IDBillzFan Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 You Conservatives want to deflect attention from this by bringing up Benghazi? How pathetic! This guy was found guilty of a real crime. Obama was president while a crime was committed against one of our embassies and you pathetic losers--not just on this board but all the birthers, Benghazi, death panel losers in general--want to focus on an attack against us? **** eaters We only bring up the deaths in Benghazi because you've seemed a little down lately, and everyone here knows how happy you are to hear that fun old story about the four Americans left for dead by the WH and State Dept. Frankly, we figured you'd be in good spirits...what, with all the video of beheadings. That's comedy gold to you, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 i'm guessing you missed the part about advocating it be placed on the state workers formulary? Yes, I did. I searched both articles you linked to and did not come up with "advocate" anywhere. I did find this though: "Earlier, a state official testified that McDonnell ended a meeting in his office by touting Anatabloc’s effectiveness. Sara Wilson, director of the Virginia Department of Human Resource Management, said that when a March 2012 meeting to discuss the state employee health plan was breaking up, McDonnell pulled a bottle of Anatabloc from his pocket and mentioned that it was helping him and his wife. Wilson said she had met about three weeks earlier with Star Scientific executive David Dean and rejected his request that she add Anatabloc to the list of items covered by the state plan. Wilson described a February meeting with Dean as a salesman’s “cold call” and said that, to her knowledge, McDonnell had nothing to do with it. She said that after Dean told her he wanted the dietary supplement added to the health plan, she told him: “This is going to be a short meeting.” However, she said she was interested in Dean’s pitch and asked to see scientific studies. He brought marketing material to a second meeting, but Wilson said that was not what she wanted to see. She offered to make arrangements for a state employee discount on Anatabloc but never heard back. Kent also testified that Williams and his company received no state funds, board appointments or special legislation — a point that defense attorneys have emphasized in arguing that McDonnell extended routine political courtesies and nothing more." Again, I don't have a dog in the fight, but this outcome of a Federal prosecution seems a bit strange and one that should give pause for all politicos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 5, 2014 Author Share Posted September 5, 2014 Yes, I did. I searched both articles you linked to and did not come up with "advocate" anywhere. I did find this though: "Earlier, a state official testified that McDonnell ended a meeting in his office by touting Anatabloc’s effectiveness. Sara Wilson, director of the Virginia Department of Human Resource Management, said that when a March 2012 meeting to discuss the state employee health plan was breaking up, McDonnell pulled a bottle of Anatabloc from his pocket and mentioned that it was helping him and his wife. Wilson said she had met about three weeks earlier with Star Scientific executive David Dean and rejected his request that she add Anatabloc to the list of items covered by the state plan. Wilson described a February meeting with Dean as a salesman’s “cold call” and said that, to her knowledge, McDonnell had nothing to do with it. She said that after Dean told her he wanted the dietary supplement added to the health plan, she told him: “This is going to be a short meeting.” However, she said she was interested in Dean’s pitch and asked to see scientific studies. He brought marketing material to a second meeting, but Wilson said that was not what she wanted to see. She offered to make arrangements for a state employee discount on Anatabloc but never heard back. Kent also testified that Williams and his company received no state funds, board appointments or special legislation — a point that defense attorneys have emphasized in arguing that McDonnell extended routine political courtesies and nothing more." Again, I don't have a dog in the fight, but this outcome of a Federal prosecution seems a bit strange and one that should give pause for all politicos. "advocate" comes from a huffpo article with a nice pic of the mcdonnels in the borrowed ferrari of the shyster whille staying at his place in smith mtn lake. having trouble linking it. will attempt later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 You Conservatives want to deflect attention from this by bringing up Benghazi? How pathetic! This guy was found guilty of a real crime. Obama was president while a crime was committed against one of our embassies and you pathetic losers--not just on this board but all the birthers, Benghazi, death panel losers in general--want to focus on an attack against us? **** eaters What bread do you prefer your **** sandwich on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 What bread do you prefer your **** sandwich on? Your speciality? A **** chef you are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 so i'm guessing a dietary supplement shyster peddling useless garbage to the masses and paying a loser gov to help him is ok with y'all. that's what i thought. not to mention the throwing the wife under the bus and the sham marriage. just normal american life, huh? sorry. not my american life. yours? the most disturbing thing is that scumbags like this (from either party) seem to rise to the top so often almost a prerequisite for political success. bah, humbug. Throwing the wife under the bus? By all accounts his wife is a money grubbing B word that was neck deep in all of this. I support this move. I wish IL would follow suit and investigate a sweetheart land deal provided for a former state senator by a slumlord for helping to push legislation through. Rumor has it his wife also got a high paying no-show job on account of his position. We need an investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Throwing the wife under the bus? By all accounts his wife is a money grubbing B word that was neck deep in all of this. I support this move. I wish IL would follow suit and investigate a sweetheart land deal provided for a former state senator by a slumlord for helping to push legislation through. Rumor has it his wife also got a high paying no-show job on account of his position. We need an investigation. Holder will be right on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 5, 2014 Author Share Posted September 5, 2014 Throwing the wife under the bus? By all accounts his wife is a money grubbing B word that was neck deep in all of this. I support this move. I wish IL would follow suit and investigate a sweetheart land deal provided for a former state senator by a slumlord for helping to push legislation through. Rumor has it his wife also got a high paying no-show job on account of his position. We need an investigation. all accounts? the ones i've seen imply she may have had a romantic interest in the shyster. haven't seen much to corroborate the govs venom. you'd think if she was so awful, he'd have divorced her well before 5 kids and 40 years. at any rate, they both lose and that defense strategy likely hurt her case and didn't help his. brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 all accounts? the ones i've seen imply she may have had a romantic interest in the shyster. haven't seen much to corroborate the govs venom. you'd think if she was so awful, he'd have divorced her well before 5 kids and 40 years. at any rate, they both lose and that defense strategy likely hurt her case and didn't help his. brilliant. Wow. Maybe later you can give everyone an update regarding what's happening on "The Young and the Restless." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 all accounts? the ones i've seen imply she may have had a romantic interest in the shyster. haven't seen much to corroborate the govs venom. you'd think if she was so awful, he'd have divorced her well before 5 kids and 40 years. at any rate, they both lose and that defense strategy likely hurt her case and didn't help his. brilliant. I'm not necessarily referring to what came out at trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 You Conservatives want to deflect attention from this by bringing up Benghazi? How pathetic! This guy was found guilty of a real crime. Obama was president while a crime was committed against one of our embassies and you pathetic losers--not just on this board but all the birthers, Benghazi, death panel losers in general--want to focus on an attack against us? **** eaters No, you !@#$ing twit. It has nothing to do with "tit for tat". Not one person in this thread has said anything to defend the dude who got convicted. What we'd like is someone the level of the prosecutor in this case to investigate all of the scandals going on in DC because there's an awful lot of smoke and no real effort to look for the fire. You know, instead of Eric Holder - who is just as inept as Mr. "We Don't Have a Strategy Yet" Obama. But you keep right on with your "us against them" mentality because that's what the masters who count on your partisan idiocy depend on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 6, 2014 Author Share Posted September 6, 2014 No, you !@#$ing twit. It has nothing to do with "tit for tat". Not one person in this thread has said anything to defend the dude who got convicted. What we'd like is someone the level of the prosecutor in this case to investigate all of the scandals going on in DC because there's an awful lot of smoke and no real effort to look for the fire. You know, instead of Eric Holder - who is just as inept as Mr. "We Don't Have a Strategy Yet" Obama. But you keep right on with your "us against them" mentality because that's what the masters who count on your partisan idiocy depend on. nanker certainly seems unconvinced of mcdonnell's guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Your speciality? A **** chef you are? Yes it's the hypocrite's special. So I'll ask again. What kind of bread do you want on your **** sandwich? nanker certainly seems unconvinced of mcdonnell's guilt. So Nanker all if a sudden becomes "you conservatives"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 nanker certainly seems unconvinced of mcdonnell's guilt. When one of you partisan hypocrites is exposed for being a huge dumb ass, use selective reading in a vain attempt to defend: Again, he took money etc., and that's wrong just on the face of it. This comment is pretty ambiguous, right Birddog? You're such a !@#$ing retard. Regardless of that, it doesn't change the point that you and gaytorman are incredibly huge, douchey hypocrites because you don't demand the same standards of the people who share your ridiculous "everything can be made into a unicorn if there's enough of someone else's money thrown at it" political views as you do anyone who doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 When one of you partisan hypocrites is exposed for being a huge dumb ass, use selective reading in a vain attempt to defend: This comment is pretty ambiguous, right Birddog? You're such a !@#$ing retard. Regardless of that, it doesn't change the point that you and gaytorman are incredibly huge, douchey hypocrites because you don't demand the same standards of the people who share your ridiculous "everything can be made into a unicorn if there's enough of someone else's money thrown at it" political views as you do anyone who doesn't. And I am actually munching on some popcorn while I read this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 This comment is pretty ambiguous, right Birddog? You're such a !@#$ing retard. Regardless of that, it doesn't change the point that you and gaytorman are incredibly huge, douchey hypocrites because you don't demand the same standards of the people who share your ridiculous "everything can be made into a unicorn if there's enough of someone else's money thrown at it" political views as you do anyone who doesn't. And I am actually munching on some popcorn while I read this... Aww, how cute. Statler and Waldorf are having a tiff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Aww, how cute. Statler and Waldorf are having a tiff No we're not. I'm enjoying the beat-down Darin's administering, and coincidentally happened to have some popcorn while I was. I'm waiting to Nanker's response to Darin's "!@#$ing retard" crack, which should be a hoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 6, 2014 Author Share Posted September 6, 2014 When one of you partisan hypocrites is exposed for being a huge dumb ass, use selective reading in a vain attempt to defend: This comment is pretty ambiguous, right Birddog? You're such a !@#$ing retard. Regardless of that, it doesn't change the point that you and gaytorman are incredibly huge, douchey hypocrites because you don't demand the same standards of the people who share your ridiculous "everything can be made into a unicorn if there's enough of someone else's money thrown at it" political views as you do anyone who doesn't. When one of you partisan hypocrites is exposed for being a huge dumb ass, use selective reading in a vain attempt to defend: This comment is pretty ambiguous, right Birddog? You're such a !@#$ing retard. Regardless of that, it doesn't change the point that you and gaytorman are incredibly huge, douchey hypocrites because you don't demand the same standards of the people who share your ridiculous "everything can be made into a unicorn if there's enough of someone else's money thrown at it" political views as you do anyone who doesn't. see, this nuance things is really slippery by it's very nature. i'll bet that's why you find it so hard to grasp. just pretend your holding a bar of soap. you use soap, right? anyway, to reiterate (um, explain), "wrong" and "guilty" are likely not equivalent in this case. for example, i think it wrong, that enough foresight and contingenies were not in place to prevent what happened in benghazi. i don't however believe there is criminal guilt to be assigned. i suspect nanker feels much the same on the mcdonnels from what he already wrote here. of course, anyone has the right to change their mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 see, this nuance things is really slippery by it's very nature. i'll bet that's why you find it so hard to grasp. just pretend your holding a bar of soap. you use soap, right? anyway, to reiterate (um, explain), "wrong" and "guilty" are likely not equivalent in this case. for example, i think it wrong, that enough foresight and contingenies were not in place to prevent what happened in benghazi. i don't however believe there is criminal guilt to be assigned. i suspect nanker feels much the same on the mcdonnels from what he already wrote here. of course, anyone has the right to change their mind. I think you embrace (enthusiastically accept) your role of Robin to Gator's Batman in the "you two against the world" role you've taken up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 6, 2014 Author Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) I think you embrace (enthusiastically accept) your role of Robin to Gator's Batman in the "you two against the world" role you've taken up. that's rich. i always envision you as the pip squeak sidekick to gaston in "beauty and the beast". Edited September 6, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts