GG Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 15 minutes ago, Logic said: I'll take a flyer on guessing whether ANY of the "Clinton mob conspiracy" Scooby gang will man up and return to this thread once the impeachment process begins. Yeah, that will be quite the hoot. BTW, any reason you omitted this nugget from your list? Quote The U.S. Justice Department has reached a settlement with dozens of conservative groups that claimed the Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status, court documents showed.
Logic Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, GG said: Yeah, that will be quite the hoot. BTW, any reason you omitted this nugget from your list? What does that have to do with anything, again?
Koko78 Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 36 minutes ago, Logic said: Stating that the Russian collusion investigation has resulted in 23 indictments is not factually incorrect. 23 indictments DID result from said investigation. The fact that they are not all specifically for collusion does not change the fact the indictments happened as a result of the collusion investigation. It's semantics, sure, but that's the road you all seem to want me to go down. As for me putting on a "dog and pony show", are you kidding me? Refusing to defend claims I never made and objecting to the use of personal insults instead of discourse is a dog and pony show? Sure man, okay. Gosh, with such intelligent and mature discourse as repeatedly swearing at me, and calling me (so far): Intellectually dishonest, a disingenuous asshat, a coward, etc...why WOULDN'T I spend more time here? The REASON I only show up every few weeks is because the same 4 or 5 people tend to INSTANTLY remind me why I don't post here more often by name-calling and making ridiculous demands that are inconsistent with what you yourselves provide in terms of explication or elaboration. You act as if you all provide mature, thorough, unimpeachable political analysis at all times, when that is often FAR from the case. Different sets of standards seem to apply to anyone who has a minority opinion on these forums. The mere fact of my daring to question the GOP or Trump usually results in an onslaught of attacks on my character and, for some reason, my honesty. And I don't suppose I need to mention the obvious irony of GOP supporters daring to lob accusations of questionable character or dishonesty. And you continue to run away from a very simple question... again. It's really not hard. There are 23 indictments from the "collusion investigation". Identify those indictments that are related to the Russian Federation colluding with the Trump presidential campaign. Put up and admit that your "semantics" are intellectually dishonest, or !@#$ off.
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 37 minutes ago, Logic said: Stating that the Russian collusion investigation has resulted in 23 indictments is not factually incorrect. 23 indictments DID result from said investigation. The fact that they are not all specifically for collusion does not change the fact the indictments happened as a result of the collusion investigation. It's semantics, sure, but that's the road you all seem to want me to go down. As for me putting on a "dog and pony show", are you kidding me? Refusing to defend claims I never made and objecting to the use of personal insults instead of discourse is a dog and pony show? Sure man, okay. You're splitting hairs and you know it. Show me an instance where someone from the Trump campaign has been indicted for collusion with the Russians.
Logic Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 15 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: You're splitting hairs and you know it. Show me an instance where someone from the Trump campaign has been indicted for collusion with the Russians. Show me what's factually incorrect about stating that the collusion investigation has resulted in 23 indictments. I never said that the indictments were FOR collusion. Never said it. Quit asking me to defend a statement I never made. 18 minutes ago, Koko78 said: And you continue to run away from a very simple question... again. It's really not hard. There are 23 indictments from the "collusion investigation". Identify those indictments that are related to the Russian Federation colluding with the Trump presidential campaign. Put up and admit that your "semantics" are intellectually dishonest, or !@#$ off. Pretty sure if you swear at me one more time, you get a free MAGA hat!
Koko78 Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Logic said: Show me what's factually incorrect about stating that the collusion investigation has resulted in 23 indictments. I never said that the indictments were FOR collusion. Never said it. Quit asking me to defend a statement I never made. Yes, 3rd. Stop torturing the lad for playing the "I fully intended to strongly imply it by using semantics, but I never said it so double-dumbass on you" game! You know, because he's a completely upfront poster who doesn't make stupid posts, then spends hours trying to weasel his way out of answering simple questions that show he's a disingenuous asshat. We certainly can't have him tuck tail and run away from PPP... again. Edited May 12, 2018 by Koko78
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Logic said: Show me what's factually incorrect about stating that the collusion investigation has resulted in 23 indictments. I never said that the indictments were FOR collusion. Never said it. Quit asking me to defend a statement I never made. Pretty sure if you swear at me one more time, you get a free MAGA hat! Like I said, you're splitting hairs. You got caught trying to pull off a mini shell game now you're doing your best to slither away from it. This right here is why so many people here think of you as being intellectually dishonest. 3 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Yes, 3rd. Stop torturing the lad for playing the "I fully intended to strongly imply it by using semantics, but I never said it so double-dumbass on you" game! You know, because he's a completely upfront poster who doesn't make stupid posts, then spends hours trying to weasel his way out of answering simple questions that show he's a disingenuous asshat. We certainly can't have him tuck tail and run away from PPP... again. Yes, he made a statement, got called out on it, told us to prove his point for him and then tried to run away from his original statement by claiming a technicality. "Logic " certainly doesn't come from "logical".
GG Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 41 minutes ago, Logic said: What does that have to do with anything, again? I'm pretty certain it has something to do with your implication that Obama's administration had no scandals that were prosecuted. And if you are truly logical, would you ask yourself, "Why would Sessions agree to settle the case and apologize to the plaintiffs, but not go after the IRS officials?" Could it be that he has a bigger target all teed up? 1
Logic Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Like I said, you're splitting hairs. You got caught trying to pull off a mini shell game now you're doing your best to slither away from it. This right here is why so many people here think of you as being intellectually dishonest. Yes, he made a statement, got called out on it, told us to prove his point for him and then tried to run away from his original statement by claiming a technicality. "Logic " certainly doesn't come from "logical". Riiiiight. Meanwhile, you've provided PLENTY of facts and elaboration on your unimpeachable claim that "the only reason there were no indictments...is because of a crooked dem administration". For my original post quoting a comedian, I have to provide a thesis paper. You, meanwhile, get to lob the accusation that you did against the "crooked dem administration" without providing an iota of proof or elaboration. If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is. As to trying to "run away" from anything, I've been here all day, haven't I? Please, though, keep asking me to elaborate on or defend a claim I never made. 1 minute ago, GG said: I'm pretty certain it has something to do with your implication that Obama's administration had no scandals that were prosecuted. And if you are truly logical, would you ask yourself, "Why would Sessions agree to settle the case and apologize to the plaintiffs, but not go after the IRS officials?" Could it be that he has a bigger target all teed up? I feel that a more accurate summary of my original implication was that the GOP wants to end an investigation which has provided much more in the way of indictments (23) than the other two mentioned GOP pet project investigations (0), which they dragged on endlessly. Furthermore, I suppose we won't have to guess at the Mueller/Sessions "bigger targets" possibility for much longer. One would think the tires will hit the pavement -- either with Sessions and his "bigger target" or with more indictments in the Mueller investigation -- in the coming months.
B-Man Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 Mueller Investigates American Citizens Who Legally Donated to Trump’s Inauguration What the hell does this have to do with Trump’s so-called collusion with Russia to hack the DNC’s servers? Special Counsel Mueller Charged Russian Company Not in Existence at Time of Charge! 4
GG Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Logic said: I feel that a more accurate summary of my original implication was that the GOP wants to end an investigation which has provided much more in the way of indictments (23) than the other two mentioned GOP pet project investigations (0), which they dragged on endlessly. Furthermore, I suppose we won't have to guess at the Mueller/Sessions "bigger targets" possibility for much longer. One would think the tires will hit the pavement -- either with Sessions and his "bigger target" or with more indictments in the Mueller investigation -- in the coming months. The GOP wants to end the Mueller investigation because the indictments have nothing to do with the scope of Mueller's original mandate. I'm guessing that you're also ignoring that the handed-down indictments have greater ties to Dems than GOP? 1
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Logic said: Riiiiight. Meanwhile, you've provided PLENTY of facts and elaboration on your unimpeachable claim that "the only reason there were no indictments...is because of a crooked dem administration". For my original post quoting a comedian, I have to provide a thesis paper. You, meanwhile, get to lob the accusation that you did against the "crooked dem administration" without providing an iota of proof or elaboration. If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is. As to trying to "run away" from anything, I've been here all day, haven't I? Please, though, keep asking me to elaborate on or defend a claim I never made. You posted something from a comedian. I asked for clarification and you told me to go prove your point for you. I gave you the opportunity to clarify or modify your point and you started playing the semantics game. Bye.
boyst Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 2 hours ago, Logic said: I'll take a flyer on guessing whether ANY of the "Clinton mob conspiracy" Scooby gang will man up and return to this thread once the impeachment process begins. I'll still be here. Especially when you're wrong. And when you're wrong we are going Cartman vs Kyle seeing the leprechaun style. 1
row_33 Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 28 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: I'll still be here. Especially when you're wrong. And when you're wrong we are going Cartman vs Kyle seeing the leprechaun style. How about Porky Pig in the Court of the Leprechauns 1
njbuff Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 27 minutes ago, row_33 said: How about Porky Pig in the Court of the Leprechauns I want meee' gold.
Azalin Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Boyst62 said: I'll still be here. Especially when you're wrong. And when you're wrong we are going Cartman vs Kyle seeing the leprechaun style. Anything you believe to be real, is real. 1
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 2 hours ago, GG said: The GOP wants to end the Mueller investigation because the indictments have nothing to do with the scope of Mueller's original mandate. I'm guessing that you're also ignoring that the handed-down indictments have greater ties to Dems than GOP? Manafort has nothing to do with Russia? You have to be a real self-deceiving partisan to try and believe that. Flynn has nothing to do with Russia? Even though he was lying about his contacts with....Russians! Popadopolous reached out to Russians and told Trump he did. It it doesn't matter, you guys will just lie to yourselves no matter what happens.
njbuff Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 I remember watching the original Leprechaun and thinking.......... Who the hell is this ultra hot chic? It was Jennifer Aniston. Yummy.
B-Man Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into the 2016 election is now seemingly running on fumes. Fox News contributor Mollie Hemingway says what she thinks the point of the still ongoing probe is now, and she says it has nothing to do with Russian collusion. Quote Fox News ✔@FoxNews .@MZHemingway: "I think there's a lot about the Mueller probe that is interested in sort of saving face for the FBI, and it's been difficult to do that. They don't have Russia collusion." #specialreport 6:53 PM - May 11, 2018 You can certainly see how saving face for the FBI would be something near and dear to the heart of a veteran of the agency, such as Mueller. Since they don’t have evidence of collusion at this point, what other possible motives could Mueller have?
Recommended Posts