snafu Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You have to give credit where it is due. Pelosi holding up the impeachment delivery to the Senate has been a huge success with all these facts coming out in the interregnum and during the trial. She threw a money wrench into the cover up You mis-used interregnum. Then you went and typed "money wrench". 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I think Biden is/was a recognizable name that may add legitimacy. Apparently Burisma disagreed with your view too. Rather than implying misdeeds, please show us what you actually know. Because it's not how decisions for selecting corporate boards go. Each member is selected based on their potential contribution to the company. In Biden's case, given his zero experience in energy, his selection was based purely on potential political influence. The appointment in itself is rife with conflicts of interests, but when you add daddy bragging about firing a prosecutor who was looking into the business dealings of a company where his son is a director, that should set off so many alarms for breaking every ethical code that exists in advanced economies, not to mention standing laws on corrupt dealings by public and private officials. Edited January 29, 2020 by GG 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You have to give credit where it is due. Pelosi holding up the impeachment delivery to the Senate has been a huge success with all these facts coming out in the interregnum and during the trial. She threw a money wrench into the cover up Quite a fantasy you have there. Does it culminate with the Batmobile pulling up to the Capitol Building? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You have to give credit where it is due. Pelosi holding up the impeachment delivery to the Senate has been a huge success with all these facts coming out in the interregnum and during the trial. She threw a money wrench into the cover up Your use of interregnum is wrong, but your reference to "money wrench" probably has some validity as it pertains to Nancy Politics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You have to give credit where it is due. Pelosi holding up the impeachment delivery to the Senate has been a huge success with all these facts coming out in the interregnum and during the trial. She threw a money wrench into the cover up Can anybody buy this said "money wrench" and does it carry a warranty should it not perform its task(s)? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, GG said: Because it's not how decisions for selecting corporate boards go. Each member is selected based on their potential contribution to the company. In Biden's case, given his zero experience in energy, his selection was based purely on potential political influence. The appointment in itself is rife with conflicts of interests, but when you add daddy bragging about firing a prosecutor who was looking into the business dealings of a company where his son is a directors, that should set off so many alarms for breaking every ethical code that exists in advanced economies, not to mention standing laws on corrupt dealings by public and private officials. Agreed, and why did he join the Board of THAT particularly corrupt company? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 24 minutes ago, Foxx said: Bob, why is it everyone must do the work for you? i mean, the information is plastered everywhere in this sub-forum. if you don't want to do the work yourself you are essentially wasting everyone's time here. as you are not going to believe a painting by Picasso was actually painted by Picasso. If you don't wish to engage in a discussion with me, don't quote me. I promise I will stop quoting you, if you wish. (SEE DR, not hard at all) I am not asking for anything that difficult. If you know where the good info is and wish to discuss some point, tell me. I am waaaay too old to accept assignments here. As I said earlier to you (I think), if you have a point, make it. Don't ask posters to go back and dig into something if you already have the info at your fingertips. If you disagree or don't like that, don't reply to me. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, snafu said: You mis-used interregnum. Then you went and typed "money wrench". Beat me to it. It was pretty low hanging fruit though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I asked someone earlier: If new murder allegations are brought against OJ, should they be investigated? Of course, right? Well, not if you follow the logic you are using in treating Trump. After all OJ was acquitted of a prior murder and was clearly dragged through hell in the process. The new charges must be BS because 'they' have been after the guy for years. Make sense? Nope and it shouldn't make sense using that logic treating the President either. Trump plays the victim to the hilt. You apparently buy that and see him as a victim. I see him as a shady character that is in no way above breaking laws to get his way. There are still several investigations on the guy, not because 'they' just hate orangeman. He brings investigations on to himself. He demands loyalty to Trump in his hires, as several past employees have claimed. Does it bother you that everyone he actually hires in some way pledges to be loyal to him ? That is sort of like organized crime families and does bother me. The NDA's with all employees? Do you wonder why he no longer complains about not having his own Roy Cohn heading Justice? Answer: imo, he has his protection in place now. Ever wonder why he has been involved in over 4000 lawsuits? Do you have over 20 claims of sexual abuse against you? Anyone you know personally have more than 1? The guy is 'picked on' because of his actions, statements, and the actions and statements of the people he associates with. Perhaps you should wake up. talk about moving the goal posts, holy schifft batman. stick to one tangent at a time, Bob. Edited January 29, 2020 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 OOPS: Democrat Just Accidentally Admitted House Impeachment Case Is Evidence-Free. . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, snafu said: Agreed, and why did he join the Board of THAT particularly corrupt company? Because no upstanding company would have him. If only he took a stand like Groucho. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: talk about moving the goal posts, holy schifft batman. stick to one tangent at a time, Bob. You got to the crux of his issue though, he is okay with all of this because he thinks trump is a terrible person. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 21 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Reading through the last few pages this AM I am dumbfounded that some people can not only display such immense ignorance but actually knowledgeable people will get into somewhat lengthy discussions with them. How can anyone argue with a person who doesn't even know who IG Atkinson is and what part he has had in this latest impeachment efforts? Between tokes, Bob writes that Trump supporters criticize the dems with rushing the House impeachment vote while at the same time criticizing them for holding the Articles of Impeachment back from the Senate. Simply put the dems, lead by Nancy Politics wanted desperately to get Trump impeached by Christmas but then wanted to help out Joe Biden by keeping his opponents off the campaign trail. If the House had went about this impeachment facade in at least a semblance of fairness and then did it in an open way they would have taken their time to do it right. They didn't, but claimed they had overwhelming evidence and proof that Trump was guilty, but then wanted the Senate to do the job they failed to do. Remember, after all this immense bs going back and forth Trump and his campaign did not collude with anyone or any country to affect the 2016 election. He also didn't do anything impeachable as it pertains to Ukraine. With this in mind, the dems and media are trying to weaken our president and affect his ability to deal internationally. Add dem party over patriotism as the new reality. Simple question: If Trump acted exactly as accused and for the exact motivations proposed by the House Dems, are those actions OK with you and is it OK for all politicians now going forward? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: OOPS: Democrat Just Accidentally Admitted House Impeachment Case Is Evidence-Free. . From your link: Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, one of the designated "spin doctors" sent to the microphones to clean up any damage to the Democrats' message caused by President Trump's impeachment attorneys, dropped an unintentional truth bomb during a media interview. C-SPAN broke away from the proceedings in time to hear Blumenthal say this about the Trump defense lawyers: It was a fact-free summation of a case bereft of evidence – we need the evidence. We need the witnesses and documents... They may have the votes at this moment, but I hope my colleagues will look themselves in the mirror ... [W]hat we want is the truth, not some quid pro quo on the witnesses... Look what he said about the case. Was he really accusing the Trump lawyers of having a case that was "bereft of evidence"? Look at the next sentence. Blumenthal said, "we need evidence." The Trump defense team did provide additional information to the Democrat House Managers during the trial, but, while it's politically smart, the burden of proving the case is certainly not on the president's team. It's up to the Democrat House Managers to make their case, which, by Blumenthal's lights, is "bereft of evidence." 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: If you don't wish to engage in a discussion with me, don't quote me. I promise I will stop quoting you, if you wish. (SEE DR, not hard at all) I am not asking for anything that difficult. If you know where the good info is and wish to discuss some point, tell me. I am waaaay too old to accept assignments here. As I said earlier to you (I think), if you have a point, make it. Don't ask posters to go back and dig into something if you already have the info at your fingertips. If you disagree or don't like that, don't reply to me. it is interesting and not lost upon me that you chose to ignore my post about you watching Pam Bondi's presentation to gain knowledge and understanding, it is a mere 2 hours. Bob stop being such a disingenuous idiot, Bob. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: Simple question: If Trump acted exactly as accused and for the exact motivations proposed by the House Dems, are those actions OK with you and is it OK for all politicians now going forward? I know you didn't direct this at me, but here's a snarky answer: Don't worry, Trump is a one hit wonder. No other politician would ever do this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 13 minutes ago, snafu said: You mis-used interregnum. Then you went and typed "money wrench". Don't forget the continual incorrect usage of the word "facts". 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: You got to the crux of his issue though, he is okay with all of this because he thinks trump is a terrible person. and that is exactly why he moved the goal posts. it is a common tactic amongst liberals. when you back them into a corner they scream, 'look, squirrel!' @Tiberius is famous for this. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, snafu said: I know you didn't direct this at me, but here's a snarky answer: Don't worry, Trump is a one hit wonder. No other politician would ever do this. Do we as Americans really not know how foreign policy negotiations work? Has anyone in this sub actually negotiated anything of consequence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 20 minutes ago, snafu said: I'm not going to dig too deep, but I am 99% positive that Presidents have used their office to pressure other foreign leaders in foreign affairs for months, years, decades and centuries. Including Obama, just in 2016, who pressured our allies to spy on his political opponent for his political gain -- but Bob doesn't want to even acknowledge that, or discuss it. Because as much as he talks about wanting to know all the truth, he clearly draws the line at partisanship. 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts