Trump and Russia

[Azalin]

45 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

That one line of thought is absolutely baffling to me.

 

If firing James Comey was tantamount to obstruction of justice, they wouldn't need to investigate.  He did it.  He fired him.  Right out there in front of God and the whole of humanity, at least in part because of the Russia investigation, which he freely admits to.

 

What about that needs to be investigated?  He fired him.  He gave his reasons.

 

Does Comey become more fired after a thorough investigation?

 

Does his firing finally rise to the standard of criminality only after a certain amount of tax payer dollars has been spent?

 

How does this work?

 

Cogito ergo non Gator.

 

Everything you said makes perfect sense, and I agree with you 100%.

 

All I meant to say was that your point was well stated and made perfect sense. Just the sort of thing that Gatorman would call obfuscation.

[TakeYouToTasker]

22 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Cogito ergo non Gator.

 

Everything you said makes perfect sense, and I agree with you 100%.

 

All I meant to say was that your point was well stated and made perfect sense. Just the sort of thing that Gatorman would call obfuscation.

Oh no, I followed, I'm just expounding because I found a sympathetic ear, and that particular line of reason really bothers me.

[Azalin]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

...... and that particular line of reason really bothers me.

 

That makes two of us.

 

 

[Nanker]

6 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Bringing up Hannity. What the left does when it's already thrown the gun because they're out of bullets.

 

And yet, as much of a nut as Hannity is, you have to wonder, how is it that a nut like him still has a show...

 

If Godwin means the first person to bring up Hitler loses an argument, then Nutbag should mean the same for the first person to bring up Hannity. 

It’s a “progressive‘s” equivalency. 

[Bob in Mich]

9 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

That one line of thought is absolutely baffling to me.

 

If firing James Comey was tantamount to obstruction of justice, they wouldn't need to investigate.  He did it.  He fired him.  Right out there in front of God and the whole of humanity, at least in part because of the Russia investigation, which he freely admits to.

 

What about that needs to be investigated?  He fired him.  He gave his reasons.

 

Does Comey become more fired after a thorough investigation?

 

Does his firing finally rise to the standard of criminality only after a certain amount of tax payer dollars has been spent?

 

How does this work?

 

Have you ever seen a defendant in court with more than one charge?  Why would a prosecutor do that?  Why did the fool prosecutor waste money to gather other charges?  Hmm, a real stumper ya got there.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Bob in Mich

[Cinga]

8 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

That one line of thought is absolutely baffling to me.

 

If firing James Comey was tantamount to obstruction of justice, they wouldn't need to investigate.  He did it.  He fired him.  Right out there in front of God and the whole of humanity, at least in part because of the Russia investigation, which he freely admits to.

 

What about that needs to be investigated?  He fired him.  He gave his reasons.

 

Does Comey become more fired after a thorough investigation?

 

Does his firing finally rise to the standard of criminality only after a certain amount of tax payer dollars has been spent?

 

How does this work?

And almost every legal expert will tell you the POTUS is well within his CONSTITUTIONAL authority to fire literally anyone in the executive branch he/she wants, and is not bound in any way to provide a reason.

I laugh at the people in congress calling for a law to stop Trump from firing Mueller. Even if it passed, and Trump humored them and signed it, it would be thrown out in a second by the supremes

Edited February 9, 2018 by Cinga

[Bob in Mich]

10 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I didn't mention the bolded once in my response. I merely engaged your questions. Rather than engage back, you run away. 

 

 

Last post to you on this DR.  When I saw all of the effort you put into your response, I felt I should go point by point and tell you why I disagree.  But, the more I read, the more I got irritated with you.

 

I don't need your insults.  FU.  I expect medical cannabis ignorance from a lot of the morons here, but someone who has  or is using medical cannabis too, really is acting as an  ignorant jerk to throw that at me as an insult.  Again, FU

 

Let's examine for a second why you are pissed and feel you need to insult me.  Seems to be two things chiefly.  First, I don't buy your horseshit theory.  Why?  The logical leaps you make.  Unknowable events that may or may not be true, you make an assumption and run with it.  I can't make those same leaps so I don't buy your theory.  Your detailed explanations given by you when I questioned, were riddled with logical flaws.  You keep repeating that everything you claim is provable fact.  I disagree and the more you have tried to explain, the less I believe your theory.  If that pisses you off, again  FU.

 

Second, you seemed upset that I didn't read the prior 140 pages in the thread before posting.  I am guilty of that sin.  I admit it but don't apologize.  If you think that was wrong, again, FU.

 

Why do I bring up Hannity?  Because the only media person I see talking about your theory is Sean.  He claims that he is not a journalist and cannot be held to journalistic standards.  He is an entertainer.  Why would no other media folks want to break these fantastic news stories that Hannity spouts everyday?  Well, because most of what he spouts is BS as is most of what you are spouting, imo.  It is not plausible to me that nearly the entire universe of media personnel are all in on this coup conspiracy.  The much more believable theory is that you and Hannity are wrong.

 

The main reason that I am done here is that for at least 3 pages I have been repeating myself.

 

1) The Mueller investigation should continue until Mueller says he has completed it.

2) If there were problems with the FISA warrant process, fix it and prosecute any violators.

 

OUT

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Bob in Mich

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 minutes ago, Cinga said:

And almost every legal expert will tell you the POTUS is well within his CONSTITUTIONAL authority to fire literally anyone in the executive branch he/she wants, and is not bound in any way to provide a reason.

I laugh at the people in congress calling for a law to stop Trump from firing Mueller. Even if it passed, and Trump humored them and signed it, it would be thrown out in a second by the supremes

they use the benchmark "the seriousness of the allegation" to justify what follows. you see IF Trump fires Comey, but did it to OBSTRUCT...something or anything, then we have to get to the bottom of it. they quickly move away from the fact that he could have fired him because he didn't like his shoes, but that's not the point.  Same outrage applies to Yates, and so on and so on. 

 

Comey has revealed himself to be just another political operative posing as a beacon of integrity. it happens, always has and always will. 

[Warren Zevon]

He knows his theories are full of ****. There are more holes in them than swiss cheese. When you or anyone else addresses the holes, he only repeats his theories while changing the format to bold or capitalizing letters. The only excuse he has is if the book he claims to be writing is actually a psychological expose on the gullibility of right wing loons.

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Last post to you on this DR.  When I saw all of the effort you put into your response, I felt I should go point by point and tell you why I disagree,  But, the more I read, the more I got irritated with you.

 

I don't need your insults.  FU.  I expect medical cannabis ignorance from a lot of the morons here, but someone who has  or is using medical cannabis too, really is acting as an  ignorant jerk to throw that at me as an insult.  Again, FU

 

Let's examine for a second why you are pissed and feel you need to insult me.  Seems to be two things chiefly.  First, I don't buy your horseshit theory.  Why?  The logical leaps you make.  Unknowable events that may or may not be true, you make an assumption and run with it.  I can't make those same leaps so I don't buy your theory.  Your detailed explanations given by you when I questioned, were riddled with logical flaws.  You keep repeating that everything you claim is provable fact.  I disagree and the more you have tried to explain, the less I believe your theory.  If that pisses you off, again  FU.

 

Second, you seemed upset that I didn't read the prior 140 pages in the thread before posting.  I am guilty of that sin.  I admit it but don't apologize.  If you think that was wrong, again, FU.

 

Why do I bring up Hannity?  Because the only media person I see talking about your theory is Sean.  He claims that he is not a journalist and cannot be held to journalistic standards.  He is an entertainer.  Why would no other media folks want to break these fantastic news stories that Hannity spouts everyday?  Well, because most of what he spouts is BS as is most of what you are spouting, imo.  It is not plausible to me that nearly the entire universe of media personnel are all in on this coup conspiracy.  The much more believable theory is that you and Hannity are wrong.

 

The main reason that I am done here is that for at least 3 pages I have been repeating myself.

 

1) The Mueller investigation should continue until Mueller says he has completed it.

2) If there were problems with the FISA warrant process, fix it and prosecute any violators.

 

OUT

 

 

 

 

[Nanker]

 

[Warren Zevon]

Here come the memes and insults like clockwork.

 

You know I'm not actually Gary Busey, right wanker?

[GG]

3 minutes ago, garybusey said:

Here come the memes and insults like clockwork.

 

You know I'm not actually Gary Busey, right wanker?

 

Precious

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

13 minutes ago, garybusey said:

Here come the memes and insults like clockwork.

 

You know I'm not actually Gary Busey, right wanker?

TO quote Barrack Oshackhennesy..."Now just ho-ho-ho-hold on a second here".

 

You guys aren't using your real names?? i included the phoentic spelling so you all could pronounce it correctly. 

 

NOT GARY BUSEY?

NOT DERANGED RHINO? 

NOT NANKER? 

 

is Bob even in Michigan?? Jesus is he even named  Bob???

 

i must really be a simple man. 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

24 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Last post to you on this DR.  When I saw all of the effort you put into your response, I felt I should go point by point and tell you why I disagree.  But, the more I read, the more I got irritated with you.

 

I don't need your insults.  FU.  I expect medical cannabis ignorance from a lot of the morons here, but someone who has  or is using medical cannabis too, really is acting as an  ignorant jerk to throw that at me as an insult.  Again, FU

 

Let's examine for a second why you are pissed and feel you need to insult me.  Seems to be two things chiefly.  First, I don't buy your horseshit theory.  Why?  The logical leaps you make.  Unknowable events that may or may not be true, you make an assumption and run with it.  I can't make those same leaps so I don't buy your theory.  Your detailed explanations given by you when I questioned, were riddled with logical flaws.  You keep repeating that everything you claim is provable fact.  I disagree and the more you have tried to explain, the less I believe your theory.  If that pisses you off, again  FU.

 

Second, you seemed upset that I didn't read the prior 140 pages in the thread before posting.  I am guilty of that sin.  I admit it but don't apologize.  If you think that was wrong, again, FU.

 

Why do I bring up Hannity?  Because the only media person I see talking about your theory is Sean.  He claims that he is not a journalist and cannot be held to journalistic standards.  He is an entertainer.  Why would no other media folks want to break these fantastic news stories that Hannity spouts everyday?  Well, because most of what he spouts is BS as is most of what you are spouting, imo.  It is not plausible to me that nearly the entire universe of media personnel are all in on this coup conspiracy.  The much more believable theory is that you and Hannity are wrong.

 

The main reason that I am done here is that for at least 3 pages I have been repeating myself.

 

1) The Mueller investigation should continue until Mueller says he has completed it.

2) If there were problems with the FISA warrant process, fix it and prosecute any violators.

 

OUT

 

 

 

I hope this is a promise and you stick to it. Anyone who makes definitive statements about what someone has posted without reading what someone has posted doesn't really add much here. Stick with pot stories--you might have been boring but at least we couldn't make fun of your extensive research in that field.

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

TO quote Barrack Oshackhennesy..."Now just ho-ho-ho-hold on a second here".

 

You guys aren't using your real names?? i included the phoentic spelling so you all could pronounce it correctly. 

 

NOT GARY BUSEY?

NOT DERANGED RHINO? 

NOT NANKER? 

 

is Bob even in Michigan?? Jesus is he even named  Bob???

 

i must really be a simple man. 

 

 

I'm just glad my mom didn't name me Sue.

[Nanker]

33 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Precious

Comedy gold. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Have you ever seen a defendant in court with more than one charge?  Why would a prosecutor do that?  Why did the fool prosecutor waste money to gather other charges?  Hmm, a real stumper ya got there.

You made a specific claim:  the firing of James Comey is tantamount to obstruction of justice.

 

I have demonstrated that it is not, and that your argument is poor, as you used this "charge" as a prime example of why the investigation needs to continue.

 

Edit:  Also, LOL at your long post where you admit you don't believe Deranged Rhino's argument while simultaneously admitting you haven't read the voluminous evidence he's posted to support it.  It must be nice to be just lazy enough not to be willing to have your biases challenged.

 

Idiot.

Edited February 9, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Nanker]

But, but, but he feels that it's obstruction. Maybe that's the new progressive standard. Laws, facts, and data be damned. It's what they feel that's important and what is real. 

[GG]

2 minutes ago, Nanker said:

But, but, but he feels that it's obstruction. Maybe that's the new progressive standard. Laws, facts, and data be damned. It's what they feel that's important and what is real. 

 

New?

[Bob in Mich]

21 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

You made a specific claim:  the firing of James Comey is tantamount to obstruction of justice.

 

I have demonstrated that it is not, and that your argument is poor, as you used this "charge" as a prime example of why the investigation needs to continue.

 

Edit:  Also, LOL at your long post where you admit you don't believe Deranged Rhino's argument while simultaneously admitting you haven't read the voluminous evidence he's posted to support it.  It must be nice to be just lazy enough not to be willing to have your biases challenged.

 

Idiot.

 

You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. 

 

So, I am an idiot for not reading the entire book when page one is riddled with logical flaws and the author can't provide reasonable replies to questions?  Yeah, OK.

 

Weren't you the guy on here that claimed to be a genius?  What in God's name happened?

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. 

 

So, I am an idiot for not reading the entire book when page one is riddled with logical flaws and the author can't provide reasonable replies to questions?  Yeah, OK.

 

Weren't you the guy on here that claimed to be a genius?  What in God's name happened?

You are an idiot for not understanding the logical underpinnings of your own arguments.

 

You are an idiot for saying things like " Unknowable events that may or may not be true, you make an assumption and run with it." without a trace of irony.

 

You are an idiot for opining conclusively about something you have admittedly not read.

 

And lastly, you're an idiot for not realizing how idiotic the above three items are.

 

Edit: and yes, I have demonstrated that the firing of James Comey was not obstruction of justice.  You're an idiot for not understanding that as well.

Edited February 9, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker