Tiberius Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, Logic said: Can you explain to me what about my original post (wherein the only thing mentioned was that there have BEEN 23 indictments) was factually incorrect? Can you stop asking questions to which you already obviously know the answer? The point of Gould's quote is pretty clear: the GOP saw to it that the e-mail and Benghazi investigations rolled on and on and on, despite no indictments. Now, in Mueller's investigation, there are 23 verified indictments, and the GOP says "nothing there! Shut it down!". If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, then I don't know what to tell you. With regard to the "but how are they related to Russia?" query: if a state trooper pulls someone over because they suspect the driver is drunk, then the trooper discovers a kilo of cocaine in the backseat, should they just ignore it because it doesn't pertain to the original point of suspicion? Message board tactic number one: fatigue honest posters with pointless questions. ----- https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-rejected-michael-cohens-consulting-overture-1526079214 the shakedown of corporate America reached the Ford corporation but they said no. If Cohen threaten them... 1
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, Logic said: Can you explain to me what about my original post (wherein the only thing mentioned was that there have BEEN 23 indictments) was factually incorrect? Can you stop asking questions to which you already obviously know the answer? The point of Gould's quote is pretty clear: the GOP saw to it that the e-mail and Benghazi investigations rolled on and on and on, despite no indictments. Now, in Mueller's investigation, there are 23 verified indictments, and the GOP says "nothing there! Shut it down!". If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, then I don't know what to tell you. With regard to the "but how are they related to Russia?" query: if a state trooper pulls someone over because they suspect the driver is drunk, then the trooper discovers a kilo of cocaine in the backseat, should they just ignore it because it doesn't pertain to the original point of suspicion? The very premise of your original post was horseshit. That there were no indictments with the Benghazi and email investigations were because a crooked dem administration refused to do anything. Now, as to the 23 indictments handed down how many were against Russians for FB posts? How many were against U.S. citizens for collusion with Russia? How many were illegally gotten? From the first time I saw one of your posts it was obvious what a dishonest poster you are. Do you actually think you can pass off your crap down here?
Logic Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: The very premise of your original post was horseshit. That there were no indictments with the Benghazi and email investigations were because a crooked dem administration refused to do anything. Now, as to the 23 indictments handed down how many were against Russians for FB posts? How many were against U.S. citizens for collusion with Russia? How many were illegally gotten? From the first time I saw one of your posts it was obvious what a dishonest poster you are. Do you actually think you can pass off your crap down here? To accuse someone else of horseshit and then immediately follow it up with a completely subjective opinion of the type you posited is bold indeed. As to the second bolded quote, I suppose anyone who disagrees with you is a "dishonest poster"? Or perhaps its as Boyst said "A mouth-breathing SOB". "Pass off my crap down here"? Again, what do you mean exactly? Having an opinion contrary to the majority Fox News driven opinions that prevail around these parts? Would it be better to behave as you and some others do, by personally attacking people, asking a bunch of inane questions, and accusing them of dishonesty for having differing opinions? The ease with which people jump to personal insults and insinuations of deviance around here is ridiculous. I simply quoted a comedian who pointed out that while the two most popular GOP "witch hunts" (to use the words of our beloved president) produced no indictments, the Mueller investigation has already produced 23. You can try all the obfuscation and distraction tactics you want, but nothing about my original post was "dishonest" or "horseshit" whatsoever. As with the previous name-calling poster, I'd suggest you seek out psychiatric assistance or spiritual practice to help you cope with your anger issues. Edited May 12, 2018 by Logic 2
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Logic said: To accuse someone else of horseshit and then immediately follow it up with a completely subjective opinion of the type you posited is bold indeed. As to the second bolded quote, I suppose anyone who disagrees with you is a "dishonest poster"? Or perhaps its as Boyst said "A mouth-breathing SOB". "Pass off my crap down here"? Again, what do you mean exactly? Having an opinion contrary to the majority Fox News driven opinions that prevail around these parts? Would it be better to behave as you and some others do, by personally attacking people, asking a bunch of inane questions, and accusing them of dishonesty for having differing opinions? The ease with which people jump to personal insults and insinuations of deviance around here is ridiculous. I simply quoted a comedian who pointed out that while the two most popular GOP "witch hunts" (to use the words of our beloved president) produced no indictments, the Mueller investigation has already produced 23. You can try all the obfuscation and distraction tactics you want, but nothing about my original post was "dishonest" or "horseshit" whatsoever. As with the previous name-calling poster, I'd suggest you seek out psychiatric assistance or spiritual practice to help you cope with your anger issues. So, in other words you don't want to prove your premise with specifics but throw out horseshit from a comedian and then run away?
Koko78 Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, in other words you don't want to prove your premise with specifics but throw out horseshit from a comedian and then run away? Exactly. He can't answer a simple question: 13 hours ago, Koko78 said: Or, better yet, identify those indictments that relate to the Russian Federation colluding with the Trump Campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Logic, either answer the !@#$ing question, admit you're being completely intellectually dishonest with your assertions, and/or !@#$ off once again.
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 32 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: The very premise of your original post was horseshit. That there were no indictments with the Benghazi and email investigations were because a crooked dem administration refused to do anything. Now, as to the 23 indictments handed down how many were against Russians for FB posts? How many were against U.S. citizens for collusion with Russia? How many were illegally gotten? From the first time I saw one of your posts it was obvious what a dishonest poster you are. Do you actually think you can pass off your crap down here? The Republican House of Reps investigated Benghazi you idiot. Found nothing. You and Koko are two real clowns
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 Just now, Tiberius said: The Republican House of Reps investigated Benghazi you idiot. Found nothing. You and Koko are two real clowns What did the DOJ do during Obama's 8 years?
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 Just now, 3rdnlng said: What did the DOJ do during Obama's 8 years? It's job.
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: It's job. So, you've got nothing?
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, you've got nothing? You didn't even know the Republicans in the House investigated Benghazi yet you commented on it as if you knew something, lol. You got nothing. Worthless?
Koko78 Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You do have some actual understanding of who presents things to Grand Juries for indictment, right? (Here's a hint: It's not Congress.) 1
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: You do have some actual understanding of who presents things to Grand Juries for indictment, right? (Here's a hint: It's not Congress.) Yes I do. Do do you understand the power of Congress to investigate alleged wrongs? Do you know what powers they have?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 They have zero ability to indict or prosecute.
/dev/null Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 The Situation Room on CNN doesn't count as a Grand Jury 1
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: They have zero ability to indict or prosecute. But they do investigate. And they have powers there. And if they find something wrong they can then turn it over to prosecutors. Jeffery Sessions could have picked up the ball....if there had been a ball to pick up 4 minutes ago, /dev/null said: The Situation Room on CNN doesn't count as a Grand Jury Do you think Trump should be impeached if he was in on Cohen's corrupt enterprise?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 That requires the AG to want to indict. Lynch and Holder were never going to indict anyone in 44's administration. Thank you for once again demonstrating to the board your total ignorance into the powers and abilities of congress.
Logic Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Exactly. He can't answer a simple question: Logic, either answer the !@#$ing question, admit you're being completely intellectually dishonest with your assertions, and/or !@#$ off once again. Again with the anger. I'm starting to sense a common theme here. As far as answering any questions: Sure. As long as you play by the same rules. 3rdnlng just made a completely subjective statement, saying that "there were no indictments with the Benghazi and email investigations because a crooked dem administration refused to do anything". Did he provide any facts or explications? No, not a one. Meanwhile, this whole thread has to come to a stop unless I explain in detail each of 23 indictments. Get real. My original post included a factual assertion: The Mueller investigation has produced 23 indictments. That's a fact. It's not dishonest, it's not "fake news!!!!", it's a fact. As usual, you now bombard me with demands that I defend claims that I never even made (that all indictments were of American citizens, for instance). As soon as you defend and explain YOUR obviously subjective assertion, I'll defend and explain the FACT that I posted. 1
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That requires the AG to want to indict. Lynch and Holder were never going to indict anyone in 44's administration. Thank you for once again demonstrating to the board your total ignorance into the powers and abilities of congress. You are just being stupid, as usual. Show me what the Republicans in the House found that there should have been an indictment for. If Trump is in on the Cohen pay for play, should he be impeached?
Recommended Posts