-
Posts
47254 -
Joined
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by jimmyjazz
-
-
We're selling an old car to a 3rd party and I'm trying to make sure we don't take any false steps. It's a cash deal. If I draw up a bill of sale, take the cash, and sign over the title, what responsibility do I have as far as the new owner getting the vehicle titled in his name, as well as paying the sales tax, which he has agreed to do? Do I need to go to the DMV with him so nothing goes sideways?
It feels like I have exposure if I don't physically see the DMV witness the title exchange (or whatever it is they do). Advice is appreciated.
-
1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:
Watching the pleasure with which he describes a person’s death is really disturbing.
And you know his base is eating it up, while still bitching about Hillary's statement about "we came, we saw, he died" when we took out Kaddafhi in Libya.
-
Lots of estrogen on this board. Pics?
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:
A quid pro quo isn't illegal, it's an exchange.
Why are you belaboring this point when you have already admitted that quid pro quo isn't necessary for a crime to have been committed? Trump solicited a foreign power to investigate his biggest rival for the 2020 election. That solicitation is illegal. FEC Rules Mama should have told you out front.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:
1 - This is an excellent argument.
- yes it is
Quote2 - This is a delusion. We have a near transcript, it showed no exchange.
- you're an idiot
Quote3 - It's like charging someone with murder but not having a body. You have no evidence the crime was committed.
- you're an exceptionally idiotic idiot
QuoteWhistleblowers do not get their identity protected. It's not a thing.
- your idiocy is off the charts.
Fuck off.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:
There was no quid pro quo. This is a factual matter. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that Ukraine got their aid but did not investigate Hunter Biden. Ergo, we know to a certainty there was no quid pro quo.
All of this speculation people are engaging in is irrelevant.
Against my better judgment, I'm going to educate you:
1. an offer of "quid pro quo" is not necessary for the crime to have been committed
2. an offer of "quid pro quo" was made
3. the fact that it wasn't acted upon is irrelevant
-
Maybe she's about to mount an incredible run to the top of the polls. That's probably what she's thinking.
-
1
-
-
"It's a major award!"

-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
Get off your moral high horse. Hillary was the epitome of corruption and what's wrong with our political system. A complete, corrupt, POS who made hundreds of millions thru her "gov't service to the American people".
I guess the sucker never knows he's the sucker.
-
18 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:
Waiting until you can see a gun in someone’s hand is how you get shot. Fuck that. Unless your gun is already out.
The cop should meet a higher standard. He took the job and assumed the risk. "I thought he was reaching for a weapon" is bullshit. His gun was drawn and he was partially hidden by a tree. He had no reason to pull the trigger. None.
I remain more pro-cop than most around here, but this story is a perfect example of how current procedure is royally fucked up. And before anyone claims that they didn't follow procedure, these cops were exonerated by 3 different "official departments".
-
3 hours ago, BradInATX said:
Also DJ is Derrick Johnson who rules and should never have to share a nickname with Trump.
Don't forget DJ Augustin.
-
But your proposal was to send no emoluments or Russia articles to the Senate at first, even though we currently know plenty of impeachable offenses that have occurred. I agree, if new testimony reveals major bombshells, send them over too.
-
10 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:
How the fuck is that a game? That's their fucking job. They took an oath and it doesn't have an out clause for the Senate not doing their job.
Trump keeps committing crimes, keep impeaching him. His behavior has already been normalized FAR more than it should have been.
Sure, if he commits new crimes after the articles are drafted. But you're proposing they repeat the cycle on malfeasance that is already known. Sorry, that's playing games, and it will backfire. It will cement the already common idea that this is nothing but a circus.
-
2 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:
Step 1) Put Trump's shit on blast in the House over Ukraine.
Step 2) Impeach him.
Step 3) Send it over to Mitch.
Step 4) While the Senate is conducting their show trial, put Trump's shit on blast over Turkey/Emoluments/Obstruction of the Russia investigation/Pick any of the others.
Step 5) Impeach him again.
Step 6) Send it over to Mitch.
Repeat until public outcry forces Mitch's hand or every citizen in the county is aware that the GOP is keeping a criminal in office and every citizen has taken a side.
That's a worse idea than Schiff's "paraphrase" of Trump's phone call (which has generated the exact outcome some of us predicted).
The last thing the Dems need to do is to appear to be playing petty games. Draft the articles of impeachment, vote, and send it to the Senate. Done.
-
1 hour ago, American Swindle said:
Nothing really. I genuinely want to know what merits HRC has that genuinely make those on the left feel compelled and dignified to persuade others ( not just Trump supporters but Independents, Libertarians and libertarians) why they should support her and her ideas.
Hell, I’d love to know the same of Trump supporters.I don't know how to make this any clearer: once the primaries were over, the next POTUS (barring death or unforeseen circumstance) was going to be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I don't have to extoll Hillary's virtues in order to justify my vote for her. She was far and away the lesser of the two "evils", and that's all that needs to be said. Unfortunately, 60M idiots + another 1M or so "message senders" like you couldn't wrap their brains around the threat, and here we are. Good job, Swindle.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:
I have zero problem with them following the law and shooting a fleeing violent felon suspect so long it was reasonable to believe the fleeing person committed the violent felony.
So your standard for the death penalty is "reasonable belief"?
I continue to vehemently disagree with you on almost everything that comes out of your mouth. I guarantee you'd squeal like a little girl if cops dared to bruise your wrists putting on handcuffs, much less shoot you or a loved one in the back while they were running away. You know, because fleeing arrest isn't a fucking capital offense.
-
3
-
-
I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that perhaps a cop should wait at least until a gun is drawn before firing. I realize there are gray areas, but "suspect is running away from me" seems to not work in defense of shooting.
There has to be greater responsibility placed on the guy who is charged with keeping the peace and who has allegedly been trained to deal with difficult situations.
-
7 minutes ago, American Swindle said:
I'm a 3rd party voter, persuade me why I should have voted for Hillary instead of Gary Johnson.
You're welcome to vote 3rd party all you want. Your question wasn't about Hillary VS Gary, though. It was about Hillary VS Donald.
So, I think it's fair to ask you the reasons you threw your fucking vote away instead of trying to keep whichever Evil you thought Lesser out of office, because that was the way the adults in the room voted when they voted for Hillary.
-
They wouldn't be able to cut off spring flow into the pool, except by whatever tiny amount might be reduced by added water pressure due to a slight rise in water level. So, they'd basically be increasing flow on the downstream side to accommodate the additional creek flow. With no expertise on the matter and not much thought put into it, I'm gonna go with "bad idea".
-
1
-
-
OK, James Clapper committed perjury before Congress. Therefore, the Deep State exists. QED.
-
2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:
Hating 63 million+ people is no way to live my man. What if they all simply voted for him because they didn't like the idea of voting for the other corrupt candidate?
I have zero reason to believe this is true for even a minority of that voting block. If it is, then they never get interviewed, because what I hear and read is 100% Trump MAGA bullshit 100% of the time.
QuoteGiven Hillary's moral character, are you willing to say that she was the principled candidate and morally correct choice out of the 2?
Oh, hell yes. That's like asking if W was more principled than Hitler.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:
What point did I miss? The only point I was trying to make is that their simply is a Deep State and we should be as critical as those within it as Trump. Some folks within it are good, as you note, and some are bad (Clapper for example.) The question is should we have one so big in the first place if any at all?
That's not a Deep State, that's "people". Only a complete fool would consider the average bureaucrat or administrator a "Deep State" operator. You've basically said it's true "because", without identifying any malicious intent.
You appear to be against big government, which is a different thing entirely.
-
Huh? Surely the spring water that currently feeds the pool is less contaminated than whatever shit would get washed down the creek? How would this "improve the ecosystem" of the pool? Would it just be more throughput?
-
1 hour ago, American Swindle said:
Hopefully there's some room in their for a backlash against the Deep State fuckers as well. Let's rally around objective backlash for all that deserve it, you know, spread the wealth!
@jimmyjazz can attest that the NYT is a reputable source, especially in their coverage of the conspiracy theories surrounding the so called Deep State
I get the feeling you didn't read that article. Here's the summary, which I'm sure tickles your tin foil, but once again, you have missed the entire fucking point:
QuoteRight on cue, Mr. Trump’s lackeys are responding to such breaches of fealty by going on the attack. In a media briefing on Thursday, the White House acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, dismissed the witnesses who had spoken to impeachment investigators: “What you are seeing now, I believe, is a group of mostly career bureaucrats who are saying, ‘You know what, I don’t like President Trump’s politics, so I’m going to participate in this witch hunt.’”
That may be what Mr. Mulvaney hears when he listens to these men and women. But many, many others will hear veteran public servants appalled by an administration that continues to subvert the public interest to the whims of a president who has mistaken himself for a king.
This is Mr. Trump’s deep state. For the sake of the nation, the American public should be clamoring for more patriots to join the conspiracy.

Selling a car
in Can You Help Me With This?
Posted
Thanks, that first form takes care of a lot of my concerns. Will do both.