DC Tom Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I apologize and I did go back to look for this question again, actually. Isn't Rep.Issa doing back flips in the House to investigate Obama and the IRS? I mean the GOP has the House, if they want to investigate and find something they can. All I'm saying, is I'll wait before I decide if Christie did anythingbwrong, but this report is total trash You are right it's not credible at all. Why is that Tom? Why? Because it wasn't independent you stupid moron. You talk in so many circles you end up chasing your tail. Anyway, as has been reported by many media outlets, to post just one, this was not independent at all, only totally blind Republican rubes would think it is: http://www.newrepubl...-full-conflicts So now that you've been completely schooled, you're dropping the whole "defense attorney" angle now? And hoping no one will notice? And I'm the moron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I called him a defense attorney because that it was he is. He is defending Christie. Sure, I could have called him a spin doctor too, same difference really. This is usually the first sign that "Oh, I was only kidding, you guys!!" is on it's way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 I apologize and I did go back to look for this question again, actually. Isn't Rep.Issa doing back flips in the House to investigate Obama and the IRS? I mean the GOP has the House, if they want to investigate and find something they can. All I'm saying, is I'll wait before I decide if Christie did anythingbwrong, but this report is total trash You are right it's not credible at all. Why is that Tom? Why? Because it wasn't independent you stupid moron. You talk in so many circles you end up chasing your tail. Anyway, as has been reported by many media outlets, to post just one, this was not independent at all, only totally blind Republican rubes would think it is: http://www.newrepubl...-full-conflicts This is the case that Lois Lerner is involved with. She has refused to testify in front of Congress twice now. What do you think is the more important case, a lane closure or the administration using the IRS to harass political opponents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 I apologize and I did go back to look for this question again, actually. Isn't Rep.Issa doing back flips in the House to investigate Obama and the IRS? I mean the GOP has the House, if they want to investigate and find something they can. All I'm saying, is I'll wait before I decide if Christie did anythingbwrong, but this report is total trash You are right it's not credible at all. Why is that Tom? Why? Because it wasn't independent you stupid moron. You talk in so many circles you end up chasing your tail. Anyway, as has been reported by many media outlets, to post just one, this was not independent at all, only totally blind Republican rubes would think it is: http://www.newrepubl...-full-conflicts None of us were talking the independent/crediblity angle you fool. This all started when I questioned your defense attorney comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Kevin Marino, Stepien’s (Kelly's ex) lawyer, has said that the report exculpates his client and that the personal details amount to “gratuitous presence dropped into the middle of this report can only be done for purpose of creating an alternative headline.” Horrible!! Why is this guy saying these things? It's not like they are in court or anything, lol. "UPDATE: Kelly’s defense lawyer, Michael Critchley, provided a statement to the Star-Ledger, Friday night, writing that his client “worked tirelessly to pursue the goals of the Office during her tenure” and he criticized the tone of the report: “The report’s venomous, gratuitous, and inappropriate sexist remarks concerning Ms. Kelly have no place in what is alleged to be a professional and independent report.”" Defense lawyer??? But shouldn't he only be talking in court? Seems like he cares about the court of public opinion. I love the "alleged independent report" ha ha Spin away losers http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/03/28/chris-christies-bridgegate-report-slammed-as-sexist/?wprss=rss_national&clsrd None of us were talking the independent/crediblity angle you fool. This all started when I questioned your defense attorney comment. No, this started when I challenged the independence of the report. Doc and LA moron were acting like this thing was a definitive account. Independent my toe nail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I love the libtard spin on the report. They cannot actually refute any of the facts in it, so now it should be disregarded as a misogynistic sexist report because it contained references to a relationship between two staffers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/29/new-dem-plan-bridget-kelly-is-a-feminist-heroine/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Kevin Marino, Stepien's (Kelly's ex) lawyer, has said that the report exculpates his client and that the personal details amount to "gratuitous presence dropped into the middle of this report can only be done for purpose of creating an alternative headline." Horrible!! Why is this guy saying these things? It's not like they are in court or anything, lol. "UPDATE: Kelly's defense lawyer, Michael Critchley, provided a statement to the Star-Ledger, Friday night, writing that his client "worked tirelessly to pursue the goals of the Office during her tenure" and he criticized the tone of the report: "The report's venomous, gratuitous, and inappropriate sexist remarks concerning Ms. Kelly have no place in what is alleged to be a professional and independent report."" Defense lawyer??? But shouldn't he only be talking in court? Seems like he cares about the court of public opinion. I love the "alleged independent report" ha ha Spin away losers What does Kelly having a defense lawyer (and she needs one) have to do with Christie? And Marino isn't Stepien's defense lawyer either. http://www.washingto..._national LOL! When all else fails, play the "ism" card. No, this started when I challenged the independence of the report. Doc and LA moron were acting like this thing was a definitive account. Independent my toe nail Definitive? No. But nothing will come out implicating Christie. Hear me now, believe me later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 No, this started when I challenged the independence of the report. Doc and LA moron were acting like this thing was a definitive account. Independent my toe nail Seriously?? This thread would have been three pages shorter had you not called the attorney reviewing the report's Christie's defense attorney. This thread came with a laugh track at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Seriously?? This thread would have been three pages shorter had you not called the attorney reviewing the report's Christie's defense attorney. This thread came with a laugh track at that point. Well, he basically is Christies defense attorney. This was Chrsities lawyers telling the story to best serve his client. Christie fully supported the findings. Surprise surprise. An emotional female was to blame, unbelievable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Well, he basically is Christies defense attorney. This was Chrsities lawyers telling the story to best serve his client. Christie fully supported the findings. Surprise surprise. An emotional female was to blame, unbelievable! No, he's basically not. Again, if he were, you'd be screaming about Christie using taxpayer money for his personal attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Well, he basically is Christies defense attorney. This was Chrsities lawyers telling the story to best serve his client. Christie fully supported the findings. Surprise surprise. An emotional female was to blame, unbelievable! It is quite clear you have no idea what a defense attorney does and that's ok. At least admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 No, he's basically not. Again, if he were, you'd be screaming about Christie using taxpayer money for his personal attorney. The truly sad part is if this same "defense attorney" had come out with a report showing Christie was culpable in any way shape or form, he would be crowing about how the report must be 100% accurate and this guy was an independent attorney who did his job well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 This thread has been derailed and blown up. It's hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) I guess you are right, he was just being a troll and not contributing anything but a personal attack. Or, I was being prophetic. 'Been a week gatorclown. The entire left, all the resources of MSNBC, all the resources of the National Journal, certainly everything Media Matters has....have been engaged for 7 full days. And nothing. They have no reply at all. You know how to tell when the left has nothing? They frame what they wanted to state as a definitive...as a question instead. Example: Instead of "Bridgegate: Christie Done in 2016" it is "Is Chris Christie done in 2016?" And here's the CBS clowns to prove it: http://www.realclear...lost_2016_.html That is the white flag going up, and only the ignorant don't see.... Now, the reasonable, considerate and astute leftist says "we aren't going to win this one, any more bad behavior on this, and we will be doing the very thing OCinBuffalo warned us about". But, you aren't reasonable, considerate, or astute, are you? Nope. Thus, you, and the rest of the idiot left, will do the very thing I said you would 10? pages ago. You WILL "Palin" this whole thing, and in doing so, you will be setting Chris Christie up for the biggest boomerang of all time. Just remember: don't come crying to me when this 300 lb boomerang of Jersey goo hits you, it hurts, and your biggest tears come from the fact that you were the ones who threw him in the first place. I don't like Jersey, this is your problem because you shaped the goo into a boomerang and threw it, and I want nothing to do with all that goo. Edited March 31, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Or, I was being prophetic. 'Been a week gatorclown. The entire left, all the resources of MSNBC, all the resources of the National Journal, certainly everything Media Matters has....have been engaged for 7 full days. And nothing. They have no reply at all. You know how to tell when the left has nothing? They frame what they wanted to state as a definitive...as a question instead. Example: Instead of "Bridgegate: Christie Done in 2016" it is "Is Chris Christie done in 2016?" And here's the CBS clowns to prove it: http://www.realclear...lost_2016_.html That is the white flag going up, and only the ignorant don't see.... Now, the reasonable, considerate and astute leftist says "we aren't going to win this one, any more bad behavior on this, and we will be doing the very thing OCinBuffalo warned us about". But, you aren't reasonable, considerate, or astute, are you? Nope. Thus, you, and the rest of the idiot left, will do the very thing I said you would 10? pages ago. You WILL "Palin" this whole thing, and in doing so, you will be setting Chris Christie up for the biggest boomerang of all time. Just remember: don't come crying to me when this 300 lb boomerang of Jersey goo hits you, it hurts, and your biggest tears come from the fact that you were the ones who threw him in the first place. I don't like Jersey, this is your problem because you shaped the goo into a boomerang and threw it, and I want nothing to do with all that goo. That, and again, pulling the "sexism" card. Or as they put it, "slut-shaming." But the problem with that is that a Dem wrote that report, not Christie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 No, he's basically not. Again, if he were, you'd be screaming about Christie using taxpayer money for his personal attorney. So i was an independent investigation that basically absolved the governor that hired the lawyers (oh that's right, the Office did, yes you are a moron) and pegged this women as the perp? You cannot be this stupid The truly sad part is if this same "defense attorney" had come out with a report showing Christie was culpable in any way shape or form, he would be crowing about how the report must be 100% accurate and this guy was an independent attorney who did his job well. People do not hire attorneys to find them guilty you little tool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Definately bears repeating at this point: Demonstrate that any of the attorneys hired are defense attorneys. Some help: http://legal-diction...efense attorney defense attorney n. 1) the attorney representing the defendant in a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. 2) a lawyer who regularly represents defendants who have insurance and who is chosen by the insurance company. 3) a lawyer who regularly represents criminal defendants. Attorneys who regularly represent clients in actions for damages are often called "plaintiff's attorneys." (See: defendant, plaintiff's attorney) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Definately bears repeating at this point: Court of public opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Court of public opinion A celebrity roast is not a prelude to an act of cannibalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts