Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


How is it a charade? It was supposed to be bipartisan until the GOP decided they didn’t want a bipartisan committee. 

 

 

Revisionism.

 

The Republicans named two congressmen to the committee and Nancy Pelosi would not accept them.

 

But you knew that.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

Revisionism.

 

The Republicans named two congressmen to the committee and Nancy Pelosi would not accept them.

 

But you knew that.

 

 


The Republicans named FIVE members to the committee and Pelosi rejected two of them, while accepting the other three. The House resolution gave her sole authority on selecting members. 
 

And the only reason she had that authority was because the GOP rejected the bipartisan joint committee negotiated by John Katko. 
 

The truth hurts, huh?

  • Agree 1
Posted
On 6/16/2022 at 12:53 PM, Doc said:

 

I doubt we'll get any of that from these hearings.  Again I look at the lack of weapons brought in and people just leaving on their own after a few hours.  That tells me no one was there to do anything other than protest, with maybe a few rabble-rousers looking to cause trouble, but with no plan what to once inside the building.

 

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

I was never expecting much from this charade.  I thought I made that position very clear awhile ago. 

You made it clear that you expected no facts or knowledge would be presented. This is apparently not meeting your expectations.

Posted
8 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

The Republicans named FIVE members to the committee and Pelosi rejected two of them, while accepting the other three. The House resolution gave her sole authority on selecting members. 
 

And the only reason she had that authority was because the GOP rejected the bipartisan joint committee negotiated by John Katko. 
 

The truth hurts, huh?

 

While it's true that McCarthy scuttled Katko's committee, it's still also true that it's not a true bi-partisan committee because all the Republicans voted to impeach Trump.   

 

6 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

You made it clear that you expected no facts or knowledge would be presented. This is apparently not meeting your expectations.

 

No, I made it clear that there would be no new facts or knowledge presented to prove that a) this was truly an "insurrection" and b) Trump orchestrated it.  I also knew that there would be no discussion of the incompetence when it came to providing security that day.  So far it's meeting those expectations.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

No, I made it clear that there would be no new facts or knowledge presented to prove that a) this was truly an "insurrection" and b) Trump orchestrated it.  I also knew that there would be no discussion of the incompetence when it came to providing security that day.  So far it's meeting those expectations.

 

Hey Doc, are you an actual ‘patient seeing’ physician?  One that has to make observations and come to a diagnosis?  

Posted
5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Hey Doc, are you an actual ‘patient seeing’ physician?  One that has to make observations and come to a diagnosis?  

 

I see patients before I put them under.  During anesthesia, if something untoward arises, I diagnose it and treat it.

 

And what do you do for a living, Bob?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Hey Doc, are you an actual ‘patient seeing’ physician?  One that has to make observations and come to a diagnosis?  

Are you concerned you have  Buttinski Disorder?  
 

(I’m in recovery. I relapsed, but you probably knew that already)

Posted
1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

I see patients before I put them under.  During anesthesia, if something untoward arises, I diagnose it and treat it.

Thanks Doc. I think you probably know why I asked.  

You haven’t really observed the hearings very well if you haven’t learned anything related to those two points.  One might be skeptical of your conclusions or diagnoses given those observation abilities.  

 

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Are you concerned you have  Buttinski Disorder?  
 

(I’m in recovery. I relapsed, but you probably knew that already)

Is your butting in here just to make a point?  Lol

How do you get involved without butting in or starting a thread?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Thanks Doc. I think you probably know why I asked.  

You haven’t really observed the hearings very well if you haven’t learned anything related to those two points.  One might be skeptical of your conclusions or diagnoses given those observation abilities. 

 

That's funny because I know you insurrection believers have no diagnosis skills.

Posted

 

 

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Is your butting in here just to make a point?  Lol

How do you get involved without butting in or starting a thread?

100% correct Bob.  I had no point to make, just thought it was funny on a Saturday morning.  Lame, perhaps, but funny.   

Posted
28 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I see patients before I put them under.  During anesthesia, if something untoward arises, I diagnose it and treat it.

 

And what do you do for a living, Bob?

Bob smokes pot.

Posted
55 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

While it's true that McCarthy scuttled Katko's committee, it's still also true that it's not a true bi-partisan committee because all the Republicans voted to impeach Trump.   


Well you should take that up with McCarthy. Pelosi agreed to three of his candidates, all of whom voted against impeaching Trump but McCarthy withdrew them. 
 

If you look at the facts, it’s clear the Dems wanted a bipartisan committee but McCarthy did not because then people could dismiss it as partisan.

 

Also, saying it’s not bipartisan because the Republicans on it don’t count because *reasons* is just moving the goal posts.  

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted

Might as well put this in the "insurrection" thread too.

 

Ladies and gentlemen your FBI. Provided with knowledge beforehand, via an informant, that the dangerous, insurrectionist Proud Boys were marching to the Capitol 

 

And yet still those unarmed, ferocious Proud Boys were able to storm the Capitol and nearly perform a successful coup!

 

:lol:

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Bob smokes pot.

 

Ah.

 

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Well you should take that up with McCarthy. Pelosi agreed to three of his candidates, all of whom voted against impeaching Trump but McCarthy withdrew them. 
 

If you look at the facts, it’s clear the Dems wanted a bipartisan committee but McCarthy did not because then people could dismiss it as partisan.

 

Also, saying it’s not bipartisan because the Republicans on it don’t count because *reasons* is just moving the goal posts.  


So then why deny Jordan and Banks?  Just because she could?  Or to stack the panel with Trump-haters?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Doc said:


So then why deny Jordan and Banks?  Just because she could?  Or to stack the panel with Trump-haters?


Well Jim Jordan is an unserious moron who would just act as a distraction, at least that would be my reason. 
 

At the time, Pelosi said she rejected them out of concerns from some of their statements. Given that they signed on to the insane Texas v Pennsylvania lawsuit, I would guess she probably felt that they were pro-insurrection which would be inappropriate for a committee looking into an insurrection. 

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Might as well put this in the "insurrection" thread too.

 

Ladies and gentlemen your FBI. Provided with knowledge beforehand, via an informant, that the dangerous, insurrectionist Proud Boys were marching to the Capitol 

 

And yet still those unarmed, ferocious Proud Boys were able to storm the Capitol and nearly perform a successful coup!

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Very very interesting.

 

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

Well Jim Jordan is an unserious moron who would just act as a distraction, at least that would be my reason. 
 

At the time, Pelosi said she rejected them out of concerns from some of their statements. Given that they signed on to the insane Texas v Pennsylvania lawsuit, I would guess she probably felt that they were pro-insurrection which would be inappropriate for a committee looking into an insurrection. 

 

I see.  So she put on Republicans who had already determined it was an insurrection.  Yup, still a sham.

Edited by Doc
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Very very interesting.

 

Given the two choices here...

 

1. The FBI is incredibly incompetent. 

 

Or.

 

2. They were in on it and wanted events to unfold as they did.

 

Our leftist friends are going to continue handwaving their way around #1.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I see.  So she put on Republicans who had already determined it was an insurrection.  Yup, still a sham.

No, she put on Republicans who actually wanted to know what happened. 
 

Under your logic, the 9/11 committee was a sham because it didn’t have any Al Qaeda terrorists on it.

 

The one thing that’s clear here is that the two sides here are simply those who will testify under oath and those who won’t. That should tell you something. It is also telling that the officials who agree with your line of thought in public tell a very different story when they are under oath. 

  • Like (+1) 2
×
×
  • Create New...