Bob in Mich
-
Posts
1,749 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bob in Mich
-
-
5 minutes ago, Rob's House said:
The better question is why are they trying to keep it a secret?
A government agent announces he is attempting a coup that is underway, then the same agent becomes the center of a secret coordinated effort to remove the President.
If investigating the corruption of a political opponent is cause for removal, it seems obvious that an attempted coup is pretty serious. Something the deeply concerned patriots with such high standards of propriety and transparency would want us to know about.
But for some unknown reason it is of the utmost importance that Eric Ciamarella's name not be uttered - especially on the record.
It's oddly inconsistent that the same patriots with such deep and genuine concerns for all facts, witnesses, and documents coming to light are also the people who are adamant that neither the Senate nor the public learn anything about the the people who initiated all of this.
We've already explained the absurdity of the proffered explanation that it's to protect his safety. No one still believes that. But they're still terrified of having his name mentioned on the record. That's odd. What are they afraid of?
If they have nothing to hide, why keep it a secret?
Please, can you explain why you like to put his name out there more than it is already if not to further endanger the guy? You missed that question apparently
-
38 minutes ago, dubs said:
I’m always perplexed by the people who constantly throw out the bullet point: “trump always lies”, yet take as gospel everything that proven and notorious liar, Adam Schiff says. Schiff was on TV for three years lying to the American public about a the Russia hoax and has been lying that he doesn’t know who the “whistleblower” is.
Trump is certainly no saint and I’m sure he’s lied about many things in his life, but I’m curious as to what exactly the trump haters are referring to when they always say, “trump lies”. And how those lies stack up to at least two attempts that we know of to overthrow the will of the American people through the election process and negate the results of a free and fair election.
-
1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Well, you had made the argument that your liar's lies were more or less more believable than my liars lies, I just assumed you had a machine of sorts to document that your liars are less likely to lie when they don't tell the truth. If you're freestyling, that's cool too. It's sort of the Adam Schiff model, but have at it.
Skepticism is healthy, and I acknowledge that you truly believe your liar's lie a lot less than Trump lies, and something you also believe something about Mike Pence.
I would ask only that you acknowledge I'm skeptical of your claim, apparently fabricated, and that I acknowledge you think you hold the moral high ground on the issue of lies from politicians. I ask that you further acknowledge that I find that delightful and funny.
That is my truth.
Yeah I will acknowledge you are getting annoying. If you want to claim Trump doesn't lie by orders of magnitude more than any of our previous leaders I would say you are blind or stupid or, possibly I missed the point of one of your stupid jokes. Enjoy the evening.
-
17 minutes ago, Foxx said:
Bob, one last time...
here is the last sentence of your post that i took contention with...
"Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. "
if you are claiming that you are making a point of, 'increasing danger' then you have a very poor way of wording what you are trying to say. your subsequent attempts were, in my opinion, weaksauce and didn't spell out very clearly your opposition to my contention.
further, if we attempt to put your last sentence in greater context, the first sentence states thus: " No greater danger by publicizing it more? Are you sure? OK, then why are you doing it? What is gained by publicizing him/her?" it seems readily apparent that even with the greater context included, you were plainly comparing apples to oranges.
however, now that you have made it clear what was in your head and not necessarily on the board, while addressing my contention with a modicum of adequacy we can move on with common civil discourse. of which i believe was 'increased danger'. to wit, i did address that in what may have been my first post to you (may not be, but I did address it with you in one of my posts). that being, there is considerable question as to whether he is legally considered to be a 'whistle blower'. additionally, i stated that i did not believe him to be in any more danger than any of the other deep state coup plotters that have already been exposed.
What ya drinking? lol This is getting funny at this point. You state that I posted the following:
"Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. "
Then you state that is a poor way of wording a point about increased danger? That is kinda amazing even for here, Foxx.
The other point is still unanswered. It is that if the name is known to many and the point of publicizing it further is not to increase danger to the guy, why keep repeating it? What is being gained by that effort if not to endanger?
-
31 minutes ago, snafu said:
The Mueller investigation was 100% a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane.
Crossfire Hurricane should have ended in November, 2016 at the latest. Continuing Mueller’s investigation and looking into FISA issues is absolute B.S. Mueller’s team knew the warrants were flawed and didn’t give a rats ass.
Ok.. but,
you were implying that it appeared that I always took the same, Dem, side and that I didn't care about FISA abuse .
I was pointing out that I am in favor of looking into the Fisa abuse and haven't always taken the Dems side.
-
59 minutes ago, Foxx said:
Bob, you can try and change what you were saying by moving the goalposts. what isn't changed is that i was referring to your comparison of B-Man and a public figure. you tried to evade that by claiming i was off in your making an apples and oranges comparison. further, you subsequently tried moving the goalposts even further apart.
For no good reason I am still trying to understand this. I asked b-man if he would want web identification, noting that even in this small space that could increase risk to him. That was my point
From there you brought up the Public figure vs private person difference. I tried to tell you that difference, while true to an extent, was immaterial in the point I was making of increasing danger.
If that is a correct take, and that is a big if, you are off base. It is my comparison and I get to dictate what I was trying to point up. You don't get to say that my point was public vs private after I told you the point was about increased danger.
-
26 minutes ago, snafu said:
Your opinions are always in line with Democrat talking points. Always.
It’s exactly like the 51 FISA “errors” that all went against against Trump. What a striking coincidence.
Well, I lobbied all along to continue the Mueller investigation and to look into any FISA issues. I have posted if those FISA investigations lead to anyone that should be brought to justice, then do so. Not that you should know that but that is the case.
A few pages ago I posted my take from 1999 on the Clinton impeachment. I thought he should have been convicted and removed. Didn't match up with the Dems then.
-
22 minutes ago, Foxx said:
Bob, you can try and change what you were saying by moving the goalposts. what isn't changed is that i was referring to your comparison of B-Man and a public figure. you tried to evade that by claiming i was off in your making an apples and oranges comparison. further, you subsequently tried moving the goalposts even further apart.
your brian is riddled, Bob. at this point there is no conversing with you because you refuse to follow any logical order of progression in civil discourse. rather, you would prefer to talk one in circles. i am not interested in that kind of discourse, Bob.
there is a reason why no one can get through to you. you argue 1 + 1 = 3 . when someone points out to you that 1 + 1 = 2, you change the subject to, 1 x 1 = 3. it is fallacious in it's very theory but you refuse to see that and obfuscate through the smoke filled cobwebs of your attic trying to drag everyone else down to your idiotic level. when you began posting here, i ignored the urges to engage you because this pattern was readily apparent. however, i thought i saw an opportunity to perhaps clear away some of that smoke for you, i was wrong, Bob. you are hopeless, enjoy your delusion, Bob.
Yeah, Ok. Good idea to avoid your posts then. Can do.
Even though I just told that you make these broad hand waving dismissals and don't point out specific problems, you do the exact same thing in the next post. In addition, someday, look into your need to insult. Apparently the need is there. Insecure much?
Moved goalposts, 1+1 very specific lol Ok, Foxx Out
-
31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Standards have eroded. Check.
Clinton earned his perjury charge. Check.
I was never “aghast” at lying, I can’t recall a time when I didn’t think it was a normal for a politician to lie, so while I get what you’re trying to say on the higher standard issue, I think it’s a crock just as I think witnesses in thus impeachment will or could lead to some baseline of understanding amongst our political parties.
I have no special truth-o-meter, but I do have the ability to reason. If you apply Bob’s Deluxe Less-Lie-Spectrometer to politicians, that’s great, but simply know that I think that argument is absurd. Your comments on Trump and Kelly Ann Conway are hyperbolic, but these issues tend to cause emotional declarations to be made, but as I said before...how cute it is you think your guys are less liarly than the people I support.
What is this spectrometer of which you speak? Don't recall that. You aren't the only one that views news from multiple sources and decides on the likely truth. Others do that too.
The primary reason we come to different conclusions is because in spite of every reason not to, you are willing to believe the words of a notorious liar, while I am much more skeptical of Trump's tales. You are willing to believe that when under pressure to protect himself, he tells the truth. That is not logical
-
15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:
The best part of any Tweet about Eric Ciaramella (the leaker/coconspirator popularly referred to as "the whistleblower") is the histrionic hacks that inevitably accuse the poster of putting his life in danger.
Hypocrisy aside, no one with an IQ above room temperature could actually think that. Anyone who cares enough to pay attention has known his name for months.
The theory must be that one of these crazed, rabid Trump supporters, that we hear so much about but rarely, if ever, see, feels so strongly about this that he'd take the guy out, but hasn't followed the story at all.
It's a pretty stupid theory.
I get your point and to an extent, I agree that most zealots know by now.
Why keep repeating it then and trying to get it more publicity ?
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Foxx said:
Bob, you can not see that trying to equivocate B-Man with a public figure is apples and oranges, Bob? you made the equivocation, Bob. perhaps you need to go back and reread your post.
i
l
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
,
B
o
b.
Can you comprehend that my comparison was not about public figure vs private individual?
The point is exposing an individual's identity on the web exposes that individual to possible retaliation from anyone on the web that may have beef. Period.
Before your stroke, let me state that I realize that public figures have less expectations of privacy
What is your purpose of ensuring the guy's identity is pushed further into the light, allowing that is not necessary in order to push for any investigation?
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, B-Man said:
You may or may not know, that I shy away from the back and forth conversations here on the board.
I am not here to "win" but to offer information that you (and others) probably will not seek out yourself.
You asked politely, so I answered.
I do not believe that Eric Ciamella is any more dangerous position, by having his name out there.
You do. Though I am not interested in your "what if" proposals.
Carry on with the others if you so desire.
I am just trying to understand, if not to bring greater danger to the guy, why try to make sure his identity is exposed? One can push for all mentioned investigations but in this climate I find it hard to understand that you think he would not be a bigger target. Recall that guy that mailed those bombs to dozens?
BTW, I never knew you didn't want replies. Going forward I can do that.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Foxx said:
your brian truly is broken. you are attempting to equate B-Man with a public figure.
just stop would you. you are so far out in the weeds that any semblance with logic is completely void,.you're hardly recognizable at this point.
I have limited exposure to your posting style but I have noticed a pattern. You do these broad hand waving dismissals of posts claiming, posters are disingenuous, or dishonest, or an idiot, etc. Ironically, that is disingenuous of you. What, specifically is so illogical? Where?
And, what is with the constant need to insult? We covered this I thought. If at a bar a few chairs away, would you keep insulting the conversation partner? Likely not I suspect. Why here? It is not necessary and uncalled for. I can insult too and surely have but you keep firing opening shots for no good reason that I see.
And the point is NOT public figure or not. The point is trying to get greater publicity on his identity endangers the guy and family and is unnecessary to do any investigation. What you have so far are accusations of bad behavior.
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Foxx said:
not B-Man, however...
Bob, there is considerable question whether he is 'legally' a whistle blower or not. no one should be put in danger but, there deserves to be a fact finding operation to find out the specifics of his motive, his coming forward and who he collaborated with. it is all relevant. he would be in no more danger than other operatives who are being outed for their duplicitous role in the #moderdaywatergate. stop regurgitating the propaganda press talking points, think for yourself, Bob.
Stop with the talking points BS. It is tiring. I give my own opinions on this board as much as anyone and I do think for myself. You don't like my thoughts, fine but they are my opinions.
How come if you say something generally agreed to by your side it is OK but if the other side does similar, they read it from the talking points? I recall getting accused of using Elijah Cummings words in a post that I put up about 5 hours before Cummings spoke. Sometime people can see the same situation and come to the same conclusion independently.
So your whistle blower point is no one should be put in more danger but this guy probably would be (as much as modern day watergate) and he deserves it. Yeah, and my reasoning skills are faulty. sure thing Foxx
-
2
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, B-Man said:
No, I do not.
and he does not meet the actual criteria for the category of whistleblower anyway.
No greater danger by publicizing it more? Are you sure? OK, then why are you doing it? What is gained by publicizing him/her?
Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger.
-
20 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Whistle Blower
Question: I see you like to push to publicize this whistle blower's name. Do you think doing so could make him or his family a bigger target to some unstable political zealot?
Is that really fair or, do you think he and his family should be attacked for being a whistle blower? I mean even if you think he is a political operative, which I have not seen proven but if he was, should he be put in increased danger?
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I didn’t say it, it was T. L. Skin-erd. The guy is notoriously closed-minded and judgmental. I’ll take a shot at answering though.
I applaud your consistency on the impeachment issue if, upon reflection, you feel it was the right position. I was not particularly politically woke during the lead up to the Clinton impeachment, and had a rather heated argument with my father-in-law in defense of Clinton and against the political shenanigans that lead up to it. I thought at the time his biggest crime was exposing his throat to his adversaries, but the perjury was a colossal mistake and impeachment-worthy.
It seems T.L.’s last statement was just reflection on the current state of affairs with respect to impeachment, pointing out the obvious: regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, there were checks, balances and a resolution. Complaining because the desired outcome wasn’t achieved seems, well, contrary to the concept of “checks and balances”. I’m speculating of course, because not only is the guy closed-minded and judgmental, he’s not a good texter and has not replied to an inquiry on your behalf.
T.L., mornin. Slept well I expect.
Upon reflection and time....and, no, actually given what now passes for no prob, the fact that Bill lied, seems like, eh, so who doesn't? Times have changed on lying for sure. In 1999 my buddy was a big deal in Human Resources. It stuck when he opined that the Pres would be fired from any large public company if that behavior with an intern and subsequent lying became public. He thought any board would replace the guy pronto. I kept thinking that BillC should be held to higher standards. Apparently you too thought the perjury too much. Again though, times have changed that we were aghast at lying.. Seems today if the Pres did it, we likely would not agree as to how 'bad' that was.
33 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:Btw Bob, on the column you linked from the other Bob in Mich.
i agree wholeheartedly with the premise, and we can both agree that Joe McCarthy was a bad guy. We can also agree on the willing participants who went along with the scheme being a massive part of the problem.
Personally, I see the application of this sentiment applying equally and forceful to Russia/Kavanaugh/Ukraine. By that, I mean those who supported that type of tyrannical governmental corruption by Obama, Biden, Comey, DOJFBICIA Schumer McCain Harris et al are precisely the type of scoundrels he is writing about. I realize you do not feel the same and this post ain’t about that.
This goes to my point on the moral high ground issue, and why, when someone attempts to assert in support of any of these clowns and schemes, and wants to discuss Trump personally, my response is typically to laugh and say how cute it is that they think their liar is less liarly than the guy I support.
I was wondering as well, but got distracted by the nice looking lady in the middle.
Sure, I can see the McCarthy angle from the hyper prosecution angle. I just don't agree that holding Trump accountable for the Ukraine scheme is hyper. I realize too that you see it differently.
The lying thing, c'mon Len, Trump can not be trusted to tell the truth every day of every week. He lies so much more so than (on my honor) than any politician I have ever heard speak. His only rivals are his staff. Holy crap that Kelly Ann Conway can spit out 3 lies before any normal person could interrupt or interject. But I digress.....To say there is any level of equivalence cuz you can find a lie for them is not being sincere, imo.
Question: Can you tell his lies from his truths when they happen? If so, what is the tell or the clue?
If Trump were impeached of course Mr Pence is in the wings. He is possibly worse than Trump on several issues from my perspective. His 'faith' may guide him and that, if it wasn't fake, would be an improvement but the separation of church and state issues concern me. This 'overturn the election' seems less outrageous though when you consider it was Trump/Pence and it would become Pence
-
7 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
That is funny. I am certain it was because I recently watched some Lord of the Rings but when I saw those two side by side marching the Impeachment docs to the Senate, I was struck with short, Gimli and the Lanky Legolis grimly taking on their quest. Nadler must put double face tape around his 'waist' to hold those pants up
-
23 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
I was just busting your balls because of your typo but blaming it on autocorrect is kind of weakshit.
What's your point?
Morning, Hank. Can I call you Hank or do you insist on Henry? lol
It is about 2 minute but if short on time, the 1 minute 40 second mark approximately is kinda funny given where they have gone after that point.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Good God!
The witnesses are needed in spite of impossible conviction in order to find out the truth so we can agree going forward what is legal and what is illegal.
You should consider a name change to Pootie Tang in Mich.
Got so busy trying to reply to posts yesterday and I didn't take time to watch this. Pretty funny.
The name change though.....I may consider it. I have thought of that before but then I have seen others get jumped on as trying to hide from past identities.
Given that 'much revered' cannabis thread that I began, I don't want to lose all that good will and board admiration that I had ...er, I mean, I think I would never hear the end from the 'running away are ya?' idiots. So, probably stuck with this handle and , btw, I see we have similar taste in avatars.
Did ya get that brain rest last night? lol
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I think it was the great philosophizer T. L. Skin-erd who said, while quoting Bob while quoting Faber “Checks and balances” work best when you recognize the “checks” and embrace the “balances”. They should not be viewed as sacrosanct when they support your view and inconvenient when they do not.”
Lacy, that take is a bit unfair, especially if you read any of that 1999 email I posted a page or so back. Given that I have been for impeaching both Clinton and Trump, that last sentence is a little odd. You may think I am too naive for expecting a higher standard but my views have been consistent as I have opposed misdeeds in both Presidencies.
I have not heard many here that stated they were either for impeaching both times or acquitting both but I have more respect for those that can be consistent and see right and wrong, in spite of the party of the President.
What were your 1999 impeachment thoughts......for or against removing BillyC? Why or why not?
-
The above reference to McCarthy reminded me of an article I read years ago in the Ann Arbor News. I think it applies a bit today as I think the Senate today failed us.
Robert Faber wrote a terrific piece recently in which he states that McCarthy’s reign ‘was an embarrassment to our constitution, to our traditions and to the high moral code we like to believe is inherently ours’. He goes on to say ‘We shall always have our fools and ideologues in positions of power, but our system of laws and logic, of checks and balances, is designed to guard against the abuses of ..power, to protect the weakest from the more powerful... If the elected of our democracy, for reasons of greed or power or cowardice, fail in that task, that is the more troubling threat. It was McCarthy’s colleagues who let us down, by failing in their obligation to uphold the spirit and intent and integrity of our democratic system.’
-
3 hours ago, CoudyBills said:
Too long Bob. I quit after 8 sentences. Can you summarize in bullet format?
I am not going to do that. I understand that it is too long for most. It wasn't written for this board but was sent to a friend in 1999.
I thought some folks might find the parallels to be interesting. If you are not interested though, don't force it. It won't hurt my feelings and we don't need to discuss.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Nanker said:
Bob, have the decency to leave and take your diseased, decrepit mind with you.
You're a poor, ruined soul that shows little hope of redemption, let alone honesty.
Go buy a gun and do the right thing... for all of us.
And may God have mercy on your soul.
Remember that time in the cannabis thread when I apologized for implying you were an #######?
That was easily the posting I regret the most. Undoubtedly you are a colossal ####### and I was as wrong as possible.
-
1
-
The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by Bob in Mich
"If they have nothing to hide, why keep it a secret? "
I stated five times why I think it is a bad idea. Even if a political operative, increased danger in this environment is not necessary. I suspect many want, but won't admit, the whistle blower to be punished and if physically punished, they would be giddy and would claim he deserved it.
Was hoping for a different take but didnt really think there was one.
You did not answer my question yet