deliberated they didn't take it lightly!!

Do you think a jury in San Francisco would be unbiased, especially when 3 of the 12 members are immigrants themselves? This case had bigger consequences than just a regular homicide. Had he been found guilty it would have been a massive blow to sanctuary cities. I'm doubtful the jury would have been fully focused on the murder itself but what their verdict would mean for their political leanings. The US is just that polarised.

Oh so you're assuming and making stuff up again. . . keep doing that!!! It helps everyone realise that you haven't a clue about the real world outside of your little Fox/Infowars Breitbart bubble!!]

MAGA!!

Yep, that's why they skimmed through the evidence and feigned discussion and came to a quick decision within a mere six days!

Yes. If you want to believe that jurors hadn't already made their minds up based on their political beliefs then I think you're seriously naive.

OK, I'll bite, one more time.

Six days of debate...

Maybe, unlike people like YOU, they were able to separate the FACTS of the case from the political hype and implications surrounding it i.e. they made their judgment based on the evidence before them concerning whether this man intended to or was negligent in killing that poor woman, not on the Trump/Fox News political campaign about sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary city policy was not on trial here. This man picking up a gun and causing the death of this woman was. Completely separate issues.

The man may or may not be really guilty. The cops or the prosecution may have fucked up the case. The jury may have been biased. The judge might have made a balls of things. It would not be the first time for any of those scenarios, amazingly. Or everyone may have played brilliantly and they just couldn't convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no idea, and unless you have something to disclose or you've been watching every utterance and proceeding in this trial, neither do you.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we'll not have to wait too long before the various people are on the morning news shows selling their stories.

whar sort of a city releases a felon illegal immigrant onto the street to commit more crimes when ice has told them to keep him locked up so he can be deported after he just served a sentence for drug possession,SAN Francisco is now a lawless city it was once a beautiful city but now its a kip full of homeless bums shitting and pissing everywhere breaking into cars and harassing the public with no repurcussions  . The county sheriff who released this guy should be charged and it's all because they want to give the middle finger to trump

Apart from his scaremongering using this case, what does it have to with Trump?
What charges should be brought against the sheriff? Have the people of SF not already got rid of him because of this killing?

[stew]

Seems to me it was a horrible accident which happens when guns are involved.

Oh come on.

He gave different versions of what happened. First he said he was shooting at a seal then changed it to saying he stepped on the gun.

Then he threw the gun into the sea.

You believe him? Seriously?

If he was trying to shoot her why did the evidence show that the bullet hit the ground first??

Is that how you would shoot someone?#

Plus we're only reading highly summarised versions of testimony and evidence. Surely the jury were best placed to make the call on this and judging by how long they deliberated they didn't take it lightly!!

Do you think a jury in San Francisco would be unbiased, especially when 3 of the 12 members are immigrants themselves? This case had bigger consequences than just a regular homicide. Had he been found guilty it would have been a massive blow to sanctuary cities. I'm doubtful the jury would have been fully focused on the murder itself but what their verdict would mean for their political leanings. The US is just that polarised.

Oh so you're assuming and making stuff up again. . . keep doing that!!! It helps everyone realise that you haven't a clue about the real world outside of your little Fox/Infowars Breitbart bubble!!]

MAGA!!

Yep, that's why they skimmed through the evidence and feigned discussion and came to a quick decision within a mere six days!

Yes. If you want to believe that jurors hadn't already made their minds up based on their political beliefs then I think you're seriously naive.

OK, I'll bite, one more time.

Six days of debate...

Maybe, unlike people like YOU, they were able to separate the FACTS of the case from the political hype and implications surrounding it i.e. they made their judgment based on the evidence before them concerning whether this man intended to or was negligent in killing that poor woman, not on the Trump/Fox News political campaign about sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary city policy was not on trial here. This man picking up a gun and causing the death of this woman was. Completely separate issues.

The man may or may not be really guilty. The cops or the prosecution may have fucked up the case. The jury may have been biased. The judge might have made a balls of things. It would not be the first time for any of those scenarios, amazingly. Or everyone may have played brilliantly and they just couldn't convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no idea, and unless you have something to disclose or you've been watching every utterance and proceeding in this trial, neither do you.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we'll not have to wait too long before the various people are on the morning news shows selling their stories.

whar sort of a city releases a felon illegal immigrant onto the street to commit more crimes when ice has told them to keep him locked up so he can be deported after he just served a sentence for drug possession,SAN Francisco is now a lawless city it was once a beautiful city but now its a kip full of homeless bums shitting and pissing everywhere breaking into cars and harassing the public with no repurcussions  . The county sheriff who released this guy should be charged and it's all because they want to give the middle finger to trump

Apart from his scaremongering using this case, what does it have to with Trump?
What charges should be brought against the sheriff? Have the people of SF not already got rid of him because of this killing?

Dear J70, So this dude kills an innocent girl walking along a pier in good ole san Fran, all the while linking her fathers arm,an illegal alien who had been thrown out of the country on no less than five prior occasions kills her with a gun he found under his swivel chair, he gets a trial, she gets buried and he gets off in a sanctuary city, how do you justify this speaking as a liberal supporter of such cities and what is your message to her family at this time! This last question applies to all you liberals who support sanctuary cities!

[J70]

Seems to me it was a horrible accident which happens when guns are involved.

Oh come on.

He gave different versions of what happened. First he said he was shooting at a seal then changed it to saying he stepped on the gun.

Then he threw the gun into the sea.

You believe him? Seriously?

If he was trying to shoot her why did the evidence show that the bullet hit the ground first??

Is that how you would shoot someone?#

Plus we're only reading highly summarised versions of testimony and evidence. Surely the jury were best placed to make the call on this and judging by how long they deliberated they didn't take it lightly!!

Do you think a jury in San Francisco would be unbiased, especially when 3 of the 12 members are immigrants themselves? This case had bigger consequences than just a regular homicide. Had he been found guilty it would have been a massive blow to sanctuary cities. I'm doubtful the jury would have been fully focused on the murder itself but what their verdict would mean for their political leanings. The US is just that polarised.

Oh so you're assuming and making stuff up again. . . keep doing that!!! It helps everyone realise that you haven't a clue about the real world outside of your little Fox/Infowars Breitbart bubble!!]

MAGA!!

Yep, that's why they skimmed through the evidence and feigned discussion and came to a quick decision within a mere six days!

Yes. If you want to believe that jurors hadn't already made their minds up based on their political beliefs then I think you're seriously naive.

OK, I'll bite, one more time.

Six days of debate...

Maybe, unlike people like YOU, they were able to separate the FACTS of the case from the political hype and implications surrounding it i.e. they made their judgment based on the evidence before them concerning whether this man intended to or was negligent in killing that poor woman, not on the Trump/Fox News political campaign about sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary city policy was not on trial here. This man picking up a gun and causing the death of this woman was. Completely separate issues.

The man may or may not be really guilty. The cops or the prosecution may have fucked up the case. The jury may have been biased. The judge might have made a balls of things. It would not be the first time for any of those scenarios, amazingly. Or everyone may have played brilliantly and they just couldn't convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no idea, and unless you have something to disclose or you've been watching every utterance and proceeding in this trial, neither do you.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we'll not have to wait too long before the various people are on the morning news shows selling their stories.

whar sort of a city releases a felon illegal immigrant onto the street to commit more crimes when ice has told them to keep him locked up so he can be deported after he just served a sentence for drug possession,SAN Francisco is now a lawless city it was once a beautiful city but now its a kip full of homeless bums shitting and pissing everywhere breaking into cars and harassing the public with no repurcussions  . The county sheriff who released this guy should be charged and it's all because they want to give the middle finger to trump

Apart from his scaremongering using this case, what does it have to with Trump?
What charges should be brought against the sheriff? Have the people of SF not already got rid of him because of this killing?

Dear J70, So this dude kills an innocent girl walking along a pier in good ole san Fran, all the while linking her fathers arm,an illegal alien who had been thrown out of the country on no less than five prior occasions kills her with a gun he found under his swivel chair, he gets a trial, she gets buried and he gets off in a sanctuary city, how do you justify this speaking as a liberal supporter of such cities and what is your message to her family at this time! This last question applies to all you liberals who support sanctuary cities!

Have you been on the drink or are you suffering from short term memory loss?

We've already discussed this several times over the past few days, when I said several times that I supported deporting criminals, ergo, I think San Francisco was wrong to release him. You even gave me a snarky response to that statement.

[foxcommander]

and

.@BrianRoss: Mike Flynn is "prepared to testify" against Trump, his family, & the campaign, including Trump ordering him to talk to Russians

MSM FAKE NEWS ALERT

Brian Ross has been suspended for 4 weeks for the above report.

What have you got to say now Gay? So President Trump is quite right about the liberal media tripping over themselves tying to spread lies

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/abc-news-reporter-brian-ross-suspended-serious-error-flynn-reporting-n825966

[foxcommander]

and just to note

MSNBC coverage of Kate Steinle trial over this weekend - 0 minutes.

It's not newsworthy.

[stew]

and just to note

MSNBC coverage of Kate Steinle trial over this weekend - 0 minutes.

It's not newsworthy.

Thats why the sheep on here love their msnbc.......................They get to forget the fact they condone bastards like this being in the country!

[stew]

and just to note

MSNBC coverage of Kate Steinle trial over this weekend - 0 minutes.

It's not newsworthy.
[/quote
er specifically because she doesn't have a penis.

In the wake of the sexual assault, harassment and misconduct allegations that have rocked many institutions including Hollywood and Capitol Hill, Dana Nessel says she has a solution.

READ MORE: Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey and Louis C.K.: why fans of the accused largely stand by them


"When you're choosing Michigan's next attorney general ask yourself this: Who can you trust most not to show you their penis in a professional setting?" she asks in a campaign video released Wednesday.

"Is it the candidate who doesn't have a penis? I'd say so."
Nessel is running for the Democratic nomination for the position in the state, and other women are vying for nominations in other positions (including Senator Debbie Stabenow who is up for re-election). Nessel says an "all-female ticket" is just what they need right now.

The primary election won't be until August, but Nessel has started campaigning early to address the issue of sex crimes.

The issue has been amplified by high-profile cases like Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who's accused of sexually touching teenage girls in the 1980s, and Senator Al Franken who's apologized for misconduct including groping women.

Well played lberals, well played!

[stew]

Seems to me it was a horrible accident which happens when guns are involved.

Oh come on.

He gave different versions of what happened. First he said he was shooting at a seal then changed it to saying he stepped on the gun.

Then he threw the gun into the sea.

You believe him? Seriously?

If he was trying to shoot her why did the evidence show that the bullet hit the ground first??

Is that how you would shoot someone?#

Plus we're only reading highly summarised versions of testimony and evidence. Surely the jury were best placed to make the call on this and judging by how long they deliberated they didn't take it lightly!!

Do you think a jury in San Francisco would be unbiased, especially when 3 of the 12 members are immigrants themselves? This case had bigger consequences than just a regular homicide. Had he been found guilty it would have been a massive blow to sanctuary cities. I'm doubtful the jury would have been fully focused on the murder itself but what their verdict would mean for their political leanings. The US is just that polarised.

Oh so you're assuming and making stuff up again. . . keep doing that!!! It helps everyone realise that you haven't a clue about the real world outside of your little Fox/Infowars Breitbart bubble!!]

MAGA!!

Yep, that's why they skimmed through the evidence and feigned discussion and came to a quick decision within a mere six days!

Yes. If you want to believe that jurors hadn't already made their minds up based on their political beliefs then I think you're seriously naive.

OK, I'll bite, one more time.

Six days of debate...

Maybe, unlike people like YOU, they were able to separate the FACTS of the case from the political hype and implications surrounding it i.e. they made their judgment based on the evidence before them concerning whether this man intended to or was negligent in killing that poor woman, not on the Trump/Fox News political campaign about sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary city policy was not on trial here. This man picking up a gun and causing the death of this woman was. Completely separate issues.

The man may or may not be really guilty. The cops or the prosecution may have fucked up the case. The jury may have been biased. The judge might have made a balls of things. It would not be the first time for any of those scenarios, amazingly. Or everyone may have played brilliantly and they just couldn't convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no idea, and unless you have something to disclose or you've been watching every utterance and proceeding in this trial, neither do you.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we'll not have to wait too long before the various people are on the morning news shows selling their stories.

whar sort of a city releases a felon illegal immigrant onto the street to commit more crimes when ice has told them to keep him locked up so he can be deported after he just served a sentence for drug possession,SAN Francisco is now a lawless city it was once a beautiful city but now its a kip full of homeless bums shitting and pissing everywhere breaking into cars and harassing the public with no repurcussions  . The county sheriff who released this guy should be charged and it's all because they want to give the middle finger to trump

Apart from his scaremongering using this case, what does it have to with Trump?
What charges should be brought against the sheriff? Have the people of SF not already got rid of him because of this killing?

Dear J70, So this dude kills an innocent girl walking along a pier in good ole san Fran, all the while linking her fathers arm,an illegal alien who had been thrown out of the country on no less than five prior occasions kills her with a gun he found under his swivel chair, he gets a trial, she gets buried and he gets off in a sanctuary city, how do you justify this speaking as a liberal supporter of such cities and what is your message to her family at this time! This last question applies to all you liberals who support sanctuary cities!

Have you been on the drink or are you suffering from short term memory loss?

We've already discussed this several times over the past few days, when I said several times that I supported deporting criminals, ergo, I think San Francisco was wrong to release him. You even gave me a snarky response to that statement.

Do you agree with sanctuary cities in general? That is what I am going on about!

[J70]

Seems to me it was a horrible accident which happens when guns are involved.

Oh come on.

He gave different versions of what happened. First he said he was shooting at a seal then changed it to saying he stepped on the gun.

Then he threw the gun into the sea.

You believe him? Seriously?

If he was trying to shoot her why did the evidence show that the bullet hit the ground first??

Is that how you would shoot someone?#

Plus we're only reading highly summarised versions of testimony and evidence. Surely the jury were best placed to make the call on this and judging by how long they deliberated they didn't take it lightly!!

Do you think a jury in San Francisco would be unbiased, especially when 3 of the 12 members are immigrants themselves? This case had bigger consequences than just a regular homicide. Had he been found guilty it would have been a massive blow to sanctuary cities. I'm doubtful the jury would have been fully focused on the murder itself but what their verdict would mean for their political leanings. The US is just that polarised.

Oh so you're assuming and making stuff up again. . . keep doing that!!! It helps everyone realise that you haven't a clue about the real world outside of your little Fox/Infowars Breitbart bubble!!]

MAGA!!

Yep, that's why they skimmed through the evidence and feigned discussion and came to a quick decision within a mere six days!

Yes. If you want to believe that jurors hadn't already made their minds up based on their political beliefs then I think you're seriously naive.

OK, I'll bite, one more time.

Six days of debate...

Maybe, unlike people like YOU, they were able to separate the FACTS of the case from the political hype and implications surrounding it i.e. they made their judgment based on the evidence before them concerning whether this man intended to or was negligent in killing that poor woman, not on the Trump/Fox News political campaign about sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary city policy was not on trial here. This man picking up a gun and causing the death of this woman was. Completely separate issues.

The man may or may not be really guilty. The cops or the prosecution may have fucked up the case. The jury may have been biased. The judge might have made a balls of things. It would not be the first time for any of those scenarios, amazingly. Or everyone may have played brilliantly and they just couldn't convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no idea, and unless you have something to disclose or you've been watching every utterance and proceeding in this trial, neither do you.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we'll not have to wait too long before the various people are on the morning news shows selling their stories.

whar sort of a city releases a felon illegal immigrant onto the street to commit more crimes when ice has told them to keep him locked up so he can be deported after he just served a sentence for drug possession,SAN Francisco is now a lawless city it was once a beautiful city but now its a kip full of homeless bums shitting and pissing everywhere breaking into cars and harassing the public with no repurcussions  . The county sheriff who released this guy should be charged and it's all because they want to give the middle finger to trump

Apart from his scaremongering using this case, what does it have to with Trump?
What charges should be brought against the sheriff? Have the people of SF not already got rid of him because of this killing?

Dear J70, So this dude kills an innocent girl walking along a pier in good ole san Fran, all the while linking her fathers arm,an illegal alien who had been thrown out of the country on no less than five prior occasions kills her with a gun he found under his swivel chair, he gets a trial, she gets buried and he gets off in a sanctuary city, how do you justify this speaking as a liberal supporter of such cities and what is your message to her family at this time! This last question applies to all you liberals who support sanctuary cities!

Have you been on the drink or are you suffering from short term memory loss?

We've already discussed this several times over the past few days, when I said several times that I supported deporting criminals, ergo, I think San Francisco was wrong to release him. You even gave me a snarky response to that statement.

Do you agree with sanctuary cities in general? That is what I am going on about!

Ive already answered THAT too. Yes.