Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

After nearly two years of investigating, on top of a 10-month FBI probe he inherited, Mueller needs to show his cards. 3 years is more than enough time. Put up or shut up .

---

How long did Watergate take? The right is impatient!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

They need to put NCIS on it. They can get it solved in 50 minutes.

---

Excellent idea.

Quote:

---

How long did Watergate take? The right is impatient!

---

Took about two years from the beginning of the investigation until Nixon resigned, but during much of that time there was information coming out that implicated Nixon in the crime, including the missing 40 minutes or so on a tape that was crucial. Kind of reminds me of the tens of thousands of missing emails from Clinton's server. Oops. I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that she has a "Get out of jail free" card.

Maybe this is a more modern comparison for you conservatives.

https://www.quora.com/How-long-did-t...bert-Mueller-s

Quote:

---

The Clinton investigations lasted from January, 1994 when Special Prosecutor, Robert Fiske was hired until March, 2002 when Independent Counsel, Robert Ray concluded his work. In between Fiske and Ray was Ken Starr who was Independent Counsel from August, 1994 until September 1998.

---

AND

Quote:

---

Mueller has been the independent counsel since May 17, 2017.

---

Two years in May for Mueller, so chill and quite crying.

Again, I just wonder if you read your articles since it would be helpful. That reference is to multiple investigations covering a variety of subjects.

Quote:

---

The Clinton investigations covered Whitewater-Resolution Trust Company-Madison Guaranty-Rose Law Firm; Vince Foster's suicide, "Travelgate," (Firing of White House Travel Office staff)"Filegate," (White House staffer Craig Livingston in possession of FBI files) Paula Jones' sexual harrassment lawsuit and President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. That's eight years worth of Clinton investigations.

---

Special counsel investigating a president. Similar enough for this discussion given there are also a variety of things being covered by Mueller and various jurisdictions of the justice department. Hey Clinton survived and got re elected, so maybe the dufus will repeat that history.

Yes I read my own links, glad you do too.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cac...27/1692741.jpg

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cac...33/1693308.jpg

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work...f8f89acc656220

The damning evidence; Trump called for lifting of sanctions after having had business dealings In Russia, but he didn't pursue the deal and the sanctions haven't been lifted. So this is evidence of what? Surely it isn't illegal to have had business dealings in Russia as it might have been in the Cold War and it isn't illegal to have had dealings as a candidate, however unwise that might have been, and to have opinions on how international relations might be conducted.

So why lie about the business dealings and contacts? Why has his henchmen gone to jail for LYING and other crimes? Whose the next liar Mueller nabs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

So why lie about the business dealings and contacts? Why has his henchmen gone to jail for LYING and other crimes? Whose the next liar Mueller nabs?

---

Seriously I don't think Trump is all that smart, he is superficial, egotistical and surrounded by sycophants, so when he says I want to do this some idiot tries to make it happen without thinking of the consequences. It is obvious Trump doesn't listen to advice and can't stand a negative opinion

Quote:

---

So why lie about the business dealings and contacts?

---

So interesting to see an Obama supporter suddenly sensitive about a politician lying.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...l7GY30cJUg--~C

A picture is better than a thousand words!

I assume you are talking about the white high school kids from Kentucky who were raked over the coals by the liberal media until more video came out Sunday and Monday showing that they were basically innocent in the whole ugly situation??? They were accused of chanting, "Build the wall," but that has not been supported by the many videos of the incident and is evidently untrue. They were accused of starting the confrontation by approaching the group led by Nathan Philips, but that has been shown not to have been the case at all.

The black separatist group who were actually the ones shouting insults at the white kids have been scarcely mentioned despite the fact that video clearly shows them hurling racist insults as well as calling the boys faggots. So yes, we have not yet reached the point of being color-blind.

Might add that it now seems that Nathan Philips is not a Vietnam veteran, though that is still subject to some scrutiny and he has not yet commented on the issue. He says he was a marine, but at the age of 64, and with the marines having pulled out in 71, then he would have had to join at the age of 15 or 16 which seems unlikely.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...atus-question/

Actually NO, I was not referring to the video that went viral, I was referring to the dufus, who has no character and should be dumped or deported to Russia with his buddy Vlad. Can you see him asking for asylum? Ironic that King Reagan wanted walls torn down and the dufus wants one built.

$25 billion bucks to slowdown women and kids. Absurd!

How many of those women and kids are you keeping in your house? If the answer is none, then why does it seem that libs always want to be charitable with someone else's money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

How many of those women and kids are you keeping in your house? If the answer is none, then why does it seem that libs always want to be charitable with someone else's money?

---

Oh their heart bleeds for the injustice that their wealth and prosperity inflicts on the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

How many of those women and kids are you keeping in your house? If the answer is none, then why does it seem that libs always want to be charitable with someone else's money?

---

That's a dumb argument because it's not somebody else's money, it's OUR money and most of us are charitable and humane about maintaining a social safety net for ALL of us, even you heartless conservatives who go against the very principles of your lord and savior that you thump your bibles about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Oh their heart bleeds for the injustice that their wealth and prosperity inflicts on the world.

---

Doing the right thing by your fellow humans (And citizens) is a bleeding heart? Or did I misunderstand your lack of specificity between the general population and corporate behavior?

Quote:

---

That's a dumb argument because it's not somebody else's money, it's OUR money and most of us are charitable and humane about maintaining a social safety net ALL of us, even you heartless conservatives who go against the very principles of your lord and savior that you thump your bibles about.

---

No, it's a sensible argument. You liberals like to trumpet how compassionate and caring you are when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money, but when it comes to actually doing something yourself, you are oftentimes strangely inactive.

Show me where Jesus advocated for a taxpayer funded "safety net" and I'll go along with it. What Jesus advocated was for Tal, JL, WG, and the rest of us to help our neighbor, but He never proposed forcing others to engage in our own brand of charity. You live in Texas, so I'm waiting on you to tell me when you plan on heading down to the border to find ways to be helpful before you want to force everyone else to pay.

Conservatives have never liked the idea of helping real people in this country, and have tried to repeal the New Deal and make drastic cuts to social security and any "welfare program" they can, so your position is no surprise. Unfortunately those that feel as you do don't have the votes for such a plan, and really never had, and probably never will, as even the staunchest right winger on SS, and there are many, would not stand for a right winger to take the one thing they have between eating and not eating. You think the charity of man is enough? A bag of groceries is a great thing, but social services for the needy and poor are crucial to getting people back on their feet, and those that are too old or sick, or to young to work to not die in the streets.

Government takes that responsibility, because that's what most citizens want. If it was not so, then it wouldn't happen, or continue to happen, which leads me to believe your view on the matter is a minority one. A social safety net recognizes that the general welfare of it's citizens is an obligation, since we know that stuff happens to people like recessions, slowdowns, and just life that are beyond there control and a helping hand is just not the exclusive domain of churches or charity.

That's what makes this current extended shutdown over a wall especially egregious since very few think it worth the artificial disruption of peoples lives. I hardly think that Jesus would advocate such actions, nor be opposed to a government helping it's people and am confounded by the notion that since Jesus never said anything about a government helping it's citizens then it should not be done.

Comforting though is the reality that view is not more widespread.

1. We are both up mighty early to be retired.
2. I'm not a huge fan of SS, but it is not welfare. They are not the same thing.
3. The only way government has taken on the job of welfare is to borrow money like crazy. Otherwise, the tax rates would be much higher and no one would stand for it. So it's a song and dance they do with us.
4. No American has any right to take money from another American without their agreement. That is the welfare system pure and simple. It is liberals trying to appear to be caring and generous so long as they can be caring and generous with someone else's money.
5. Governments do not help "it's people". Government can only take money from one person by force and give it to another person, and then the members of that government can go about bragging that they care so much for humanity that they pour out help upon them with someone else's money. I despise that more than I can say. If a person helps with his/her own resources, then they are to be commended. If they insist on simply taking money from A to give to B, they are not to placed on a high plane.
6. But since you have properly identified me as a "Bible thumper", then let me propose a Bible solution. In the OT, everyone was required to pay in 10% of their produce every third year for the purpose of helping the poor. If we want to start a special "welfare tax" of 3.3% every year for the purpose of funding welfare, and with the understanding that only that money can be used for welfare, then I could be talked into that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

6. But since you have properly identified me as a "Bible thumper", then let me propose a Bible solution. In the OT, everyone was required to pay in 10% of their produce every third year for the purpose of helping the poor. If we want to start a special "welfare tax" of 3.3% every year for the purpose of funding welfare, and with the understanding that only that money can be used for welfare, then I could be talked into that.

---

So you would like to implement an Islamic solution, and yet you are a Christian. I think you are a little confused because you cannot go back to the OT and take on part of the law

No, I was suggesting an Old Testament solution, sort of like no murder and no theft. I'm not sure what you mean about not going "back to the OT and take on part of the law". Jesus did it constantly as did the NT writers, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Crud! I have to go to work today. You guys will have to sort this out without me, at least until tonight. Have a great day.