Doc Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 Can you smell it? That's called "desperation." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 21, 2022 Author Share Posted October 21, 2022 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 24 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Ah but it’s ok for Trump - right hack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 After the Jan. 6 Committee finishes, maybe a GOP Congress can probe some actual ‘threats to democracy.’ by Glenn Reynolds https://nypost.com/2022/10/21/after-the-jan-6-committee-finishes-maybe-a-gop-congress-can-probe-some-actual-threats-to-democracy/ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 22, 2022 Author Share Posted October 22, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 17 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: 👆🤡 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 23, 2022 Author Share Posted October 23, 2022 Hurry @ChiGoose. link to another Axios or huffpost article before telling us again how much of a hack Julie Kelly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted October 23, 2022 Share Posted October 23, 2022 4 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Hurry @ChiGoose. link to another Axios or huffpost article before telling us again how much of a hack Julie Kelly is. I am flattered, but I told you I am happily married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 23, 2022 Author Share Posted October 23, 2022 (edited) 41 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I am flattered, but I told you I am happily married. Now, now we've just missed all your insightful takes from above the fray from our favorite "former republican" poster. Cmon man. I'm interested in your takes on the J6 interview transcripts of "testimony under oath" that you were so certain were coming in September. Please give us your take. What juicy bits were revealed? Edited October 23, 2022 by BillsFanNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted October 23, 2022 Share Posted October 23, 2022 13 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Now, now we've just missed all your insightful takes from above the fray from our favorite "former republican" poster. Cmon man. I'm interested in your takes on the J6 interview transcripts of "testimony under oath" that you were so certain were coming in September. Please give us your take. What juicy bits were revealed? Well you all have been complaining about it being one sided and now they’ve subpoenaed Trump to testify. He can finally get to tell his side, under oath. Are you excited? Or do you realize he’s not gonna do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 23, 2022 Author Share Posted October 23, 2022 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Well you all have been complaining about it being one sided and now they’ve subpoenaed Trump to testify. He can finally get to tell his side, under oath. Are you excited? Or do you realize he’s not gonna do it? Great stuff. Now what's your take on President Biden's dementia? Real or hoax? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted October 23, 2022 Share Posted October 23, 2022 Just now, BillsFanNC said: Great stuff. Now what's your take on President Biden's dementia? Real or hoax? I’m not a doctor. He’s certainly lost his fastball but I’ve had family members with dementia and he’s nowhere near as bad as them. Tripping up on words as an elderly person who struggled with a stutter isn’t necessarily dementia. That being said, I’d prefer if he didn’t run for re-election. But hey, at least he isn’t stupid enough to steal government documents, so he’s got that going for him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 23, 2022 Author Share Posted October 23, 2022 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I’m not a doctor. He’s certainly lost his fastball but I’ve had family members with dementia and he’s nowhere near as bad as them. Tripping up on words as an elderly person who struggled with a stutter isn’t necessarily dementia. That being said, I’d prefer if he didn’t run for re-election. But hey, at least he isn’t stupid enough to steal government documents, so he’s got that going for him. "I'm not a doctor" . Check Stutter. Check. He's just getting old. Check. Bringing up Trump when asked about Bidens clear dementia. Check. You've got the clown left talking points down. Congrats on once again being "above it all" As for your other contention that the Trump subpoena somehow makes the sham committee fair is once again laughable. Did I miss where Pelosi appointed some new non RINO members to the committee? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted October 23, 2022 Share Posted October 23, 2022 6 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: "I'm not a doctor" . Check Stutter. Check. He's just getting old. Check. Bringing up Trump when asked about Bidens clear dementia. Check. You've got the clown left talking points down. Congrats on once again being "above it all" As for your other contention that the Trump subpoena somehow makes the sham committee fair is once again laughable. Did I miss where Pelosi appointed some new non RINO members to the committee? She agreed to three people McCarthy wanted and then he withdrew them either because he’s an idiot or because he felt it would allow idiots to claim that it was Pelosi’s fault there were only two republicans on the committee. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 23, 2022 Author Share Posted October 23, 2022 4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: She agreed to three people McCarthy wanted and then he withdrew them either because he’s an idiot or because he felt it would allow idiots to claim that it was Pelosi’s fault there were only two republicans on the committee. What an interesting partisan way to frame it. What actually happened is that Pelosi rejected two of his choices, Jordan and Banks, and he rightly withdrew his entire list. With it being such a slam dunk case why would Pelosi object to any pesky Republicans asking their wacky conspiracy theory fueled questions? That's the funny thing about achieving something remotely close to being bipartisan You know you've achieved it when each side isn't happy with some of the appointees on the other side. The dems were and are absolutely thrilled with every single member on the committee. Therefore bipartisan it is not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted October 23, 2022 Share Posted October 23, 2022 2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: What an interesting partisan way to frame it. What actually happened is that Pelosi rejected two of his choices, Jordan and Banks, and he rightly withdrew his entire list. With it being such a slam dunk case why would Pelosi object to any pesky Republicans asking their wacky conspiracy theory fueled questions? That's the funny thing about achieving something remotely close to being bipartisan You know you've achieved it when each side isn't happy with some of the appointees on the other side. The dems were and are absolutely thrilled with every single member on the committee. Therefore bipartisan it is not. LOL. Drinking the Kool Aid, I see. Pelosi rejected Banks and Jordan because she suspected they might have been involved in the events leading up to Jan 6 so them serving on the committee would have been a conflict. She would have seated the rest of McCarthy‘s slate. I guess the 9/11 commission was partisan because we didn’t have any Al Qaeda terrorists on it to give their perspective. The Warren Commission was partisan because they didn’t have Lee Harvey Oswald on it (or whoever was on the grassy knoll if you’re one of those people). Every single witness who testified to the committee was either a Republican or non-partisan. If they wanted it to be more bipartisan, they should have had more Democrats testify, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 23, 2022 Author Share Posted October 23, 2022 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: LOL. Drinking the Kool Aid, I see. Pelosi rejected Banks and Jordan because she suspected they might have been involved in the events leading up to Jan 6 so them serving on the committee would have been a conflict. She would have seated the rest of McCarthy‘s slate. I guess the 9/11 commission was partisan because we didn’t have any Al Qaeda terrorists on it to give their perspective. The Warren Commission was partisan because they didn’t have Lee Harvey Oswald on it (or whoever was on the grassy knoll if you’re one of those people). Every single witness who testified to the committee was either a Republican or non-partisan. If they wanted it to be more bipartisan, they should have had more Democrats testify, I guess. Oh so Pelosi suspected Jordan and Banks were involved? Oh my. Well now if Nancy Pelosi has suspicions then stop the presses! Why are Nancy Pelosi’s suspicions legitimate grounds for well anything at all? The same Nancy Pelosi who rejected national guard assistance prior to J6 has suspicions about OTHER members of congress involvement in J6? Partisan hack says what again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted October 23, 2022 Share Posted October 23, 2022 6 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Oh so Pelosi suspected Jordan and Banks were involved? Oh my. Well now if Nancy Pelosi has suspicions then stop the presses! Why are Nancy Pelosi’s suspicions legitimate grounds for well anything at all? The same Nancy Pelosi who rejected national guard assistance prior to J6 has suspicions about OTHER members of congress involvement in J6? Partisan hack says what again? …she’s the Speaker of the House. She decides who sits on select committees. Like, this isn’t hard, dude. Also, you seem to believe something that is very much not true: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/27/fact-check-nancy-pelosi-isnt-in-charge-capitol-police/8082088002/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 23, 2022 Author Share Posted October 23, 2022 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: …she’s the Speaker of the House. She decides who sits on select committees. Like, this isn’t hard, dude. That's not what I said. I asked why her suspicions are legitimate grounds in making ANY decision? This isn't hard dude. 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Also, you seem to believe something that is very much not true: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/27/fact-check-nancy-pelosi-isnt-in-charge-capitol-police/8082088002/ Oh fact checkers! From USA Today? You've got me. It's too bad we actually have the Capitol police memos made public that tell us exactly how things went down. I mean that's your thing right? Just read the documents, right? Or is it USA Today fact checkers? Cue the Kash Patel grifter crap despite all this being directly from the Capitol police memos themselves. "The Capitol Police timeline shows what we have been saying for the last year — that DOD support via the National Guard was refused by the House and Senate sergeant at arms, who report to Pelosi," Patel said. "Now we have it in their own writing, days before Jan. 6. And despite the FBI warning of potential for serious disturbance, no perimeter was established, no agents put on the street, and no fence put up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted October 23, 2022 Share Posted October 23, 2022 8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: That's not what I said. I asked why her suspicions are legitimate grounds in making ANY decision? This isn't hard dude. Oh fact checkers! From USA Today? You've got me. It's too bad we actually have the Capitol police memos made public that tell us exactly how things went down. I mean that's your thing right? Just read the documents, right? Or is it USA Today fact checkers? Cue the Kash Patel grifter crap despite all this being directly from the Capitol police memos themselves. "The Capitol Police timeline shows what we have been saying for the last year — that DOD support via the National Guard was refused by the House and Senate sergeant at arms, who report to Pelosi," Patel said. "Now we have it in their own writing, days before Jan. 6. And despite the FBI warning of potential for serious disturbance, no perimeter was established, no agents put on the street, and no fence put up." Where in the article or the documents does it say that Pelosi rejected the request? It looks like the Sgt At Arms rejected it. And if Pelosi really did reject the help (which does not appear to be the case) and you think that’s bad, I wonder what you think about Trump rejecting calls to put an end to the violence for hours. I’m sure that as logical straight shooter, you’re even more upset at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts