Sessions Is Out

[BotanyBoy]

of course it is, shit for brains

What is?

His taxes? Bullshit Mr. He owes CNN answers when asked politely.

That's why you don't have them yet and it's going to take some serious juice, more than the (D) might have, to get them.

Could you be dumber? Not sure but I bet your response will prove it....

 

[LincolnDuncan]

What is?

His taxes? Bullshit Mr. He owes CNN answers when asked politely.

That's why you don't have them yet and it's going to take some serious juice, more than the (D) might have, to get them.

Could you be dumber? Not sure but I bet your response will prove it....

Your stupidity is worth less of my time than ring around the rosie and down the rabbit hole word games.

 

[bellisarius]

It's ironic you mention Watergate. For all the tawdry aspects of the Nixon enemies list, I never heard anyone suggest that the presence of such a list or even the politically motivated conduct of judicial investigations or IRS audits of those enemies were illegal.

It was only when Nixon's henchmen committed "third rate burglaries" and the President committed the entire resources of the Executive Branch in criminally obstructing justice relative to those burglaries that the law was raped a second time.

I think we are still a long way from that here and it is not at all apparent that we're getting any closer.

To be clear, Nixon knew nothing about the burglary. He damn sure devoted his office to the obstruction.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Your stupidity is worth less of my time than ring around the rosie and down the rabbit hole word games.

That's cuz ya ain't got SHIT!!!

And you know it

 

[bellisarius]

Your stupidity is worth less of my time than ring around the rosie and down the rabbit hole word games.

That is probably the most ignorant utterance you've made since you've been here.

 

[HAL_9000]

Whew....the keyboards are on FIRE in here,

 

[bellisarius]

To be clear, Trump has been pissed at Sessions since Sessions recused himself to no reason. But he waited until after the mid-terms to fire him. He wanted to make certain he still had the senate. (Is this sinking in now?)

Why do you think Trump campaigned so hard for senate republicans?

(Is it sinking in yet?)

Trump doesn't need the house to move his agenda forward. He's figured that out, have you?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Whew....the keyboards are on FIRE in here,

Can't help it when I got that Project Pat just blastin off the mountain.

 

[HAL_9000]

Can't help it when I got that Project Pat just blastin off the mountain.

ha..... "everythangs workin'"


*cough..cough* ahem excuse me..

 

[BotanyBoy]

ha..... "everythangs workin'"


*cough..cough* ahem excuse me..

Weed fiend! Dip it in lean!!!
https://media.giphy.com/media/131uvksAO3hUE8/giphy.gif

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I see, it's a hypothetical word game which takes place in an alternate reality where the circumstantial evidence of which the public is aware isn't greater than a mountain range.

Do you really believe this shit? Did I strike a cord? I have a feeling I must have pissed you off at one time. That's entirely possible. But I'm sure that I never through the first punch with anyone around here.

Do you want to talk reality or hypothetical?

The proper use of language is neither hypothetical nor is it a "game." You committed no grievous sin in setting two identical analogies ("The Investigation of Innocents") in opposition to each other. Neither did I invoke a personal vendetta (no, you haven't pissed me off) by criticizing and pointing out the contradictory nature of those competing applications of your philosophy.

The only cord you struck (and it gets struck often here) is your running from, getting defensive about and minimizing the act of making the very contradictory analogies you made. When people do that, I typically persist in dragging them back to having a discussion they don't want to have. I suspect it often has to do with them simply not wanting to think that hard.

It's not personal. It's just what I do. I jump on people who make bad arguments. I am far more forgiving of people who make halfway decent arguments, but still arrive at faulty conclusions. I'd much rather endure the errors of the latter folks than risk the potential consequences of those who manifest difficulty in thinking logically at the outset. But that's just me.

 

[BotanyBoy]

A gun plus a mask???

You do the math.....

 

[LincolnDuncan]

The proper use of language is neither hypothetical nor is it a "game." You committed no grievous sin in setting two identical analogies ("The Investigation of Innocents") in opposition to each other. Neither did I invoke a personal vendetta (no, you haven't pissed me off) by criticizing and pointing out the contradictory nature of those competing applications of your philosophy.

The only cord you struck (and it gets struck often here) is your running from, getting defensive about and minimizing the act of making the very contradictory analogies you made. When people do that, I typically persist in dragging them back to having a discussion they don't want to have. I suspect it often has to do with them simply not wanting to think that hard.

It's not personal. It's just what I do. I jump on people who make bad arguments. I am far more forgiving of people who make halfway decent arguments, but still arrive at faulty conclusions. I'd much rather endure the errors of the latter folks than risk the potential consequences of those who manifest difficulty in thinking logically at the outset. But that's just me.

I believe that I said that since Trump, to my knowledge never articulated a reason one can only conclude a threat. I was never under the impression that members of congress don't have reason to be investigated.

 

[doowdniw]

Whitaker not conflicted? Are you on drugs?

He may want to read up on what happened to AG John Mitchell before he tries to throw a wrench into Mueller's spokes.

 

[bellisarius]

He may want to read up on what happened to AG John Mitchell before he tries to throw a wrench into Mueller's spokes.

Hmmm, just how long do you think Mueller's bicycle should roll? Damn near 18 months now and nothing. Most of the source's have been discredited. Is it your thought that dragging this charade out for another 24 months is going to give you the result you want?

I think you'll take that to your grave and that puts you up there with Alex Jones and the "conspiracy" theorists you probably profess to hate.

 

[Sean]

Hmmm, just how long do you think Mueller's bicycle should roll? Damn near 18 months now and nothing.

Meanwhile, Ken Starr took four fucking years and found a blow job.

 

[Rightguide]

So, if he is innocent, why is he not welcoming an investigation?

Simple question.

If you were innocent of a crime and the government was turning your life upside down, your friends and associates were being subpoenaed and pulled in for questioning, lasting over a period of two years, you wouldn't have any feelings about being the victim of a malicious or improper prosecution, right?

 

[HisArpy]

If you were innocent of a crime and the government was turning your life upside down, your friends and associates were being subpoenaed and pulled in for questioning, lasting over a period of two years, you wouldn't have any feelings about being the victim of a malicious or improper prosecution, right?

I keep on wondering why LD persists on the "if you have nothing to hide" BS.

I mean, it's not like he posts under his real name now is it...

 

[Luk]

Meanwhile, Ken Starr took four fucking years and found a blow job.

Somehow, the dipshits do not think any of this is significant or even a mark on 45's dictatorship.

 

[Rightguide]

Why is he hiding his tax return? If he didn't cheat on his taxes, he should want us to know that, don't you think?

He's under no legal obligation to release his tax returns. If he violated tax law why haven't the best tax detectives in the United States, the IRS, accused him of doing so?

 

[CandiCame]

Meanwhile, Ken Starr took four fucking years and found a blow job.

Jesus fucking Christ there was no reason to let it go on for this long or get this bad.

 

[CandiCame]

He's under no legal obligation to release his tax returns. If he violated tax law why haven't the best tax detectives in the United States, the IRS, accused him of doing so?

So... do you genuinely not know that the IRS has been riding his ass because he's lied to them 4 years running? Like... is this new information to you?

Edit: You may be asking yourself- if he's constantly defrauded the IRS, to the point that he's been sued at the state level, why the hell isn't he in jail?

Congratulations, you're now asking the same question as the rest of the fucking country.

Maybe now you understand why people want to look at those things. Right now we've got a 'he said' vs 'the IRS and the whole state of New York says'. Some folks want to check for themselves.

 

[Rightguide]

Hogan, there was a time when I had a modicum of respect for your opinion. Maybe my judgement was flawed or maybe something has happened to turn you into just another asshole with a thesaurus.

Maybe you're just not on the same level of reasoning, and realizing it, all that's left to you is a headlong retreat into intellectual cowardice and silly hubris.

 

[Rightguide]

Here's a query Col. What if the White House did direct an investigation into congressional malfeasance? Would that be the end of the Republic as we know it? Or of the non-existent Democracy that some believe that we are?

Dangerous ground to tread but the opening salvo's have been shot.

The President's statement centered around the unlawful release of classified information by members of Congress. The DOJ could investigate a member of Congress for such a crime, without question.

 

[HisArpy]

Somehow, the dipshits do not think any of this is significant or even a mark on 45's dictatorship.

Umm, because it isn't?

Let's put it in simple terms so you and the rest of the idjits can grasp the significance; Let's say, for example, that you have a bunch of friends who like to drink and smoke on the weekends. You guys hang a lot together. And by that I mean a lot, like every weekend since your high school days.

One day one of them gets busted or DUI. Then another. And another. You, OTOH, know better than to imbibe and drive so you're clean, right?

Now the question: Why should YOU have to undergo a sobriety check every time you get behind the wheel? Should the fact that all your friends are drunks and junkies be any reflection on your sobriety? I mean, they're all drunks and stoners so you must be one too, right?

But that's not the way it works, right? Because you personally didn't do anything wrong. Yet, for Trump the acts of a few people he knows and associated with are somehow being imputed to him. Which is a wrong thing to do. Because if criminal behavior can be imputed by association, then every bartender is going to go to jail.

Guilt by association is NOT the law. Unless you're a progressive. And then only for someone other than you.