Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Complete and utter malarkey. ONE mainstream network went after Obama, Foxnews, some of it unwarranted Political tripe, some of it valid.  Meanwhile ALL of the remaining mainstream networks suppor

Want to slash American carbon?  Build nuclear power plants.  

When MSNBC announced Trump's win in Iowa, there was an audible grunt from Rachel Madow. By the sound of it, she apparently sat on her sack wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Posted Images

41 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Historical sidebar, but your 3 examples are totally wrong.  Lincoln- soldier/lawyer.  Jefferson- plantation owner/ lawyer.  Reagan- actor.  None of the examples you gave were career politicians; all had successful careers before and outside politics.  

As Reagan said  “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.”

You’re being a bit disingenuous here. Lincoln spent 30 years in politics. Jefferson over 30, and Reagan over 20. By any account they were all career politicians, regardless of how they got their start. As a matter of fact, off the top of my head, I can’t think of any prominent politicians who were elected prior to doing some sort of other work (I’m sure there are a few).  I don’t think “knowing so much that isn’t so” is an affliction that is limited to liberals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Once again...I’m asking:  Why wasn’t Trump impeached for “Russian collusion”?  

Here, I quoted the report because you either:

A. Can't Read

B. Are Stupid

C. Both (I assume C)

Quote

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Sorta hard to push impeachment for collusion with Russia, as it should be, when an independent commission found that Trump did not collude/coordinate with the Russian Government to interfere with the 2016 election.

Edited by Sua Sponte
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Here, I quoted the report because you either:

A. Can't Read

B. Are Stupid

C. Both (I assume C)

Sorta hard to push impeachment, as it should be, when an independent commission found that Trump did not collude/coordinate with the Russian Government to interfere with the 2016 election.

And yet, you said this:

image.thumb.jpeg.888120c1eb6ab21eed6e48204294a113.jpeg

So who exactly is “stupid”?  And didn’t you recently report someone for a “personal attack”? 
 

Edited:  And I was wrong about the report...that was Homestar.  My apologies for the mixup.

Edited by HeloDude
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Prozac said:

You’re being a bit disingenuous here. Lincoln spent 30 years in politics. Jefferson over 30, and Reagan over 20. By any account they were all career politicians, regardless of how they got their start. As a matter of fact, off the top of my head, I can’t think of any prominent politicians who were elected prior to doing some sort of other work (I’m sure there are a few).  I don’t think “knowing so much that isn’t so” is an affliction that is limited to liberals. 

All 3 were prosperous before and without politics.  Is that true of our current class of career politicians?  But I do agree with your last sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HeloDude said:

And yet, you said this:

image.thumb.jpeg.888120c1eb6ab21eed6e48204294a113.jpeg

So who exactly is “stupid”?  And didn’t you recently report someone for a “personal attack”? 

You do realize that impeachment isn’t a legal process, right? Can you show me where I said Trump was impeached for colluding with Russia?

Recently report? No, I have a DD-214, so I don’t really care. I was banned by a mod, without notice, for showing data where he was wrong and apparently that got his panties in a twist.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sua Sponte said:

You do realize that impeachment isn’t a legal process, right? Can you show me where I said Trump was impeached for colluding with Russia?

Recently report? No, I have a DD-214, so I don’t really care. I was banned by a mod, without notice, for showing data where he was wrong and apparently that got his panties in a twist.

You literally were responding to Lloyd’s post regarding Russian collusion...and your response was about Trump not being able to be indicted but that can and was impeached, which you said is like an indictment.
 

And now you’re trying to backtrack and suggest that your post had nothing to do with Russian collusion?  Let me guess...you’re drinking more than usual tonight.  Everything ok?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HeloDude said:

You literally were responding to Lloyd’s post regarding Russian collusion...and your response was about Trump not being able to be indicted but that can and was impeached, which you said is like an indictment.
 

And now you’re trying to backtrack and suggest that your post had nothing to do with Russian collusion?  Let me guess...you’re drinking more than usual tonight.  Everything ok?

I’m not backtracking anything. Trump was alleged to have colluded with Russia, an independent counsel investigated the allegation and did not substantiate it, however even if they had, the DOJ couldn’t refer charges for an indictment. Why? Because that was the OLC’s policy on sitting presidents. Had Mueller opined that Trump had colluded with Russia, it would’ve most likely been another article of impeachment.

An impeach is like an indictment since the House is acting like a grand jury, then the Senate acting like a trial jury.

  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sua Sponte said:

I’m not backtracking anything. Trump was alleged to have colluded with Russia, an independent counsel investigated the allegation and did not substantiate it, however even if they had, the DOJ couldn’t refer charges for an indictment. Why? Because that was the OLC’s policy on sitting presidents. Had Mueller opined that Trump had colluded with Russia, it would’ve most likely been another article of impeachment.

An impeach is like an indictment since the House is acting like a grand jury, then the Senate acting like a trial jury.

You said Trump was impeached when responding to Lloyd’s post about Russian collusion, did you not?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HeloDude said:

You said Trump was impeached when responding to Lloyd’s post about Russian collusion, did you not?

Correct, because I quoted him. I however never said he was impeached for collusion with Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sua Sponte said:

Correct, because I quoted him. I however never said he was impeached for collusion with Russia.

Oh...well, usually when you quote someone and respond to their post, it has something to do with their post.  But I guess doing the complete opposite would also make sense.  

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointing out the obvious to the oblivious since those that believe it so will just be reaffirmed and those that don't won't or will accept it since it supports their position(s):

 

Interesting that Project Veritas set up a CNN technical producer with, essentially, a honey trap and the poor schmuck, trying to get laid, 'fesses up to all the shenanigans that those on the right have been pointing out - deliberate, stated corporate policy to defeat Trump, deliberate hiding of stories facts detrimental to Democrats, hyping Kung Flu coverage for ratings (shocked, I tell you, shocked), deliberately only covering white on black crimes and not reporting on black on anybody else, especially Asian, crime since it "doesn't help BLM."

 

Twitter just banned both Project Veritas and O'Keefe personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Pointing out the obvious to the oblivious since those that believe it so will just be reaffirmed and those that don't won't or will accept it since it supports their position(s):

 

Interesting that Project Veritas set up a CNN technical producer with, essentially, a honey trap and the poor schmuck, trying to get laid, 'fesses up to all the shenanigans that those on the right have been pointing out - deliberate, stated corporate policy to defeat Trump, deliberate hiding of stories facts detrimental to Democrats, hyping Kung Flu coverage for ratings (shocked, I tell you, shocked), deliberately only covering white on black crimes and not reporting on black on anybody else, especially Asian, crime since it "doesn't help BLM."

 

Twitter just banned both Project Veritas and O'Keefe personally.

And O'Keefe is suing them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Twitter just banned both Project Veritas and O'Keefe personally.

And by doing so, verified the accusations you listed.  It’s big tech/social media/MSM censoring the truth and opposing opinions.  Doubling down is really all they can do at this point.  

Forceable suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of fascism.  This is modern day fascism.  

Edited by lloyd christmas
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Pointing out the obvious to the oblivious since those that believe it so will just be reaffirmed and those that don't won't or will accept it since it supports their position(s):

 

Interesting that Project Veritas set up a CNN technical producer with, essentially, a honey trap and the poor schmuck, trying to get laid, 'fesses up to all the shenanigans that those on the right have been pointing out - deliberate, stated corporate policy to defeat Trump, deliberate hiding of stories facts detrimental to Democrats, hyping Kung Flu coverage for ratings (shocked, I tell you, shocked), deliberately only covering white on black crimes and not reporting on black on anybody else, especially Asian, crime since it "doesn't help BLM."

 

Twitter just banned both Project Veritas and O'Keefe personally.

We are starting to live in scary times. 
 

What is one supposed to do when the line between a private enterprise and government entity can no longer be discerned?

Big tech has become so powerful and so intertwined with the Democrat party that they are essentially a defacto arm of the party/government. The left of course loves this because they can censor, delete, or promote any speech they wish and then hide behind the guise of “It’s a private business, they can set their own terms of service”. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

Forceable suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of fascism.  This is modern day fascism

Forcible suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of communism. This is modern day communism.

Wait 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

And by doing so, verified the accusations you listed.  It’s big tech/social media/MSM censoring the truth and opposing opinions.  Doubling down is really all they can do at this point.  

Forceable suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of fascism.  This is modern day fascism.  

Wait, wait. I thought one of the hallmarks of a Democratic and open society was freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court recently ruled most definitely applies to corporations. Do you think big tech/MSM/etc are doing any of this with regards to anything other than their bottom lines? Fascism? Hardly. This is un encumbered, free range capitalism doing what it does. I happen to agree that it’s not necessarily the best situation for our country. Repealing Citizens United would be a great first step towards improving things. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Wait, wait. I thought one of the hallmarks of a Democratic and open society was freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court recently ruled most definitely applies to corporations. Do you think big tech/MSM/etc are doing any of this with regards to anything other than their bottom lines? Fascism? Hardly. This is un encumbered, free range capitalism doing what it does. I happen to agree that it’s not necessarily the best situation for our country. Repealing Citizens United would be a great first step towards improving things. 

Seriously? We don't have anything near "unencumbered, free range capitalism" in the US. Kickbacks, payoffs, power influencing, etc but not even close to capitalism.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Prozac said:

Do you think big tech/MSM/etc are doing any of this with regards to anything other than their bottom lines? 

I absolutely believe big tech/MSM/etc are doing any number of things in concert with the power players in our government to shape, swing and direct public opinion in their favored direction.  Examples of this are literally everywhere. 

And yes, they do it for profit, ie their bottom line.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2021 at 11:21 PM, kaputt said:

We are starting to live in scary times. 
 

What is one supposed to do when the line between a private enterprise and government entity can no longer be discerned?

Big tech has become so powerful and so intertwined with the Democrat party that they are essentially a defacto arm of the party/government. The left of course loves this because they can censor, delete, or promote any speech they wish and then hide behind the guise of “It’s a private business, they can set their own terms of service”. 

Remember when Republicans were against net neutrality?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2021 at 12:40 PM, bfargin said:

Seriously? We don't have anything near "unencumbered, free range capitalism" in the US. Kickbacks, payoffs, power influencing, etc but not even close to capitalism.

Just like how Russia never had true Communism? 

Your argument is just a no true Scotsman fallacy. 

America is a capitalist society. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said it wasn't capitalism, just said it wasn't  unencumbered, free range as I quoted. Of course we live in a capitalistic society, it's just one where all of the government checks and balances have been corrupted and big money/corporate influence has overtaken any sense of a free market. When huge businesses get tax breaks and tax and other governmental privileges it's not free range capitalism at all, it's a marketplace bought and paid for with the government protecting the big players.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Seriously said:

Remember when Republicans were against net neutrality?

Net neutrality had zero to do with the threats we are dealing with from tech companies. But then most NN supporters didn't know any more about it than a few reddit memes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bfargin said:

Never said it wasn't capitalism, just said it wasn't  unencumbered, free range as I quoted. Of course we live in a capitalistic society, it's just one where all of the government checks and balances have been corrupted and big money/corporate influence has overtaken any sense of a free market. When huge businesses get tax breaks and tax and other governmental privileges it's not free range capitalism at all, it's a marketplace bought and paid for with the government protecting the big players.

Shack.

It's absolutely insane that Amazon can hold a nationwide contest for which city can provide it the most tax breaks while any one of us would be laughed out of the room for asking for similar treatment of we started a small business.

As long as conservatives keep reflexively defending the globalization of American jobs and the asymmetrical treatment of immensely powerful corporations, millennials and Gen Zers will continue flocking to the bankrupt and dangerous philosophies of Marx/Bernie/progressives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...