Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 8/31/2018 at 6:02 PM, Koko78 said:

 

Well, gator just admitted that they have nothing without Trump testifying. Everything goes when #resisting the actual literal super mecha-Hitler.

 

Of course that whole probable cause/due process/bill of rights nonsense doesn't apply.

 

Why? Making him look stupid relieves boredom.

Expand  

Boyst has a point. Posting in one of Gleeful Gator's threads is sort of silly, right Boyst? On the other hand, mocking the moron who couldn't figure out how many weeks in a year is similar to watching the fourth quarter of the 4th preseason game. Not very important, but once in a blue moon can be satisfying.

Posted
  On 8/31/2018 at 6:09 PM, 3rdnlng said:

Boyst has a point. Posting in one of Gleeful Gator's threads is sort of silly, right Boyst? On the other hand, mocking the moron who couldn't figure out how many weeks in a year is similar to watching the fourth quarter of the 4th preseason game. Not very important, but once in a blue moon can be satisfying.

Expand  

 

 

No.

 

Not responding (directly) is MUCH more satisfying.

Posted (edited)

Hey look, another day, another Trump-hating thread started by Fib.

 

What a shock.

 

That noose is starting to tighten on your beloved Democratic Party, isn't it?

 

Don't let Bruce Ohr answer any more questions, because he is going to fold like a dollar bill.

Edited by njbuff
Posted
  On 8/31/2018 at 11:08 PM, njbuff said:

Hey look, another day, another Trump-hating thread started by Fib.

 

What a shock.

 

That noose is starting to tighten on your beloved Democratic Party, isn't it?

 

Don't like Bruce Ohr answer any more questions, because he is going to fold like a dollar bill.

Expand  

 

Must be a bonus paid for starting threads.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

Should Obama have to testify under oath about his knowledge of Hiliary Clinton's unsecured email server?  Or his involvement in the state sanctioned surveillance of political opposition?

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
  On 8/31/2018 at 5:56 PM, Doc said:

 

Yeah, no.  Going on a fishing expedition so you can nail him for something completely unrelated isn't "substance" (and that was my problem with the Whitewater investigation).  Let him find something, anything, showing there was collusion and then he should have to talk.  Until then...crickets.

Expand  

Hillary testified, they didn't find anything. Trump is scared for a reason. Mueller has found plenty already, but Trump needs to talk. And his own hand picked judges shouldn't be able to say he doesn't have to. 

  On 9/1/2018 at 1:06 AM, /dev/null said:

Should Obama have to testify under oath about his knowledge of Hiliary Clinton's unsecured email server?  Or his involvement in the state sanctioned surveillance of political opposition?

Expand  

What do you think? 

Posted
  On 9/2/2018 at 11:12 AM, Tiberius said:

Those are not even close to the same things, so no. Stupid comparison on your part. 

 

Do do you think Obama should have to testify? 

Expand  

 

How are they not the same thing?  Both are suspected to be complicit in some form of malfeasance.

 

So why should one be compelled to testify under oath but the other exempt?

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)

Why bother?  Given the OP's proclivity to focus only on his own points of view and to ignore widely accepted facts; he most assuredly wouldn't accept anything Trump said.  OK, most of us wouldn't either, but OP would just drag out his disdain to a degree even he hasn't yet approached.

Edited by Keukasmallies
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
  On 9/2/2018 at 2:02 PM, /dev/null said:

 

How are they not the same thing?  Both are suspected to be complicit in some form of malfeasance.

 

So why should one be compelled to testify under oath but the other exempt?

Expand  

 

No, you forgot that Obama's Presidency was scandal free.

 

How dare you compare The Golden Child to a dirtbag like Trump. How dare you.

 

?

Posted
  On 9/2/2018 at 2:02 PM, /dev/null said:

 

How are they not the same thing?  Both are suspected to be complicit in some form of malfeasance.

 

So why should one be compelled to testify under oath but the other exempt?

Expand  

Because Obama had nothing to do with the email thing. Right?  

 

Trump should testify because cause he is directly connected to his campaign which probably conspired with the Russians. He is a central figure in the act (Russia, if you are listening...) and the cover up. 

 

You seriously can't see the difference? Lol, really? 

 

 

Posted

LOL

 

 

 

for what exactly?  what charge?

 

 

  On 9/3/2018 at 12:08 PM, Tiberius said:

Because Obama had nothing to do with the email thing. Right?  

 

Trump should testify because cause he is directly connected to his campaign which probably conspired with the Russians. He is a central figure in the act (Russia, if you are listening...) and the cover up. 

 

You seriously can't see the difference? Lol, really? 

 

 

Expand  

So you think he should testify, cause you believe he probably conspired.  based on no evidence.

 

lol

 

 

Posted
  On 9/3/2018 at 12:17 PM, Chris farley said:

LOL

 

 

 

for what exactly?  what charge?

 

 

So you think he should testify, cause you believe he probably conspired.  based on no evidence.

 

lol

 

 

Expand  

But there is evidence. Have you had your head in the sand? You can't state any evidence? Why are you posting here if you are completely ignorant of any facts? 

Posted

LOL. what evidence? 

 

I am well aware of the details.

 

you seem to have went from emotional rant, to ad hominem responses.

 

 

 

So instead of trying to insult, articulate your argument or present said Evidence.  if possible.

 

 

×
×
  • Create New...