53
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2019 10:35 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

my my, in order to reach the level of evidence it ought to be corroborated in a many ways a poible.(Possible?)
What you see Schiff doing is tightening the noose about actual crimes, such as bribery or extortion an that continues to point to a fact that crimes WERE committed.


tsk. Now you are just running your mouth with the latest Dem talking points... Bribery, extortion... no evidence, but sure looks good in the press.

What are the "actual crimes" Trump has committed?
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2019 12:03 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I feel that you and he are equally smart guys, just not smart enough to wrap it up.

Notice your inability to point out anything that he and I are wrong about?

Granted, you aren't capable of recognizing an error in our posts even if one existed. But notice how no one else can point out any errors in our posts either?

You really should leave the thinking and assessing to those of us who are smarter than you are.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2019 12:04 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Apparently physics isnt in your "skill set "

I do well enough at it. Probably better than you do.


farmerman wrote:
whereas BS is firmly in there.

Nope. You cannot point out a single untrue statement in my posts.


farmerman wrote:
As far as your boats ased on Vastly superior. I really really doubt that youd keep up in , , debate, short term memory, verbal or math skills.

Given your meager intelligence, your doubts are worthless and are just another waste of electrons.


farmerman wrote:
But thats not my style. I like correcting error, not boasting about IQ . I endeavor to be accurate, not assertive.

Wrong again. Your style is to spout name-calling and personal attacks while never contributing anything substantive to a discussion.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2019 03:56 pm
@oralloy,
I really do like to take part in debates with intelligent people who dont spend their time in boastful masturbatoria . Sorry but you are NOT one of those.

You dont really debate, you merely chant .



farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2019 04:07 pm
@McGentrix,
should the trial in the senate be unable to convict, I know its the result of how Plump has his chickns in line.
I see the train of actual corroborated evidence (Ill call em facts now) is really on a solid track.

We know that OJ was not "Innocent" . I think the same will occur with this guy.
I listened as Nunes and jordan did thir damndest to bring down the witnesses by spending time on "process" not facts.

Ms Hill went away unchallenged. It was amazing.
Even a few of th pundits on Fox admitted her testimony was powerful.


As Far as Trump, so far, his tweets are made up of statements in which hes been dumping bodies under busses all week. Ya think someone will actually get the message that hes a damned felon?


I dont either as long as the Senate is afraid of him.

Oh yeh, the crimes(Bribery, it's in the Constitution as the no 2 high crime). Obstruction, tampering with witnesses. Much of this associated crap we have on video and "social media".


Below viewing threshold (view)
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2019 06:50 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I really do like to take part in debates with intelligent people who dont spend their time in boastful masturbatoria.

Maybe so, but unfortunately you are not capable of contributing anything intelligent to these debates. And your name-calling and personal attacks are quite out of place.


farmerman wrote:
Sorry but you are NOT one of those.

Wrong again. Setting the record straight when you lie about me is not boasting.


farmerman wrote:
You dont really debate, you merely chant.

Wrong again. I bring lots of facts to the debate.

You are the person here who doesn't debate. Your name-calling and personal attacks are quite out of place in an intellectual discussion.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2019 10:06 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Oh yeah, the crimes(Bribery, it's in the Constitution as the no 2 high crime). Obstruction, tampering with witnesses. Much of this associated crap we have on video and "social media".

Bribery, huh? I am assuming you are following Pelosi's logic that “The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections. That’s bribery.” ?

It never ceases to amaze me how words get all twisted around.They seem to be suggesting that Trump was asking the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on his political rival Joe Biden, rather than asking them to root out corruption that allegedly involved his son Hunter Biden, and potentially the former vice president himself. It's amazing to see the talking points and how they come out. "dig up dirt", Show me Trump saying that he wants anyone to "dig up dirt" on anyone.

Also, calling Biden a political rival is a pretty long stretch as well. He has no chance of getting Democratic nod, much less beating President Trump. Not really a rival at all.

Let me leave you with this:

MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2019 12:35 pm
@McGentrix,
Think bck to July. Biden was beating Trump in head-to-head matlchupsponlls. Biden was definitely his chief rival, which in trump's political calculus meant biden must be destroyed by any means necessary. so he tried to extort an "investigation" by Ukraine, "do me a favor".
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2019 03:07 pm
@McGentrix,
NO, Pelosi was following the stages of the development of a PARTICULAR CRIME.

Tit for Tat does not highlight any crime , it merely highlights just a process. What the actual crimes are , are wither extortion or bribery. Weve talked that up well before the news announced it was a "new thing"
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2019 03:15 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
It never ceases to amaze me how words get all twisted around.They seem to be suggesting that Trump was asking the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on his political rival Joe Biden, rather than asking them to root out corruption that allegedly involved his son Hunter Biden, and potentially the former vice president himself.


Im a realist. No matter how strong the evidence to support what Ive said in support of what the House committee is saying, The Senate ill follow whats bst for thir party, and say "**** the country". So I know Trump will walk and will use the non-conviction as "See? Im found Innocent in front of the country".

All diversions are going full bore by the GOP to try to divert attention and ignore the fact tht the president may be a felon.
Ill sleep fine, Ill just wonder how smart ya gotta be to be believer of this guys crap.


coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2019 04:08 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
All diversions are going full bore by the GOP to try to divert attention and ignore the fact tht the president may be a felon.

Look who is talking. Did the DNC nominate Killary? Talk about maybe a felon. Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2019 04:40 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Let me leave you with this:



Biden is talking about the quid pro quo involved in the pressuring of the Ukranians to fire a corrupt prosecutor, an international aim including several other governments and international institutions, in return for US military aid. Trump's quid pro quo was about pressuring the Ukranians for his own personal political purposes.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2019 06:06 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

NO, Pelosi was following the stages of the development of a PARTICULAR CRIME.

Tit for Tat does not highlight any crime , it merely highlights just a process. What the actual crimes are , are wither extortion or bribery. Weve talked that up well before the news announced it was a "new thing"


Show me the post before Pelosi changing "quid pro quo" to "bribery" in relation to this Ukraine situation. If you've talked it up, should be easy to do. Let's say Nov 15th.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2019 06:08 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Biden is talking about the quid pro quo involved in the pressuring of the Ukranians to fire a corrupt prosecutor, an international aim including several other governments and international institutions, in return for US military aid. Trump's quid pro quo was about pressuring the Ukranians for his own personal political purposes.


You mean the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma where his son worked? No political purpose for Biden there... Rolling Eyes
InfraBlue
 
  6  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2019 11:03 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Biden is talking about the quid pro quo involved in the pressuring of the Ukranians to fire a corrupt prosecutor, an international aim including several other governments and international institutions, in return for US military aid. Trump's quid pro quo was about pressuring the Ukranians for his own personal political purposes.


You mean the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma where his son worked? No political purpose for Biden there... Rolling Eyes

In fact, he wasn't investigating Bursima or Zlochevsky or other corruption investigations, that's precisely why the US went after him with the concurrence of those other governments and international institutions.
snood
 
  7  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2019 03:26 am
@InfraBlue,
You can state that simple truth a million times - that Biden was carrying out the concurrent wishes of the entire political West when he pressed for the dismissal of the prosecutor for not investigating corruption - but those determined not to hear it, won’t give a **** about truth , simple or not.
Walter Hinteler
 
  5  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2019 05:42 am
@snood,
I really can't understand this selective "knowledge", especially, since it had been widely reported - worldwide - in those days that civil society and anti-corruption organisations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation, supported by European governments, the IMF and other international organisations.
snood
 
  5  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2019 05:53 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I think you and I can understand, but we don’t want to. Because what we’re seeing is a considerable number of our countrymen being willfully blind and ignorant, in service of an openly corrupt, racist, compromised man.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2019 12:51 pm
@snood,
Quote:
openly corrupt, racist, compromised man.

Obama is not the president anymore.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/26/2021 at 02:50:41