4merper4mer Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Shane! Shane! Shane! Good song. Was that Jefferson Airplane or Jefferson Starship? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Good song. Was that Jefferson Airplane or Jefferson Starship? Aretha Franklin. Shane of Fools. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 15 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: I have no clue who Turkey is but he seems to be unaware that the Dems did not want too much information coming out because at some point it will become clear the Trump truly thinks Biden was selling influence. He was a witness for the Republicans in the House impeachment hearing regarding the constitutionality of their charges. He is considered a constitutional scholar. Don't call him Turkey, his name is Turley. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 6 minutes ago, snafu said: Aretha Franklin. Shane of Fools. haha! shame shame shameeeeeee....shame shame shameeeeee....shame of fools. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 minute ago, B-Man said: Was this before or after the 51-49 witness vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 11 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Was this before or after the 51-49 witness vote? Before, I don't believe that he was there at all today. . RAND PAUL SCHOOLS A DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE WITH A BYLINE: 3 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 He was never going to be convicted, so a "fair" trial would have done absolutely nothing for the D's. Best possible outcome if you oppose Trump's presidency b/c the "victory tour" will be hampered by the fact that the case was never really adjudicated in the eye's of the American people. I think Dershowitz and other's made a compelling case as to why this conduct is not impeachable, but the shape shifting with this particular President is really astounding. Always starts with a denial and ends with "so what."? I try to remain impartial and understand all points of view, but I've grown tired of the consistently "evolving" accounts WRT accusations of malfeasance. We'll see what happens in November. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 44 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: He was never going to be convicted, so a "fair" trial would have done absolutely nothing for the D's. Best possible outcome if you oppose Trump's presidency b/c the "victory tour" will be hampered by the fact that the case was never really adjudicated in the eye's of the American people. I think Dershowitz and other's made a compelling case as to why this conduct is not impeachable, but the shape shifting with this particular President is really astounding. Always starts with a denial and ends with "so what."? I try to remain impartial and understand all points of view, but I've grown tired of the consistently "evolving" accounts WRT accusations of malfeasance. We'll see what happens in November. This didn’t start with a denial, it started with an accusation of wrongdoing by an operative, was ginned up by a politician with the intent to harm the president, and ultimately failed because it was built on a foundation of shifting sand that passes for political ethics. The fact that the same description can be used for ”Trumps taxes!”, Russian Treason! his SC nominee The Rapist! photos of “children in cages”! (from the Obama admin), and whatever is in the Democrat hopper is telling. At least the dems don’t confuse the masses by shifting the shape of the method of attack. There are no new ideas, politically speaking, just cycles. This version approximates McCarthyism. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said: He was never going to be convicted, so a "fair" trial would have done absolutely nothing for the D's. Best possible outcome if you oppose Trump's presidency b/c the "victory tour" will be hampered by the fact that the case was never really adjudicated in the eye's of the American people. I think Dershowitz and other's made a compelling case as to why this conduct is not impeachable, but the shape shifting with this particular President is really astounding. Always starts with a denial and ends with "so what."? I try to remain impartial and understand all points of view, but I've grown tired of the consistently "evolving" accounts WRT accusations of malfeasance. We'll see what happens in November. Respectfully, re the bolded: It's funny how the "best possible outcome" for the establishment DNC always aligns with what most destabilizes our system of government. They've accomplished nothing with this gambit but weaponizing impeachment -- which is dangerous for the future of the republic. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Respectfully, re the bolded: It's funny how the "best possible outcome" for the establishment DNC always aligns with what most destabilizes our system of government. They've accomplished nothing with this gambit but weaponizing impeachment -- which is dangerous for the future of the republic. With all due respect my friend, the precedent for the weaponization of impeachment was set in the 90's. Two wrongs don't make a right, but this is nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Respectfully, re the bolded: It's funny how the "best possible outcome" for the establishment DNC always aligns with what most destabilizes our system of government. They've accomplished nothing with this gambit but weaponizing impeachment -- which is dangerous for the future of the republic. In the meantime who knows the harm the Russian Collusion investigation and this phony impeachment pursuit has caused to all of the good things Trump has been trying to accomplish for this country. Have they weakened his bargaining position? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 Just now, LSHMEAB said: With all due respect my friend, the precedent for the weaponization of impeachment was set in the 90's. Two wrongs don't make a right, but this is nothing new. I don't disagree -- but it's a further decent into madness. Say what you will about the Clinton impeachment, he did commit a crime (perjury). It was BS then, but it was still at least a crime. This is weaponizing policy differences, which would render the entire executive branch inert. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 15 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: This didn’t start with a denial, it started with an accusation of wrongdoing by an operative, was ginned up by a politician with the intent to harm the president, and ultimately failed because it was built on a foundation of shifting sand that passes for political ethics. The fact that the same description can be used for ”Trumps taxes!”, Russian Treason! his SC nominee The Rapist! photos of “children in cages”! (from the Obama admin), and whatever is in the Democrat hopper is telling. At least the dems don’t confuse the masses by shifting the shape of the method of attack. There are no new ideas, politically speaking, just cycles. This version approximates McCarthyism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: In the meantime who knows the harm the Russian Collusion investigation and this phony impeachment pursuit has caused to all of the good things Trump has been trying to accomplish for this country. Have they weakened his bargaining position? And that's the context that's missed by many. The lowering of the bar for impeachment happened after they tried, and failed, to overthrow the legitimate government by subverting our DOJ, FBI, and tools of surveillance. They couched it in a "threat to national security", but knew when they made that justification it was hog wash. Edited February 1, 2020 by Deranged Rhino 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 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.’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TtownBillsFan Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 On 1/30/2020 at 9:32 PM, snafu said: This entire process from September until now has been aggravating in so many ways. Just when you think one party or the other, or one branch or another might lift themselves up out of the muck they never fail to disappoint. Just when you think the gubm’t “lifers” would get off their high horse and stop #resisting, they clutch their pearls again and again. These are the people who run our country, holy crap! And an impartial press is long gone — never to return. And then the fukkin Twitter experts playing gotcha all day. Can I just slit my wrists now? Can’t wait for the acquittal and then the meltdown. Oh, and then the SOTU on Tuesday. That should be “fun” while Trump goes into Congress and shamelessly gloats for two hours in front of all the second rate losers. None of this is breaking news, I know. /rant. Doc, Do you believe their plan was to corner the Senate all along, or do you believe the Democrats just bumbled into a political win? I think they bumbled and took advantage as best they could. If so, good for them. There’s a lot that’s going to happen between now and November. They’ve got a weak field of Presidential candidates and a good economy as headwinds. They need all the help they can get. Snafu- how could the right 'lift themselves out of the muck' in this instance? You seem a generally levelheaded person. But in this matter, how could the 'right ' have made you happy/demonstrated they were rising above? I contend, there's nothing they could have reasonably done to make you happy. I think you're a contrarian, happiest when you can complain about both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts