US Politics XV: Time to Mull Mueller Mania

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
:wave: Anitram

Yes the pattern is odd. But when you think about it eyes are the window to the soul. And Trump's soul is seemingly so rotted that the eye area bounces all the light away. Thus no orange there.

And of course he was talking about energy efficient light bulbs. Because God knows narcissism always comes before any effort to do anything to preserve the planet. He probably uses cashmere cloths to wipe his butt too?
 
Well, six people died from buying thc flavored cartridges off the street

So we have to do something. BeBest
 
Trump already changed his tune on vaping. CNN reported that two ex WH staffers are involved with that vaping company Juul. One of them has something to do with Kushner.

So that's probably why.
 
Again: stop saying the left wants to shut down free speech. They don’t. You are intentionally lying. Stop.

After literally years of 'RUSSIA!' and 'MUELLER! and 'KAVANAUGH!'

among the most blatant of your misadventures lately in Fym, maybe you should be the one hittin' the brakes on lying.

just look at how fat people living in red states are:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9923378/obesity-map-united-states-overweight/

vote blue and lose weight.

:lol: At least you're consistent with being completely done with the electoral college, right? Fat people suck! Good politics as usual.

Many times I wish you had a megaphone, instead of just our little forum.
 
After literally years of 'RUSSIA!' and 'MUELLER! and 'KAVANAUGH!'



among the most blatant of your misadventures lately in Fym, maybe you should be the one hittin' the brakes on lying.


Claiming conspiracy with Russia is not an attack on your freedom of speech. Nor is attacking Brett Kavanaugh’s character, you nitwit. Neither of those items have anything to do with freedom of speech. At all.
 
There are few things more irritating to me in my professional life as a lawyer than the inability of seemingly >90% of people to actually grasp what freedom of speech means.

As an aside, the electoral college is an absurdity.
 
Claiming conspiracy with Russia is not an attack on your freedom of speech. Nor is attacking Brett Kavanaugh’s character, you nitwit. Neither of those items have anything to do with freedom of speech. At all.

I think we're a-okay on freedom of speech, right?
 
I love you mister Bleu Cheese White.

Please stop being unnecessarily cryptic, you’re driving me up the wall. Nobody is coming after your freedom of speech.
 
I love you mister Bleu Cheese White.

Please stop being unnecessarily cryptic, you’re driving me up the wall. Nobody is coming after your freedom of speech.

I think we're okay on all this, really.

Been here since '05. Read it all and more.

You're one of the sincere ones :hug:
 
After literally years of 'RUSSIA!' and 'MUELLER! and 'KAVANAUGH!'



among the most blatant of your misadventures lately in Fym, maybe you should be the one hittin' the brakes on lying.


What are you even talking about? What does Russian support for the GOP, the evidence of collusion and 10 examples of obstruction of justice, and a SCOTUS judge credibly accused of attempted rape have to do with free speech? Gezus is under the impression that being out-argued and outsmarted is the same thing as repealing the first amendment, hence the lie.


Oh, wait, are you thinking that Russia and Mueller are settled issues and it was a compete and total vindication of Trump? Like Bob Barr? Because Trump sure doesn’t think so, but I guess that’s good enough for you?

So confused!




:lol: At least you're consistent with being completely done with the electoral college, right? Fat people suck! Good politics as usual.



Many times I wish you had a megaphone, instead of just our little forum.



Also, confused! What are you even talking about?

Are you taking my article — which was an ironic nod to Gzus’s constant slamming of blue cities and blue states as rat-infested shitholes — too seriously?

Guess you’ll run off now and not respond. Thanks!
 
What are you even talking about? What does Russian support for the GOP, the evidence of collusion and 10 examples of obstruction of justice, and a SCOTUS judge credibly accused of attempted rape have to do with free speech? Gezus is under the impression that being out-argued and outsmarted is the same thing as repealing the first amendment, hence the lie.


Oh, wait, are you thinking that Russia and Mueller are settled issues and it was a compete and total vindication of Trump? Like Bob Barr? Because Trump sure doesn’t think so, but I guess that’s good enough for you?

So confused!








Also, confused! What are you even talking about?

Are you taking my article — which was an ironic nod to Gzus’s constant slamming of blue cities and blue states as rat-infested shitholes — too seriously?

Guess you’ll run off now and not respond. Thanks!

Dude, why are you so obsessed with me?

I feel so “out argued and out smarted” for sure. It’s like a Mensa Convention when I read the logic spewing from this thread.
 
Dude, why are you so obsessed with me?



I feel so “out argued and out smarted” for sure. It’s like a Mensa Convention when I read the logic spewing from this thread.



I’m not! I ignore you most of the time! I just found the fat states = red states more well-sourced and persuasive than literally anything you’ve posted about trashing Baltimore. So I went with it. Blue White brought it up.

So, as a member of the left, I’m hereby revoking your freedom of speech.
 
Dude, why are you so obsessed with me?



I feel so “out argued and out smarted” for sure. It’s like a Mensa Convention when I read the logic spewing from this thread.



We are all obsessed with you because we are shocked with how incredibly unintelligible and factually incorrect you are, and we can’t get over it.
 
Speaking of Kavanaugh and my years of “lying” ... at least I didn’t do it under oath and to Congress like this POS SCOTUS judge.

Mr. Kavanaugh, now a justice on the Supreme Court, has adamantly denied her claims. Those claims became a flash point during his confirmation process last year, when he was also fighting other sexual misconduct allegations from Christine Blasey Ford, who had attended a Washington-area high school near his.

Ms. Ramirez’s story would seem far less damaging to Mr. Kavanaugh’s reputation than those of Dr. Ford, who claimed that he pinned her to a bed, groped her and tried to remove her clothes while covering her mouth.

But while we found Dr. Ford’s allegations credible during a 10-month investigation, Ms. Ramirez’s story could be more fully corroborated. During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been “the talk of campus.” Our reporting suggests that it was.

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.

We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

Mr. Kavanaugh did not speak to us because we could not agree on terms for an interview. But he has denied Dr. Ford’s and Ms. Ramirez’s allegations, and declined to answer our questions about Mr. Stier’s account



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-yale.html
 
Last edited:
Dude, why are you so obsessed with me?

I feel so “out argued and out smarted” for sure. It’s like a Mensa Convention when I read the logic spewing from this thread.
Great delusional minds think alike.
 

Attachments

  • C63F9FFF-7295-4F3A-9F3C-9876E00E9FC2.jpeg
    C63F9FFF-7295-4F3A-9F3C-9876E00E9FC2.jpeg
    87.7 KB · Views: 14
Who paid off all of kavanauh’s debt is a very interesting (and serious) question.

200k in debt

And a mortgage

Again how fucking bad are the Democrats at this investigative process ???

This was a coverup from the beginning. There was never going to be a FBI investigation and the story proves it.

Everyone knew what Mr I Like Beer was, and they let him on the court
 
It’s not just thst Democrats are bad at it, it’s that Republicans are willing to use the government in the cover up. The DOJ is as politicized as SCOTUS.

They are corrupt AF.
 
After literally years of 'RUSSIA!' and 'MUELLER! and 'KAVANAUGH!'



among the most blatant of your misadventures lately in Fym, maybe you should be the one hittin' the brakes on lying.







[emoji38] At least you're consistent with being completely done with the electoral college, right? Fat people suck! Good politics as usual.



Many times I wish you had a megaphone, instead of just our little forum.

Russia interfered in the election.

Mueller found 10 legitimate acts of obstruction of Justice by the president of the United States and referred other cases to other prosecutors.

Kavanaugh was legitimately accused of sexual assault by a number of people.

One and two are facts.

Three is a legitimate accusation.

What isn't a fact, nor is legitimate, is that the fucking left is going after anyone's freedom of speech. That is a lie.

Russia, Mueller and Kavanaugh are only lies in your fucked up cultish head.
 
There are few things more irritating to me in my professional life as a lawyer than the inability of seemingly >90% of people to actually grasp what freedom of speech means.

As an aside, the electoral college is an absurdity.

Some of you must still be using the Cliff Notes version of the First Amendment. Here's what it actually says:


FIRST AMENDMENT
Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
Why are you still on this? Because you support a commercial that shows AOC being burned and linked to death in a country that really has nothing to do with her or her version of “socialism” and those of us with decency question why it was aired ??

Yet others on her have pointed out what happened to Kathy Griffin and it’s silence ? Kathy apologized for it, lost income due to being thrown off of shows and until recently couldn’t get a gig.

Yet the other side does this shit and never apologizes or claims lapse of judgment.

Instead it does exactly what you’re doing, accusing us of attacking freedom!!!
 
Some of you must still be using the Cliff Notes version of the First Amendment. Here's what it actually says:





FIRST AMENDMENT

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Look we get that you know how to cut and paste, that’s 95% of your posts. The problem is, you don’t seem to understand your cut and pastes. You haven’t once shown any example of anyone in here calling for or supporting congress passing any law to silence you?! What part is so difficult for you?
 
Some of you must still be using the Cliff Notes version of the First Amendment. Here's what it actually says:





FIRST AMENDMENT

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You're an idiot
 
Some of you must still be using the Cliff Notes version of the First Amendment. Here's what it actually says:





FIRST AMENDMENT

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Lmao you’re like sharknado dude
 
Some of you must still be using the Cliff Notes version of the First Amendment. Here's what it actually says:





FIRST AMENDMENT

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



I love three things about this post:

1)The person you chose to reply to with your font of constitutional knowledge is... a lawyer.

2)It does nothing to address her complaint. At all. In fact it reinforces it.

3)You toss off that “cliff notes” jab as if you’re schooling the opposing side, when you’re really only highlighting how inadequate your debate skills are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom