ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

it isn't improper and certainly not illegal to attain benefits. We all do it, but only you and your kind try to make it seem shameful when a non-pinko does so. And there is no evidence to support the idea that Thomas purposely refused to recuse himself from a case where he very likely didn't know who was connected to the matter. So when you say 'not that we know of', that seems to be a one-way street. But meanwhile...

Innocent til proven guilty, right "party of law and order" peon?

Thomas intentionally chose to not disclose his stuff, this isn't against current laws, just a massive conflict of interest given the lobbying from Crow on cases Thomas rules on.

Biden so far has nothing to disclose other than saying his family is full of international biz people -- again is there anything remotely interesting occurring under his administrations related to Romania that seems favorable to them?
 
When trump sees there’s no extra sauce on his mcrib
donald trump rnc GIF by Election 2016
McRibs are awful
 
What about the people already in there eating that weren't part of the sycophant followers on his coat-tails ? Listen to his video. He loudly says "food for everyone".
I'm sorry, where in your video clip do you discern that he wasn't addressing those 'sycophant followers' and not the world at large? Loudly? Are you serious? Define loudly. Loudly is a relative term. The reality is that the loudness exhibited was relative to his immediate surroundings, and any reasonable person would conclude that he was not speaking loudly enough to be addressing the entire restaurant. But you throw the imprecise word 'loudly' around because insinuation is all you and your ilk have going for you. What a puny effort. As usual.
 
Innocent til proven guilty, right "party of law and order" peon?

Thomas intentionally chose to not disclose his stuff, this isn't against current laws, just a massive conflict of interest given the lobbying from Crow on cases Thomas rules on.

Biden so far has nothing to disclose other than saying his family is full of international biz people -- again is there anything remotely interesting occurring under his administrations related to Romania that seems favorable to them?
again you move the goalposts. I was pointing out your hypocrisy in protesting guilty until proven innocent while simultaneously voicing the opposite.

There was no proven conflict of interest with Clarence Thomas and there is not even the perception of conflict of interest except to those inclined to believe the worst against their political opposites. There is no direct connection that clarifies any need for Thomas to recuse himself in the ONE case in question. Yet you insist on defaming him as guilty of conflict of interest.

At the same time though, you protest the assumption of guilt involving Biden and the huge assortment of dots that are lining up to point yo his being a traitor to his country. But even worse, you point out that graft like the Biden clan is accused of is just politicians' business as usual, no big deal, nothing to see here. Because everybody does it, right? I mean except Clarence Thomas and anyone on the right you can hypocritically smear.

Here in part is what you said...

1. Hunter and James Biden have been profiting off Joe Biden's political career for decades. But this happens in ALL circles of high-level politics.

It is rare that a high-level politician's spouse and relatives don't have sweet gigs at corporations or orgs that lobby.


You are a hypocrite, which again was my point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
again you move the goalposts. I was pointing out your hypocrisy in protesting guilty until proven innocent while simultaneously voicing the opposite.

There was no proven conflict of interest with Clarence Thomas and there is not even the perception of conflict of interest except to those inclined to believe the worst against their political opposites. There is no direct connection that clarifies any need for Thomas to recuse himself in the ONE case in question. Yet you insist on defaming him as guilty of conflict of interest.

At the same time though, you protest the assumption of guilt involving Biden and the huge assortment of dots that are lining up to point yo his being a traitor to his country. But even worse, you point out that graft like the Biden clan is accused of is just politicians' business as usual, no big deal, nothing to see here. Because everybody does it, right? I mean except Clarence Thomas and anyone on the right you can hypocritically smear.

Here in part is what you said...




You are a hypocrite, which again was my point.
It is all about conflict of interest. Do you see actual evidence of conflict-of-interest regarding Romania? Do you see obvious direct evidence of conflict-o-interest involving Thomas and Crow? Here's one of many if you don't: https://www.businessinsider.com/cla...e-case-involving-harlan-crow-bloomberg-2023-4
 
It is all about conflict of interest. Do you see actual evidence of conflict-of-interest regarding Romania? Do you see obvious direct evidence of conflict-o-interest involving Thomas and Crow? Here's one of many if you don't: https://www.businessinsider.com/cla...e-case-involving-harlan-crow-bloomberg-2023-4
the perception of conflict of interest, in the eyes of those so inclined to paint the political opposition as evil. From your linkage...

"Crow's office did not respond to Insider's request for comment, but in a statement to Bloomberg, a spokesperson noted that Crow Holdings — the company that manages the Crow family capital and which Harlan Crow was the CEO of at the time of the appeal — operated independently of Trammell Crow Residential, its multifamily development platform.

Harlan Crow was CEO of Crow Holdings from 1988 to 2017, and remains chair of its board, per Bloomberg and The Real Deal.

"At the time of this case, Trammell Crow Residential operated completely independently of Crow Holdings with a separate management team and its own independent operations," the statement to Bloomberg said. "Crow Holdings had a minority interest in the parties involved in this case and therefore no control of any of these entities. Neither Harlan Crow nor Crow Holdings had knowledge of or involvement in this case, and a search of Crow Holding's legal records reveals no involvement in this case. Harlan Crow has never discussed this or any other case with any justice." "


And there is no evidence to suggest that Thomas knew of any connection to Crow, as has been stated over and over here. Even though there was a slight connection, any benefit to Crow would have been miniscule and hardly worth the effort. But keep up the spewage, it's what's expected of you.

Hypocrite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
It is all about conflict of interest. Do you see actual evidence of conflict-of-interest regarding Romania? Do you see obvious direct evidence of conflict-o-interest involving Thomas and Crow? Here's one of many if you don't: https://www.businessinsider.com/cla...e-case-involving-harlan-crow-bloomberg-2023-4
furthermore, from a Forbes article on the subject...

connection not apparent

"Crow Holdings and Harlan Crow’s name do not appear on the 2004 court filings, according to Bloomberg, raising the possibility that Thomas may not have recognized their connection to Harlan Crow, Arthur Hellman, a judicial ethics expert at University of Pittsburgh School of Law, told the outlet."
 
What about the people already in there eating that weren't part of the sycophant followers on his coat-tails ? Listen to his video. He loudly says "food for everyone".
“Food for everyone!” — Trump at Versailles, a Cuban restaurant, after pleading not guilty in the classified documents case.

I was watching and saw that live, so I called Versailles (305-444-0240) and tried to put in a to-go order. I figured Trump at least owes me a Cuban sandwich if not more.
 
It is all about conflict of interest. Do you see actual evidence of conflict-of-interest regarding Romania?
conflict of interest or just downright corruption

why yes, yes I do. EVIDENCE, just as Thomas' gift-taking is evidence. But it's just evidence, and evidence by itself means nothing. Say I walked by a bank as it was being robbed, and held the door open for the robbers because I didn't know who they were or what they were doing. To a casual observer, that's evidence that I was involved; but unless other evidence indicates that I wasn't just innocently walking by the bank, the evidence points to not much.

On the other hand, the Romanian hired Hunter Biden to help with his case. Hunter Biden? Why Hunter Biden out of all the people that could have been called on? Especially when Biden was haranguing against that sort of corruption. If that doesn't make you smell a rat, nothing will.

Yet I have only expressed my belief that Biden is dirty. I haven't claimed guilt has been proven, but I think that opportunity is coming. I also think it's reasonable to claim conflict of interest, and much more assuredly than you can claim CoI against Thomas.
 
“Food for everyone!” — Trump at Versailles, a Cuban restaurant, after pleading not guilty in the classified documents case.

I was watching and saw that live, so I called Versailles (305-444-0240) and tried to put in a to-go order. I figured Trump at least owes me a Cuban sandwich if not more.
tried to? You sure you didn't order something not on the menu, like a pene negra grande en un bollo?
 
And there is no evidence to suggest that Thomas knew of any connection to Crow

"Crow Holdings and Harlan Crow’s name do not appear on the 2004 court filings, according to Bloomberg, raising the possibility that Thomas may not have recognized their connection to Harlan Crow
Trammel Crow is Harlan's Dad. Nice try though. And do you want to go thru all the other cases Thomas should've recused himself from due to conflict of interest?
 
Trammel Crow is Harlan's Dad. Nice try though. And do you want to go thru all the other cases Thomas should've recused himself from due to conflict of interest?
no shit, Sherlock. Trammel Crow (the company) is who was getting sued and whose case it was that the SC declined to hear...you know, the case you keep harping on with complete futility.

Do I want to hear about all the other cases? If you've got the dime, I've got the time. Before you start, remember that recusal is a Supreme Court justice's decision, based on whether he or she feels a conflict of interest, not whether you do. If you want to seriously suggest a conflict, only provide examples where he or her or someone immediately close to him or her is directly involved in the case to be heard; that is, one in which his decision actually materially affects the life of the party in question. In other words, don't bother with cases involving matters that his wife has expressed her own personal opinion on. A person is entitled to his/her own opinion regardless of who their spouse is.
 
tried to? You sure you didn't order something not on the menu, like a pene negra grande en un bollo?
I didn't get the chance. The a-hole hung up on me before I could finish ordering. Trump wrecks everything. Three minutes inside the restaurant and customer service flies out the window!
 
I didn't get the chance. The a-hole hung up on me before I could finish ordering. Trump wrecks everything. Three minutes inside the restaurant and customer service flies out the window!
Don't worry. I'm sure you can get a pene negra grande local to wherever you are.
 
“Food for everyone!” — Trump at Versailles, a Cuban restaurant, after pleading not guilty in the classified documents case.

I was watching and saw that live, so I called Versailles (305-444-0240) and tried to put in a to-go order. I figured Trump at least owes me a Cuban sandwich if not more.
Typical Dem, always feel they’re owed something.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: bluetoe
“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” he wrote at the time.
“Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision? Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Quotes from Fauci in 2012. Fauci knew the dangers of GOF research all along, yet he was for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluetoe
“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” he wrote at the time.
“Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision? Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Quotes from Fauci in 2012. Fauci knew the dangers of GOF research all along, yet he was for it.
Fuking bastard. When studying lethal pathogens, viruses, etc the less the researchers know about the risks the better.
 
So trump just said on Fox News that he would have given the docs back if the natl archives had said “please please may we have the documents back”.

Sally Kohn Facepalm GIF by The Opposite of Hate
What, did the national archives just go 'hey, give us those documents'? Jeezus how rude. No wonder he didn't give them up. I was taught that a please and a thank you go a long way. And if I forgot to say it, I got a rap on the skull. Maybe Trump should give the national archives a good rap on the skull too. Oh wait, he tried that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: heelmanwilm
we should take down her husband's great-great-great-great-great grandad's statue.

She should divorce her husband or resign from the SCOTUS. I mean, if we're following general sentiments of today's climate, that's what we'd call for.
 
She should divorce her husband or resign from the SCOTUS. I mean, if we're following general sentiments of today's climate, that's what we'd call for.
Not only is your opinion utterly preposterous, it's also idiotic. I think you're just revealing your own bitterness over your wife filing for divorce from you.
 
Not only is your opinion utterly preposterous, it's also idiotic. I think you're just revealing your own bitterness over your wife filing for divorce from you.

I won't lie, my wife was mad when she saw the video I had on my phone of your new bride sucking me off. But I told my wife that the girl in the video was just a cheap whore and didn't mean anything to me. We've patched things up.

As for my comments, I was mocking the idiotic left. That includes you, moron. Not surprised you didn't pick up on it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT