Jump to content

wildcat09

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    11143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by wildcat09

  1. 12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    Or maybe there was something shady going on.  The more interesting angle to me is that now FBI, DOJ are being compelled to share info with congressional leaders about the investigation that they gave been withholding for whatever reason. 

    They have been withholding the identity of a classified source because they know Nunes will leak that to the press, which is bad. Outing confidential sources is a serious federal crime, and the DOJ goes to great lengths (as it should) to prevent that from happening. 

  2. 23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


    Using the COURTS...a public body, doing the work of we the people, to enforce the terms of your Will IS a matter of public policy.

    Use public entities and resources to do your work (enforce your will), then be subject to public policy.

    Leave the courts out of it, and you can do whatever you want. Just realize that you lose something really important: the ability to enforce your terms.

    Slorch’s refusal to acknowledge this argument is telling. He can’t square his hatred of government with his desire for the government to do his bidding, so he pretends that that’s not what he’s demanding.

  3. 4 minutes ago, slorch said:

    That’s not what I said.  Read it again.

     

    The differentitation was made in response to Brisket’s post about requiring an unlawful act as a condition of inheritance.  At no time did I equate interacial marriage/ relations with said crimes.

     

    Y’all are so ate up with pointing out someone else’s alleged flaws(Racist!) you’re incapable of an actual dialogue. J

    What you don't get is that you have actually agreed with us that the government is allowed to draw the line on what sorts of conditions it will and won't enforce. You don't even understand the import of what you're arguing, which makes it impossible to have a dialogue with you.

  4. 47 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

    I get that but Comey said he specifically did not do that in order to not damage Clinton's credibility as President and the validity of the election.

     

     

    I'm not sure what point you think you're making here, but it certainly doesn't help your argument.

  5. Just now, babysdaddy said:

    I am.  Read some the Wall Street Journal coverage this morning and their timeline discussions and people involved smelled a bit like what I described.  

    The timeline should kind of tip you off that it's a bunch of nonsense. If the FBI was spying on Trump's campaign for political purposes, then why did they go to great lengths to keep everything they learned a secret until after the election? Only Republicans are dumb enough to believe that the FBI would engage in nefarious behavior to keep a Republican from being elected President and not publicly release any of the extremely politically damaging information they had until after he had been elected. And that's not even getting into the fact that the FBI was breaking protocol to publicly tar Hillary's campaign at the same time. 

    • Like 6
  6. 4 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

    So I'm not following everything as closely as all of you guys here.  We know Trump did shady/illegal shit prior to becoming president, most likely with money laundering, etc.  I'm 99.9% sure he broke the law in some form or fashion prior to the the campaign.  We also know aides have been indicted for stuff prior to the campaign as well.  My question, I guess, centers around this aspect of the dossier/informant/etc. that a lot of posters seem to be ok with since we know he previously did illegal shit. Is this (dossier/spy) the equivalent of planting evidence on a known criminal? Like cops sprinkling crack or planting a weapon?

    No.

  7. 4 minutes ago, slorch said:

    The gov’t doesn’t own my assets.

     

    they are just executing a legal document.

     

    We kinda disliked that shit way back when...enough to pose a rebellious threat to the crown.

     

    again, I find it odd as hell how some of y’all are cozying up so deep in the bosom of gov’t. 

    Actually, the system you are supporting is a somewhat limited version of the aristocratic system our founders despised and fought against. I haven't stated my position yet in this thread, so I'm not "cozying up" to the bosom of government, but you clearly don't have a good grasp of the concepts underlying private property ownership nor the historical problems with permitting deadhand control of property.

    You don't own anything when you're dead. When you die, to the extent you leave an estate, it is the living, through their representatives in government, that must determine what to do with those assets. For various reasons, some of which are good, every state has decided to permit the decedent great leeway in dictating how the government should dispose of his or her estate. But that has little to do with whether you have a right to devise property (or whether others have a right to inherit or be devised property), and a state could change its mind tomorrow and choose a new method of disposing of decedents' estates.

    There are valid arguments in support of our current system, but "fuck you it's mine and I get to say what happens to it" isn't one of the better ones. Personally, I think everyone should be permitted to leave for their family an amount somewhat reasonably in excess of whatever might be necessary to pay for food, shelter, healthcare, and education, but that there's really no particularly good reason to permit some stupid failson like Donald Trump Jr. (or any of the rich kids of instagram) to receive hundreds of millions of dollars when his dad dies, and many good reasons not to, such as the concentration of wealth in a new aristocratic class composed of dipshits who have no concept of honest work and who will spend their lives further rigging the system to take even more from what little the lower classes still have. 

    • Like 1
  8. 18 minutes ago, slorch said:

    @ oatmeal raisn

    Lolz at your allegations in the final sentence.

    Maybe you should lobby for equal protection and standard distribution of assets according to YOUR desires, as opposed to that of the individual.

     

    Fuck them for dying with any assets to begin with.

    Why should YOUR desires dictate what the government does with your assets when you're dead?

  9. 9 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    The problem was the trade deficit. Which keeps growing by billions each year. You don’t like his method, but simply ignoring it was not the proper response. (See illegal immigration and ss# reform also). 

    Its ok to take a look at the issue with out the Trump rage. 

    What about the trade deficit is bad?

  10. Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

    Showing a picture ID is evil. That’s why you don’t have to do it anywhere else. 

    It’s great that you classify a whole group of people as too incompetent to obtain an ID. Give them out free. But the adults can see this fear mongering talking points for what they are, a quest to let non eligiblle votes pass. Nothing more. 

    Except none of the voter ID laws give the IDs out for free, and are specifically designed to permit IDs that white people are more likely to have than black or minority people. Fix those problems and get back to us.

    Oh, and get back to us when you find more in-person fraudulent Dem votes than we've already found in-person fraudulent Trump votes.

  11. 24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Its testimony given under oath.

     

    Now, written, pre-packaged testimony can absolutely be coordinated with your other buddies. It is NOT the product of real cross-examination.

     

    And...here’s the big thing: testimony does not PROVE anything. It is evidence, which a finder of fact can decide is credible or bullshit. Which is considered in light of other evidence.

     

    For example, one of these folks may testify “I wasn’t at Trump Tower that day.” To Sheeit and Trumpkins, that PROVES that she wasn’t there. But...there’s a photo of her in the Trump Tower lobby that day. So, as the finder of fact, tell me: was she there, or not? She says no, the photo says yes.

     

    If you believe the photo, then you necessarily conclude that she was lying. This happens. It happens a lot. Like, all the time. Folks lie, not knowing that there’s other evidence out there that will bust them.

     

    So, what we know is that several folks who have a mutual interest in explaining away the meeting tried to do so via written statements under oath that have not been subjected to cross-examination or counter-evidence from objective/third party sources. In short, we know what these people have said. That’s it.

    We also know that they were coordinating their story in June 2017:

     

  12. 3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    Yes, three prisoners that wiped the slate clean after their murder of Otto Warmbier.  There were 11 prisoners released under Obama.   Dennis Rodman got prisoners released.   It's always nice to get Americans back, but it wasn't some unprecedented coup.   The unprecedented coup was for Kim in getting the president of the United States to call him honorable and to praise how well he takes care of our prisoners, just months after he tortured one of our citizens to death.

    How about international embarrassment?  Did Charlie Brown give up any of his pride every time he ran for Lucy's football?    We could have cautiously moved towards talks.   Instead Trump has been celebrating the deal and how he deserves the Nobel prize for it, before there was even a sit down.   There's a cost to the world knowing that our president is a fool. 

    And that's just if the talks are off.  If Trump actually modifies or cancels our military plans to save his pride, Kim's going to get a whole lot more. 

    Hopefully this is just a hiccup and Kim blinks and Trump shows us what an amazing negotiator he actually is.   But this is playing out in a predictable way so far. 

    Trump is the worst negotiator in the world. This will not end well for us.

    • Like 1
  13. 3 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

    I'm not so sure on Ivanka either. She seems solid most of the time, but has some shady dealings as well within her businesses, and the Kushner family is also a piece of shit.

    She's got business ties to the Iranian revolutionary guard and has defrauded condo buyers, then avoided a criminal indictment by bribing a district attorney. Fuck her.

    • Like 2
  14. 3 minutes ago, Mole said:

    I'd define evangelicals by certain theological positions, although obviously there are now certain political implications.

    Maybe I'm unclear on who "people like that" are. Outside of the ones advocating for ID in the classroom, which is a small subset of "people like that," what does it matter? Do you hold a similar disdain for people who refuse to use the Oxford comma?

    I certainly do.

    • Like 2
  15. Just now, gsoda3 said:

    i'm a YEC.  i believe the universe was literally created as the Bible said and as Jesus affirmed.  i believe just as God created adam in his mature adult form, the universe/earth was also created in its mature form.  looking at it from a scientific perspective the earth and universe will look hundreds of millions and billions of years old.  for me it comes down to whose authority i'm choosing to believe.  

    So what's the consensus/majority/plurality view of YECs to explain things like the fossil record?  

  16. 8 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

    I’ve probably attended 10 churches in my life and have been member of 5. Never once have I ever heard it addressed and all of my friends went with me or to a similar church. Literally nobody held this belief. Everyone accepted evolution. It’s not a “plank” of the Texas GOP. 

    This is like that old story about the lady who was befuddled when Nixon won because she didn't know anybody who voted for Nixon. Per a recent poll, 57% of evangelical protestants believe man has always existed in its present form. It's not like they're some small and insignificant minority.

  17. 32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    It he's going to flee anywhere it's probably Israel. 

    That may be his plan until he actually sees what Israelis look like. Way too swarthy for him.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...