Agreed, start at the top, and work our way down.
|
Agreed, start at the top, and work our way down.
Yes, but were you saying that six years ago? I have noticed on this board that those who claim to be so upset with Trump cannot bring themselves to even acknowledge the many shortcomings of the Obama administration. It's as though there is a worship of those eight years that makes any criticism impossible, and that makes the complaining about Trump sound like the bleating of sheep. If a person has a genuine concern about ethics, then that person will be consistent in its application.Quote:
Agreed, start at the top, and work our way down.
I have no wish to engage in your blast from the past criticisms when you have no evidence just speculation of what maybe happened, when we have current reality to contend with. Heck guy I don't even engage in critisizing past repub presidents let alone dem ones. I see it as pointless given HC and Bill and Obama have been investigated to death and no evidence or finding of wrongdoing is to be had. I mean 7 house investigations by repubs and you got nada. Decades of smears you got NADA. It's been 3 years now and you're so stuck in the past you ignore the facts TODAY. They are GONE, but guess who is here front and center breaking laws, rules, and morals left and right.
I mean Lewandowski admitted the WH was trying to end the Mueller investigation, and prevent testimony given in the Mueller report, to the congress, AND told the FBI to narrow the scope and time of the Kavanaugh investigation and what do you get from repubs? Nada, not a peep. Just old fashion political mudsling to kiss the butt of the guy you don't like, and held your nose to vote for.
We haven't even talked about the cruelty to immigrants you bible thumpers think is just great, or ignoring the mass shootings of women, kids in schools, or anywhere else, and feeding rich farmers money while he fights the easy to win trade wars, or assault on the homeless for being homeless. and you want to go back to the rightwing talking points for the last administration?
Dude you got to give me a break, until you study the Mueller Report, as well as you quote scriptures, and check your own consistency with morality and corruption before you dare jump on mine. You must be a bit cracked if you think I will even consider comparing Obama or HC to this lying cheating dufus so you will just have to be stuck in the past by yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Etc., etc., etc. ...............................
This post says it all!!
The head of DOJ sat in a private conversation with the famous husband of a woman under active FBI investigation for nearly an hour, and then..surprise!! She gets let off the hook. That sure sounds like evidence to me.Quote:
when you have no evidence
Obama lied about the events leading to the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi. That this happened is beyond controversy.
The only thing we can be sure of is that you cannot bring yourself to say even the slightest whisper of criticism of a democrat.
You are in fantasy land again. All your comments about cruelty to immigrants, mass shootings, rich farmers, etc. must have come from someone else. You haven't heard me cheapen any of those events. And once again you are back to name-calling such as "Bible thumpers". I always think that name calling is the last step for someone who has run out of facts.Quote:
We haven't even talked about the cruelty to immigrants you bible thumpers think is just great, or ignoring the mass shootings of women, kids in schools, or anywhere else, and feeding rich farmers money while he fights the easy to win trade wars, or assault on the homeless for being homeless. and you want to go back to the rightwing talking points for the last administration?
Do you, or do you not, believe that anyone who does not believe in Jesus will spend eternity in hell suffering punishment for all time? This includes babies and children and people who never heard of Jesus. Your answer, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Lynch recused herself and kicked it to the FBI. The right thing to do and nowhere near Barr's no collusion no obstruction. Still haven't read the REPORT with actual accounts in it have you? That's what I thought, talking points as evidence doesn't cut it. Was that meeting as egregious as the WH narrowing the time and scope of the beer swilling, pants dropping drunk frat boy, SCOTUS nominee?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
In your mind, he blamed it on a terrorist attack the following Monday after in the Rose Garden, clearing up the weekend fiasco with the intel. You make no reference to the 25 survivors who fought off the attack, or the many investigations that followed, including 7 repub house investigation that ended in NADA!Quote:
Obama lied about the events leading to the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi. That this happened is beyond controversy.
That's my prerogative, and I explained that already.Quote:
The only thing we can be sure of is that you cannot bring yourself to say even the slightest whisper of criticism of a democrat.
[?QUOTE]You are in fantasy land again. All your comments about cruelty to immigrants, mass shootings, rich farmers, etc. must have come from someone else. You haven't heard me cheapen any of those events. And once again you are back to name-calling such as "Bible thumpers". I always think that name calling is the last step for someone who has run out of facts.[/QUOTE]
It's not name calling if it's TRUE, and I referenced bible thumpers with a "S", meaning more than one. I have plenty of facts you either ignore or fail to acknowledge JL, and the Mueller Report is full of them. Read the thing and refute those facts why don't you but I acknowledge few citizens have read it, and that's a darn shame from that side of the political divide. I suspect the dufus and repubs take much solace from that fact.
No, the right thing to do would have been to have not even considered meeting with BC. Doing something completely unethical doesn't get cleaned up by having to let a subordinate make a decision that rightly was hers to make.Quote:
Lynch recused herself and kicked it to the FBI. The right thing to do
Are you talking about Bill Clinton? As to Kavanaugh, there is not a shred of credible evidence he ever sexually assaulted anyone. That was not even alleged by Dr. Ford whose testimony was so full of holes it was pathetic, so your "pants dropping" comment is completely bogus, not that it matters since he is a conservative and therefore subject to being lied about repeatedly by the liberal crowd.Quote:
Was that meeting as egregious as the WH narrowing the time and scope of the beer swilling, pants dropping drunk frat boy,
So name calling is OK as long as its plural??? What do you consider a "Bible thumper" to be?Quote:
It's not name calling if it's TRUE, and I referenced bible thumpers with a "S", meaning more than one.
I know that Mueller said there was no collusion and was basically neutral on obstruction.Quote:
I have plenty of facts you either ignore or fail to acknowledge JL, and the Mueller Report is full of them. Read the thing and refute those facts why don't you but I acknowledge few citizens have read it, and that's a darn shame from that side of the political divide. I suspect the dufus and repubs take much solace from that fact.
As to Benghazi, Obama sent his NSA on five Sunday morning news programs to say what he know to be untrue. Now that doesn't bother you since Obama was a dem and therefore he has license to do whatever. It's the doctrine of "anything goes".
Did look so good, but was it as bad as Sessions being hounded by the dufus to unrecuse himself? Or sending a WH counsel and a butt boy to tell him to stop the investigations of him, and RUSSIA? You just ignore those FACTS.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Was that humor or ignoring Kavanaugh's drunk behavior, or the dufus putting his fingers all over THAT investigation?Quote:
Are you talking about Bill Clinton?
It's NOT name calling if it's true! You might not like his decidedly unchristian behavior but you RELIGION VALUES TYPES support him any way, for right wing activist judges that will overturn the ungodly left wing agenda, and tax cuts that add trillions to the debt you hate, right?Quote:
So name calling is OK as long as its plural???
Easy answer. YES, it was every bit as bad and worse. She has a secret meeting with BC and just like that, HC gets off scott free.Quote:
Did look so good, but was it as bad as Sessions being hounded by the dufus to unrecuse himself? Or sending a WH counsel and a butt boy to tell him to stop the investigations of him, and RUSSIA? You just ignore those FACTS.
You have evidence that Trump instructed Sessions to stop the investigation? I don't think so. He did want Sessions to not recuse himself, and he was entitled to his opinion, but I haven't heard of any substantial evidence that Sessions was told to get rid of Mueller.
Well, BC was the only one accused of assaulting women, being proven to have lied about having sex with a woman, and settling out of court with another one. As to Kavanaugh's drunken behavior, Obama smoked pot in college. I note that you have not allowed that to cause your support of Obama to waver. Why do you have a different standard for those two men? Would politics have anything to do with it?Quote:
Was that humor or ignoring Kavanaugh's drunk behavior, or the dufus putting his fingers all over THAT investigation?
Now you have hit on the difference between the two of us. I despise his budget deficits and his "decidedly unchristian behavior". I have no hesitation in criticizing Trump where I feel he is wrong. You, on the other hand, will never be able to bring yourself to say so much a single negative syllable about your beloved Mr. Obama. I know that's true, and so do you.Quote:
It's NOT name calling if it's true! You might not like his decidedly unchristian behavior but you RELIGION VALUES TYPES support him any way, for right wing activist judges that will overturn the ungodly left wing agenda, and tax cuts that add trillions to the debt you hate, right?
Pot relaxes. Alcohol removes inhibitions and makes a person aggressive. I'd much rather be at a frat party with everyone smoking pot than being there with a bunch of drunk guys who are trying to figure out how to get my clothes off.
If you think only drunk men try to figure out how to convince women to sleep with them, you are completely naive.Quote:
Pot relaxes. Alcohol removes inhibitions. I'd much rather be at a frat party with everyone smoking pot than being there with a bunch of drunk guys who are trying to figure out how to get my clothes off.
I've never smoked pot, but I doubt VERY seriously that it has become so popular because a lot of people feel the need to relax. Surely you don't believe that.
Of course, all men do. It's the drunks that we have to be aware of and stay away from.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
We aren't talking about its popularity. The topic is its effects on people. I'd rather spend an hour with a pot smoker than a drunk.Quote:
I've never smoked pot, but I doubt VERY seriously that it has become so popular because a lot of people feel the need to relax. Surely you don't believe that.
Keep believing that if you want to. Your choice.Quote:
It's the drunks that we have to be aware of and stay away from.
I think the guys at the drug rehab I work with would not agree with you about smoking pot to relax. People smoke pot to get high. But at any rate, I really don't think that has any impact on the discussion at hand other than to say that if you feel good about Obama smoking pot rather than drinking beer, which I imagine he did as well, then OK. Makes no sense to me, but it's not my belief so it doesn't have to.Quote:
We aren't talking about its popularity. The topic is its effects on people. I'd rather spend an hour with a pot smoker than a drunk.
The discussion was centered around the insulting and unprofessional article the NY Times wrote about Kavanaugh which turned out to be complete nonsense.
How many pot smoking or drunk wimmin have you beaten off?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
We're not talking about sipping a brewski. We're talking about being drunk!!!Quote:
I think the guys at the drug rehab I work with would not agree with you about smoking pot to relax. People smoke pot to get high. But at any rate, I really don't think that has any impact on the discussion at hand other than to say that if you feel good about Obama smoking pot rather than drinking beer, which I imagine he did as well, then OK. Makes no sense to me, but it's not my belief so it doesn't have to.
Kavanaugh looks like and talks like a creep.Quote:
The discussion was centered around the insulting and unprofessional article the NY Times wrote about Kavanaugh which turned out to be complete nonsense.
???Quote:
How many pot smoking or drunk wimmin have you beaten off?
Who said otherwise? And we are also talking about getting high.Quote:
We're not talking about sipping a brewski. We're talking about being drunk!!!
Thank you for your objectivity. Good grief, what a judgmental statement. I never cease to be amazed at the lengths liberals will go to in order to defend Mr. Obama. It's absolutely amazing. He "looks like a creep", so no doubt he must be guilty. If someone said that about Obama you would have a fit.Quote:
Kavanaugh looks like and talks like a creep.
That's what I figureQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Comparing them. High lost to drunk.Quote:
Who said otherwise? And we are also talking about getting high.
I'm not a liberal. And I never dated Obama but did encounter far too many drunks like Kavanaugh during my dating years. He'd been drinking (to relax....) before his questioning.Quote:
Thank you for your objectivity. Good grief, what a judgmental statement. I never cease to be amazed at the lengths liberals will go to in order to defend Mr. Obama. It's absolutely amazing. He "looks like a creep", so no doubt he must be guilty. If someone said that about Obama you would have a fit.
Everyone: There is no way on God's green earth that dope should be legal....no way. Dope is conclusively proven to be a "Starter Drug" for many of the crack, cocaine, and meth users this world has to offer...there is no doubt that most of these "Graduates" to heavier drugs broke the ice, so to speak, with the good old harmless (my ) dope cigarette....dope RUINS LIVES! Its purely disgusting that states in these United States, have condoned the use of dope and consider it harmless fare, to be safer and "better" than alcohol. I don't drink and don't use dope either and can not understand the MANIA that people have for dope!
The dope heads are using the "Medical Marijuana" thing as a way to "break it into the mainstream" and legitimize it: The science behind "Medical Marijuana" is weaker that that of Global Warming! And what in hades makes people think that dope heads are not violent, that they are just "mello" people? This is simply not true! One major criminal psychologist said that the violent population of prisons are with people who have a very common thread amongst them: Want to know what that common thread is? All of these violent animals SMOKED DOPE!
The pseudo science trying to pretend to be real science is infuriating! Dope is bad! You can not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh&$/crap. you just can not! Bring me one person that legitimately can say "Yeah, my life really sucked up until I STARTED SMOKING MARIJUANA and, then, it got all better....Dope saved my life!" No, dope will ruin your life, no question about it!
I know several people who swear by it for back pain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
W.G.: And the Marijuana probably does help their back pain....and it probably does help people with Glaucoma pain.....as it probably help people with cancer feel better.....and, I swear to you, I am not talking about those people....far be it from me to pass judgement upon people in pain who want relief: I am talking about all of the other people who are using the MEDICAL MARIJAUNA TRAIN to get a free ride into legalizing a substance that they will simply smoke for pleasure only....a substance that leaves tracers in the body...a substance that is dangerous for the physicality of the human body in terms of knowing its long term effects...a substance that has been linked to violent criminal behavior by prison psychologist based on statistics.
I know a lot of people think Marijuana is an aphrodisiac that will help them get into women's pants, and that is why the perverts want it so bad (real POS bunch that needs good whipping, if you ask me)…..I am totally frustrated by the whole Dope Culture acceptance....its wrong, I know its wrong, and I just can't see how you can put perfume on a pig and call it anything other than a pig!
You've heard the old saying about if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?Quote:
I'm not a liberal.
Once again, the "I'm not a liberal" person can hardly wait to come to the defense of Mr. Obama while not hesitating to slander Kavanaugh. That's why I'm convinced you are 100% liberal. It's plainly apparent.Quote:
And I never dated Obama but did encounter far too many drunks like Kavanaugh during my dating years. He'd been drinking (to relax....) before his questioning.
It's not slander if it's true!
And when have I defended Obama????
what you have to decide here is not what is truth, but what are lies and misleading statements
Referring to Kavanaugh as a drunk.Quote:
It's not slander if it's true!
Your entire line of argument that smoking pot is great but drinking alcohol is bad was a response to the "Obama smoked pot" statement from earlier.Quote:
And when have I defended Obama????
His attitude and behavior in front of the Senate and on live TV certainly suggested that. Or emotional instability.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
We have enough factual accounts and his own testimony to call him a drunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I think she was quite specific differentiating between drinkers, those that consume, and drunks those that consume to access. Applies to pot as well.Quote:
Your entire line of argument that smoking pot is great but drinking alcohol is bad was a response to the "Obama smoked pot" statement from earlier.
He did some excessive partying as a young person. If everyone who did that is a drunk, then most people are drunks. Sorry, but to call him a "drunk" is ridiculous.Quote:
We have enough factual accounts and his own testimony to call him a drunk.
What? Her whole point was that smoking pot is better than getting drunk. Pot smokers, she said, "relax", but drunks get aggressive towards women. I have no idea where you read that she did the differentiating you are referring to.Quote:
I think she was quite specific differentiating between drinkers, those that consume, and drunks those that consume to access. Applies to pot as well.
Perhaps this is one of those areas my experience gives me a great deal of insight into.
OK. You have had some experiences, so Kavanaugh must be guilty? Is that how it works now? Thank goodness we don't use that system of justice in America.Quote:
Perhaps this is one of those areas my experience gives me a great deal of insight into.
I assure you that you weren't the only one who partied as a young person.
Dope heads depend upon everyone thinking that smoking dope is O.K......it is not O.K. and despite what the idiotic states that have passed legalization think, in the MAJORITY of states in the United States, smoking dope is still ILLEGAL! So, dope smoking is not O.K. and it does not make you a better person....in fact, it doesn't make you BETTER at anything, at all. And, people that smoke dope SMELL TO HIGH HEAVEN WITH A FUNK THAT IS UNSHAKEABLE! Good lord, do dope heads stink with a particularly perculiar rancid "stank".
Go smoke dope and it will be found in your system several weeks down the road, especially in you hair follicles. We bust these idiots all the time in my industry using the "Hair Test"......Now, have a drink today, and you can not tell if you drank tomorrow......not defending drinking but facts are as they are.
I said I had insights not a crystal ball. It should disturb you that the WH squelched any real investigations to get a SCOTUS pick through. Why are you okay with that? If evidence is not looked at in the first place how do YOU claim him innocent of anything? One would think we take the time to get the truth out before we move someone to such a position. Now I realize the presumption of innocence in the rule of law, but I do not recognize the obstruction of pursuit of ANY evidence, for or against anyone.
You got something against getting the facts of the matter?
Talaniman: What is "insi"?
Clarify please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Talaniman: No, you said it right, for some reason this computer cut-off you words.....strange!
No, I agree with you: Facts do matter and ALL the evidence needs presentation.....that is the way it was designed to work and that is the way it should work, our System of Justice....it is sacred and should be preserved at all costs.....no compromises.
That's why we need to dump this dufus. Not easy but like fishing, give him enough line to tire hisself out then reel him in. You fish?
Were you out of the country when the Senate held its hearing on Kavanaugh?Quote:
the WH squelched any real investigations to get a SCOTUS pick through. Why are you okay with that? If evidence is not looked at in the first place how do YOU claim him innocent of anything?
He is innocent until proven guilty. You have it backwards. Besides, the testimony against him was total nonsense, just like this recent NY Times article.
We won't know until a credible finding of fact is launched. Foolish and naïve to think the Kavanaugh hearings were credible, more a half a$$ thrown together appearance of one. Maybe it passed your sniff test, but you're still holding your nose from 2016, but it stunk up the whole system.
Innocent until proven guilty is a great law principle, but if you stop the process of proving then you break the law. Criminals use to whack the witnesses, or scare them off, but this dufus just calls them names and ignores them. He has plenty of appointed sycophants to do his dirty work.
So Hillary is fine because she when through a hearing, but Kavanaugh went through a hearing and is not fine. I wonder if the fact that one is a dem and one a repub has anything to do with your sense of legalities and fairness?
More of you're false equivalency arguments? The Clintons and Hillary in particular went through decades of repub mudslinging and investigations. 6 repub congressional hearing into Bengahzi and you got nothing? Come on JL, Kavanaugh had one lousy half a$$ investigation that the dufus squelched, and YOU call that equal?
You wingers crack me up sometimes.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 AM. |