14 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

Farc,

 

Thanks for yet another condescending response. I am sure you are disappointed, but if your emotions can see thru it, when the entire media

runs with the false reporting, with the so called journalists frothing with glee at all the ridiculous impeachment and guilty assumptions to feed

the false narrative, you can ignorantly comment it is only buzzfeed. THAT is completely illogical biased blather, no matter how you try in vain

to pretend you are the shining example of logic and intellectual superiority.

but keep up the resistance sunshine.

Lmao... condescending? Ok...i think your right, for once..... but unlike you, I was trying not to be insulting.

 

You know, it does amaze me how you can consistently take so much, swirl it around, and reduce it to nothing... it kind of reminds me of Matt Whittaker’s onscreen application for a pat on the head from Donald.

 

Your not after Sarah suckerbees job are you?

Feeling her oats with that gavel back in her bony hand.  The Donald looks petty but he's never cared about that before, so it's good he cut the old bat off at the knees early on.   

55 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

 

The other side (the current WH administration) sees the shutdown as a political opportunity.

 

Given that even Rasmussen shows a sharp decline in Trump's approval ratings, it's bizarre that they would do so. Which by no means rules it out.

50 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Lmao... condescending? Ok...i think your right, for once..... but unlike you, I was trying not to be insulting.

 

You know, it does amaze me how you can consistently take so much, swirl it around, and reduce it to nothing... it kind of reminds me of Matt Whittaker’s onscreen application for a pat on the head from Donald.

 

Your not after Sarah suckerbees job are you?

more pointless blather

58 minutes ago, Silurian said:

One side (Democrats) is passing bills to end the shutdown.

 

The other side (the current WH administration) sees the shutdown as a political opportunity.

to actually think the Dims aren't fund raising and playing politics is asinine.

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Following your train of thought, whose pocket is Trump in?

How do you say "pocket" in Russian?

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

 

My comment, which you have attempted to spin by hacking apart, was in response to a comment stating that presidential powers were well prescribed.... ergo the “no... they are not...” opening words.

 

if you wish to debate this post, you need to tackle it from the perspective of... yes they are, because.....

 

this is just another of your trolls, cherry picking items, misrepresenting comments, sowing untruths, and generally lieing (in this case, largely by omission).

 

It’s so sad that a large percentage of your posting history is reflective of this style of misinformation.... but when the truth doesn’t work, I suppose that’s all you’ve got left.

 

if I said... “ Hitler was oft heard to say “I hate Jews””.... you would probably repost it, cropping the “Hitler was oft heard to say” part, and claim that I actually said “ I hate Jews”.

 

 what a pathetic attempt at a troll.... but I’m sure that a couple of extra coffeees, perhaps fortified with a dram or two of whiskey, will help improve your daily trolling efforts.

no attempt, if you are citing committing crimes  by using presidential powers, then be specific and say what they are and provide the proof, if not, stop

pretending there are crimes.

 

but if continuing the pseudo intellectual preening works for you that is your choice.

 

why keep going off topic and lecturing?

1 minute ago, mcambl61 said:

no attempt, if you are citing committing crimes  by using presidential powers, then be specific and say what they are and provide the proof, if not, stop

pretending there are crimes.

 

but if continuing the pseudo intellectual preening works for you that is your choice.

 

why keep going off topic and lecturing?

You seem curiously indifferent about facts and accusations concerning the current President. Double standards much?

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

Lmao... condescending? Ok...i think your right, for once..... but unlike you, I was trying not to be insulting.

 

You know, it does amaze me how you can consistently take so much, swirl it around, and reduce it to nothing... it kind of reminds me of Matt Whittaker’s onscreen application for a pat on the head from Donald.

 

Your not after Sarah suckerbees job are you?

deflection, Again

24 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

more pointless blather

Curious that you identify blather in others, yet fail to see it in the majority of your own posts.

2 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

Farc,

 

Thanks for yet another condescending response. I am sure you are disappointed, but if your emotions can see thru it, when the entire media

runs with the false reporting, with the so called journalists frothing with glee at all the ridiculous impeachment and guilty assumptions to feed

the false narrative, you can ignorantly comment it is only buzzfeed. THAT is completely illogical biased blather, no matter how you try in vain

to pretend you are the shining example of logic and intellectual superiority.

but keep up the resistance sunshine.

 

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

Lmao... condescending? Ok...i think your right, for once..... but unlike you, I was trying not to be insulting.

 

You know, it does amaze me how you can consistently take so much, swirl it around, and reduce it to nothing... it kind of reminds me of Matt Whittaker’s onscreen application for a pat on the head from Donald.

 

Your not after Sarah suckerbees job are you?

 

51 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

deflection, Again

There’s the thread.... please explain how I am deflecting

 

you devoted a post to insulting me.... which is ok, after all, it’s not me who keeps throwing unhappy and confused emojis on posts... ever. I instead reply and ask questions... but you go girl

 

i responded to your post, which posed no questions, but again, as you can see, was just insults aimed at my intelligence. 

 

Thirdly, you accuse me of deflection... but fail to say how...

additionally, you quoted the middle post twice, in the other calling it “blather”... which is ok... no sad emoji, just an observation.

 

so, in conclusion, if you actually have a question, or an on topic point, perhaps spend a minute or two too frame something which might illicit an answer, because so far today, all your doing is posting sub standard trolls... even with your norm as the benchmark.

Edited January 19, 20197 yr by farcanell

why does pelosi and her dem bunch not use commercial flights for their pr-stunt excursion in order to make it look genuine. thanking troops in afghanistan for what, its not her job.

 

wbr

roobaa01

4 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

why does pelosi and her dem bunch not use commercial flights for their pr-stunt excursion in order to make it look genuine.

 

Because Donald has already exposed it, and in doing so he created a security risk not only for Pelosi but for anyone on a commercial airliner in the general vicinity of the middle east.  Trump’s administration leaked our commercial flight plans to Afghanistan.

 

"Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s spokesperson, says the White House even leaked the Democratic delegation’s commercial flight plans, raising the security threat so high that Pelosi and fellow lawmakers had no choice but to postpone their trip."

 

Good going, Donald.

 

 

Edited January 19, 20197 yr by attrayant

1 hour ago, mcambl61 said:

no attempt, if you are citing committing crimes  by using presidential powers, then be specific and say what they are and provide the proof, if not, stop

pretending there are crimes.

 

but if continuing the pseudo intellectual preening works for you that is your choice.

 

why keep going off topic and lecturing?

You must have stayed up late last night.... and gotten heinously drunk, as your really not firing on all cylinders.

 

i am most definitely not citing crimes.... I was most definitely referring to the fact that a president, by DoJ opinion, can’t be prosecuted. (I also primarily mentioned that the use of executive power to declare a state of emergency, was arguable in its application... the sound bite that got caught in your throat, was secondary... applicable, but an after thought)

 

i made this point, because... (again... as your having an off morning)

i was reply to a post stating that presidential powers where well defined, which I disagree with, because the wording in the constitution regards presidential powers, is arguably deliberately vague

 

your continual attacks on myself and other posters, that demonstrate the folly in your posts, by calling us pseudo intelligent etc etc, only makes you look silly billy

 

now... all that looks like another lecture... perhaps it is, supported by relevant information, as you would expect from a pseudo intellectual, but seemingly, as you fail to comprehend the simple (ie... the two short paragraphs associated with your initial attack of today, which you butchered, perhaps assuming I have Alzheimer’s, and can’t remember what I said yesterday, or how to hit the back button), lecturing at length is the only alternative.

 

i hope this helps... but if not... once again, please ask a specific question, vs posting trolls, and I will happily answer those, but if trolling is you at your best, then expect more condescension and derision from other posters.

Edited January 19, 20197 yr by farcanell

3 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

why does pelosi and her dem bunch not use commercial flights for their pr-stunt excursion in order to make it look genuine. thanking troops in afghanistan for what, its not her job.

 

wbr

roobaa01

They were planning on doing that after "trump" pulled the military plane option but they were told by the STATE DEPARTMENT that "trump" against all ethical standards of a normal president had leaked their travel plans and the trip was just too risky. I think that alone should be added to the long list of impeachable offenses of this clearly Putin-compromised illegitimate president. 

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

Because Donald has already exposed it, and in doing so he created a security risk not only for Pelosi but for anyone on a commercial airliner in the general vicinity of the middle east.

 

Good going, Donald.

the argument has been proven wrong like the fake news bombshell from buzzfeed, nothing was leaked out just another rubbish pr-stunt by pelosi.

 

wbr

roobaa01

1 minute ago, roobaa01 said:

the argument has been proven wrong

 

Provide a link to the proof you allege.  The US state department even issued a memo saying that:
 

"the president’s letter had significantly increased danger to the congressional delegation, the troops, and government officials."

Edited January 19, 20197 yr by attrayant

Sorry for the whataboutism, but try to imagine if Obama had done such a thing, endangered the lives of a senate or house group while travelling to a war region. Think about that. Be honest. He would have been lynched.

11 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

why does pelosi and her dem bunch not use commercial flights for their pr-stunt excursion in order to make it look genuine. thanking troops in afghanistan for what, its not her job.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Home many commercial airliners fly into Afghanistan / us bases?

 

and why isn’t it her job, as second in line after pence, to get information from the troop ( leaders) on the ground, especially when trump doesn’t bother sharing any info that he has.... but rather uses his trips to campaign, then lies about everything?

 

if he were a trustworthy president, other governmental players wouldn’t need to pursue their own means of discovering information.... but... unfortunately the proof in in the hamberder

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

How do you say "pocket" in Russian?

According to Google translate it is "карман" pronounced karman.

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

According to Google translate it is "карман" pronounced karman.

Lol

trump... put in... karma

Yes, Trump put her in her place...

Just now, doggie1955 said:

Yes, Trump put her in her place...

The house has impeachment powers over "trump." "trump" does not have impeachment powers over the speaker of the house. "trump" is not the boss of the speaker. He thinks he's the boss of everyone but reality is going to catch up with that criminal con man demagogue. 

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

11 minutes ago, doggie1955 said:

Yes, Trump put her in her place...

The house has impeachment powers over "trump." "trump" does not have impeachment powers over the speaker of the house. "trump" is not the boss of the speaker. He thinks he's the boss of everyone but reality is going to catch up with that criminal con man demagogue. 

 

thought you were on vacation away from internet?

4 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

thought you were on vacation away from internet?

No. Please don't post such off topic personal gossip garbage again on the forum. The topics are the topics. I am not the topic. 

Edited January 19, 20197 yr by Jingthing

19 hours ago, Becker said:

And the solution is? Because if you don't have any I smell a Russian troll.

I smell a Zionist troll here? sound ridiculous? no more so than your comment ???? 

2 minutes ago, CGW said:

I smell a Zionist troll here? sound ridiculous? no more so than your comment ???? 

I think you just answered my question quite clearly. Now off you go and have some borscht.

59 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Provide a link to the proof you allege.  The US state department even issued a memo saying that:
 

"the president’s letter had significantly increased danger to the congressional delegation, the troops, and government officials."

https:/video.foxnews.com/5991179024001/#sp=show-clips

did trump make the right decision to halt pelosi..

wbr

roobaa01

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

They were planning on doing that after "trump" pulled the military plane option but they were told by the STATE DEPARTMENT that "trump" against all ethical standards of a normal president had leaked their travel plans and the trip was just too risky. I think that alone should be added to the long list of impeachable offenses of this clearly Putin-compromised illegitimate president. 

where is your legal proof about the long impeachment list, if it were dems would have done so with rep support otherwise impeachment talk is meaningless political redtape w.o. effect.

wbr

roobaa01

 

 

45 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

47 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

thought you were on vacation away from internet?

No. Please don't post such off topic personal gossip garbage again on the forum. The topics are the topics. I am not the topic. 

 

purely meant in a friendly collegiate way