Deranged Rhino Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 False. Backed by independent investigations. When you keep believing the words of proven liars (and pedo-protectors) in the media, you end up misinformed like Gary. Don't be Gary. Be better than Gary. (And note the law firm involved in this investigation -- where have you seen the name Perkins Coie before? Now, do they have a reason to lie and smear Jordan? You betcha) Because people like Bob and Gary think it's fine, and don't object, so long as it's done to their partisan opponents and not their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 36 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: This is unfortunate. The repetition of the 'witch hunt' mantra has convinced so many that the whole Mueller investigation should never have happened and that it found absolutely nothing. The 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' has been used by some as the basic reasoning to no longer listen to anyone accusing the President. This is a foolish position as it essentially means there should be no further oversight of Trump's actions. I pointed out somewhere before that the primary lesson of the Boy Who Cried Wolf tale, was that liars won't be believed in the future. In the end though the sheep got eaten because the Boy's cries of Wolf were ignored by those that should still have been listening for the warnings. Even if you think the Boy is a little jerk and you don't really care for mutton, you should still be helping to protect the sheep. This is quite an interesting take, Bob. You complain about liars, while spouting their provably-false talking points. Trump says he was being spied on, called a liar. He was proven correct. Trump says he did not collude with Russia, called a liar. He was proven correct. Trump said he did not withhold aid to Ukraine for a political favor, called a liar. He has been proven correct. At some point, even your THC-addled brain has to accept that it's not Trump who is 'crying wolf'. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 Just now, Koko78 said: This is quite an interesting take, Bob. You complain about liars, while spouting their provably-false talking points. Trump says he was being spied on, called a liar. He was proven correct. Trump says he did not collude with Russia, called a liar. He was proven correct. Trump said he did not withhold aid to Ukraine for a political favor, called a liar. He has been proven correct. At some point, even your THC-addled brain has to accept that it's not Trump who is 'crying wolf'. He will never get there. His cognitive dissonance and TDS are a toxic mix. He refuses to admit he's been had -- thus it's others who've been had. He's perfect, and knows EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING... despite proving the opposite with every keystroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/05/jim-jordan-accusers/ Jordan runs for speaker -- story comes out Debunked/recanted within two months, but an investigation is launched by Perkins Coie anyway... they still can't find anything connecting Jordan Story dies out Jordan gets pushed to Intel Committee just before public hearings -- story comes back, not with new information, just new packaging. But it's NOT tied to partisan politics inside the beltway. (Only someone who's been living with their head in the sand, or is a blind partisan, cannot see what's happening) 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 A few moments ago a guy called Joel Rubin, who was an Assistant Secretary of State in the Obama administration, claimed that Trump on the phone call told Zerensky that if "he didn't dig up dirt on Biden he would never get the military aid". This isn't even slanting something or reporting something that he was told. It is a complete fabrication. A gigantic lie. A Democrat norm. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 37 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: A few moments ago a guy called Joel Rubin, who was an Assistant Secretary of State in the Obama administration, claimed that Trump on the phone call told Zerensky that if "he didn't dig up dirt on Biden he would never get the military aid". This isn't even slanting something or reporting something that he was told. It is a complete fabrication. A gigantic lie. A Democrat norm. A lie? Are you serious? Schiff already has the 100% certified and verified (in closed-door secret hearings) transcript of that comment! Just ask him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Koko78 said: A lie? Are you serious? Schiff already has the 100% certified and verified (in closed-door secret hearings) transcript of that comment! Just ask him! He's going to tell his faithful the story with finger puppets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Koko78 said: This is quite an interesting take, Bob. You complain about liars, while spouting their provably-false talking points. Trump says he was being spied on, called a liar. He was proven correct. Trump says he did not collude with Russia, called a liar. He was proven correct. Trump said he did not withhold aid to Ukraine for a political favor, called a liar. He has been proven correct. At some point, even your THC-addled brain has to accept that it's not Trump who is 'crying wolf'. Oh? What provably wrong talking point are you claiming? Perhaps you need something to kick your brain into gear. You misinterpreted the tale. Trump has not been crying wolf, genius. The point was that even if you think the Dems had been crying wolf due to Mueller's investigation, you cannot now say that Trump is clean going forward and needs no future oversight. Also, no one seems to answer this question, perhaps you can. Where is the treasure trove of surveillance tapes from all the 2 step spying on the Trump campaign? Why have none of those thousands of recordings not surfaced in some hearing or another? Where are they? Comey's basement? Hillary's Ukrainian server? Where is all that stuff? Edited November 9, 2019 by Bob in Mich 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 19 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Oh? What provably wrong talking point are you claiming? Perhaps you need something to kick your brain into gear. You misinterpreted the tale. Trump has not been crying wolf, genius. The point was that even if you think the Dems had been crying wolf due to Mueller's investigation, you cannot now say that Trump is clean going forward and needs no future oversight. Also, no one seems to answer this question, perhaps you can. Where is the treasure trove of surveillance tapes from all the 2 step spying on the Trump campaign? Why have none of those thousands of recordings not surfaced in some hearing or another? Where are they? Comey's basement? Hillary's Ukrainian server? Where is all that stuff? Here's a thought: Do the work yourself, like the rest of us have. Try starting with the years of research posted on this forum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: Also, no one seems to answer this question, perhaps you can. Where is the treasure trove of surveillance tapes from all the 2 step spying on the Trump campaign? Why have none of those thousands of recordings not surfaced in some hearing or another? Where are they? Comey's basement? Hillary's Ukrainian server? Where is all that stuff? I answered you several times with evidence to support it. You continue to ignore it because you’d rather defend those who defend pedophiles than admit you were wrong. Only a MONUMENTAL asshat like @Bob in Mich would try to argue Trump wasn’t under surveillance when it’s: * been openly acknowledged for two years by both sides of the aisle * the carter page FISA warrant is LITERALLY the subject of a two plus year investigation by the OIG * a FISC memo proves the surveillance was ongoing, illegal, and unchecked. M Don’t be like Bob, PPP. Be better than a burned out stoner with no grasp of basic facts and logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 Jim Jordan pedo defender Jim Jordan trump defender These two statements are the same 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: I answered you several times with evidence to support it. You continue to ignore it because you’d rather defend those who defend pedophiles than admit you were wrong. Only a MONUMENTAL asshat like @Bob in Mich would try to argue Trump wasn’t under surveillance when it’s: * been openly acknowledged for two years by both sides of the aisle * the carter page FISA warrant is LITERALLY the subject of a two plus year investigation by the OIG * a FISC memo proves the surveillance was ongoing, illegal, and unchecked. M Don’t be like Bob, PPP. Be better than a burned out stoner with no grasp of basic facts and logic. Maybe he ignored it because you are a full of *****, 24/7 internet nerd who pretends to matter? When was the last time you went outside? (Besides getting your mom some tampons from the 7-11) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 On 11/9/2019 at 8:27 PM, thebug said: Maybe he ignored it because you are a full of *****, 24/7 internet nerd who pretends to matter? When was the last time you went outside? (Besides getting your mom some tampons from the 7-11) DR is on ignore for me. Thanks for the support. Yeah, he knows he is on ignore and so likes to use that opportunity to appear to have the last and definitive word. I have tried to take him off ignore several times but time after time, he proves he can't really control himself. He cannot seem to disagree without badgering and insulting. He cannot seem to accept a 'let us wait and see' stance. Realizing he didn't deserve the second/third/fourth chances, I put him back on ignore. I truly believe that once he was an honest researcher but somewhere along the line, he lost his objectivity. He has fallen into the narrative that Trump was wronged by everyone that suspected there might be wrongdoing in his 2016 campaign. His flawed logic seems to go that since Trump was wronged then and Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy charges, that the guy is a now proven saint. The story goes that Trump was illegally investigated and so any future investigations are therefore also unwarranted and in fact, illegitimate attempts to overthrow the President. I did mentioned flawed, right? When he has no good answer, DR provides torrents of unasked answers and has done just that when supposedly answering this question. I have never seen a location or office holding these surveillance tapes nor an explanation of why none have surfaced anywhere in anyone's hearing or trial or why none have been leaked. He cuts and pastes pages of chaffe essentially. Others do this too but DR overwhelms with his prolific 'research'. Fine research perhaps, but often not really answers. Then too, he has been on ignore so I may have missed it but at this point this appears to just be another DR lie. So, to summarize.....His opinions are facts. Your facts are just ill informed opinions. Basically he is too brilliant and his logic flawless. No one knows more. Since he puts in the most time on research, he must know the most truth. No one else's sources of information are credible. If a source was credible but now states anything negative against the President, they are now evil and no longer credible. Oh, and if you read or watch CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, BBC, MSNBC, among others, you support pedophiles and likely are a pedophile. Did I mention 'flawed'? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: DR is on ignore for me. Thanks for the support. Yeah, he knows he is on ignore and so likes to use that opportunity to appear to have the last and definitive word. I have tried to take him off ignore several times but time after time, he proves he can't really control himself. He cannot seem to disagree without badgering and insulting. He cannot seem to accept a 'let us wait and see' stance. Realizing he didn't deserve the second/third/fourth chances, I put him back on ignore. I truly believe that once he was an honest researcher but somewhere along the line, he lost his objectivity. He has fallen into the narrative that Trump was wronged by everyone that suspected there might be wrongdoing in his 2016 campaign. His flawed logic seems to go that since Trump was wronged then and Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy charges, that the guy is a now proven saint. The story goes that Trump was illegally investigated and so any future investigations are therefore also unwarranted and in fact, illegitimate attempts to overthrow the President. I did mentioned flawed, right? When he has no good answer, DR provides torrents of unasked answers and has done just that when supposedly answering this question. I have never seen a location or office holding these surveillance tapes nor an explanation of why none have surfaced anywhere in anyone's hearing or trial or why none have been leaked. He cuts and pastes pages of chaffe essentially. Others do this too but DR overwhelms with his prolific 'research'. Fine research perhaps, but often not really answers. Then too, he has been on ignore so I may have missed it but at this point this appears to just be another DR lie. So, to summarize.....His opinions are facts. Your facts are just ill informed opinions. Basically he is too brilliant and his logic flawless. No one knows more. Since he puts in the most time on research, he must know the most truth. No one else's sources of information are credible. If a source was credible but now states anything negative against the President, they are now evil and no longer credible. Oh, and if you read or watch CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, BBC, MSNBC, among others, you support pedophiles and likely are a pedophile. Did I mention 'flawed'? Some questions: How do you feel about the MSM's protection of pedophiles such as Weinstein and Epstein? Does Bill & Hillary's connection to both of them cause you pause? What do you think of Alexander Vindman's history and derision of this country and also his bias against Trump? Same question for the "whistleblower"? How does this all tie together to justify impeachment charges against Trump? What do you think about the process that Adam Schiff is using during this non impeachment, impeachment trial? Should he allow all reasonable testimony from witnesses that the Republicans request, or should he only allow witnesses that he portends to back up the Democrats narrative? If DR predicted many of the misdeeds by the DNC and Deep State that have come to life lately and did it 2-3 years ago, would you admit that there may be some validity to his claims? Someone please quote this in case Bob has me on ignore. Edited November 11, 2019 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Some questions: How do you feel about the MSM's protection of pedophiles such as Weinstein and Epstein? Does Bill & Hillary's connection to both of them cause you pause? What do you think of Alexander Vindman's history and derision of this country and also his bias against Trump? Same question for the "whistleblower"? How does this all tie together to justify impeachment charges against Trump? What do you think about the process that Adam Schiff is using during this non impeachment, impeachment trial? Should he allow all reasonable testimony from witnesses that the Republicans request, or should he only allow witnesses that he portends to back up the Democrats narrative? If DR predicted many of the misdeeds by the DNC and Deep State that have come to life lately and did it 2-3 years ago, would you admit that there may be some validity to his claims? Someone please quote this in case Bob has me on ignore. Maybe he has everyone except Tibs and Gary Busey on ignore? ?♀️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 (edited) More proof @Bob in Mich is too high to be taken seriously. He claims he has taken a “wait and see” approach but that’s not true. He called me a liar over and over (without being able to show one thing I’ve lied about) — which is not taking a wait and see approach. Bob continues to be an asshat who asks for answers then ignores them in order to continue to believe long debunked information because it’s more palatable to his very small world view. Don’t be like Bob. Be better than a stoner asshat who thinks defending those who protect pedophiles and lie to the public for years makes him virtuous. Edited November 11, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: defending those who protect pedophiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 What’s funny about the above is that there’s actual evidence, convictions, and witness testimony to show the people Gary supports - like the Clintons - have been involved in protecting high profile pedophile rings for their entire political career. Thats not speculation. Unlike anything connected to trump or Jordan which is pure speculation without evidence or reliable witness testimony to support it. Does Gary care though? Nope. TDS has made him less of an intellect than he was before 2016 — which one would assume would be tough to do. But not for GarBear. So why worry about the kids when you can make sweet jokes designed to deflect attention from actual crimes against children? That’s the Gary way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 On November 9, 2019 at 6:48 PM, Gary Busey said: Jim Jordan pedo defender Jim Jordan trump defender These two statements are the same Isn't it just so Orwellian, the guy defending the President is the guy who saw no evil, and the people he will be attacking are the honorable men and women that care about the rule of law, the constitution and the USA The Trump Era! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: More proof @Bob in Mich is too high to be taken seriously. He claims he has taken a “wait and see” approach but that’s not true. He called me a liar over and over (without being able to show one thing I’ve lied about) — which is not taking a wait and see approach. Bob continues to be an asshat who asks for answers then ignores them in order to continue to believe long debunked information because it’s more palatable to his very small world view. Don’t be like Bob. Be better than a stoner asshat who thinks defending those who protect pedophiles and lie to the public for years makes him virtuous. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts