It's "worked" in the cabinet (past tense, he's not going back and has no ongoing relationship with the guy), which gives him inside knowledge of Washington reality. And he "tells the world what a shit-heel" Trump is, but hitler still edges out the alternative. What's that tell you about the alternative? Come on, you can do it.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Is that what 'women do?" LOL All women? The women that are meek and emotional and subservient to their more rational, male counterparts.
I'm not debating you or even arguing with you. I'm mocking you. You're a walking, talking stereotype.
You're in no position to mock anyone. Try some humility or just take the L and quietly leave before you're made to look any worse.
It doesn't "tell me" anything about any alternative. It tells me that Bill Barr is completely FOS. He would gladly, willingly and eagerly go back and work for Trump if he had the chance.
I read that when he accused you accordingly. My first thought was that we are always told that the number of trans is so small that it is not even an issue. As to Mexicans, it's my understanding that all the polls show hemorrhaging of their support from Joe to Don, so I guess they are coming for me.
Transgenders are teaching our children to be weak and effeminate! That kind of woke shit is bringing our country down! Joe Biden is evil and responsible!
I'm qualifying it with the circumstances because the circumstances make a difference, as I have amply explained and as you simply refuse to acknowledge. DUH. And what the other involved character did or does has nothing to do with what we are discussing, which is Trump and Edwards. Help me out, wasn't that what they call a red herring? Sorry, it was a pretty clumsy one.
Of course I'm partisan. Me being partisan is based on my beliefs, and my beliefs tell me that John Edwards was hugely hypocritical and a completely immoral POS, while Donald Trump is no angel but has better intentions that any Biden or Edwards. Me being partisan has nothing to do with you claiming that selling bibles is blasphemous.
I missed nothing, no matter how much you need to imply that I did. The posit that I was contesting was that "As for evangelizing, at least John Edwards never hocked overpriced Bibles to his cult followers in a blasphemous effort to raise much-needed funds for his criminal defense fees."
I can't find in the above anything about 'superfluous documents and song lyrics'. It's completely apparent that you meant the selling of bibles for the purpose of profit, period. If I sell anything for a profit, what I choose to do with that profit has no bearing on the legitimacy of the sale. Needing money for a legitimate, real-life purpose is not blasphemy. That being said, it's laughable that you now try to pin it all on heretofore unmentioned and completely extraneous items. Can you not EVER own up to anything?
You've got to watch this, but take a piss first or there might be an issue. Joe's safe unless he hasn't changed his Depends since getting up at 9:30.
and there he goes as usual, off to visit Alice in Inanityland. Hard to imagine this being someone's best hope for winning an argument.
you noticed it too. He gets his ass kicked and next thing you know, he lashes out at me with a bitchbite and calls me 'sweetie'.
I understand that this sentiment is your opinion. However, other than a base level hatred of Trump and anyone associated with him at any point in history, can you provide any basis whatsoever for your thoughts? A single quote, interview, prior statement of such, anything?
Yeah, not so much. I could care less what adults want to do with their lives and the choices they make - so long as they are willing to live with the consequences. It's the whole libertarian thing in me.
no, sorry. You fear them. We all do. You fear everything you argue against that strum is for.
Sounds reasonable. It will be under attack by some of our poasters soon.
WTF? You believe that I can only have that "opinion" if there's a "base level hatred of Trump and anyone associated with him at any point in history"... that's where you've decided to base your assumption of my opinion?
And, on top of that, you need me to prove to you that politicians will do anything and everything to advance their position... if it helps them, there's no limit to what they will do? You need quotes, or interviews, etc.? You haven't actually witnessed it before now? They ALL do it, all day, every day, until they finally drop dead.
lol i don’t know…i’m much more interested in local politics, although just as shady, than i am in this 2024 presidential one…just completely turned off by all involved.
so it dropped a few points because of the economy. No worries, Biden is telling us how robust his economy is.
well then hold your nose when you vote. That's what I often do, metaphorically speaking.
But under that theory (which I think is valid btw as I still endorse the joke about politicians only lie when their lips are moving), you are saying that Barr would also take a position with Biden if he was offered one, correct?
It's fine if you want to take your stance/opinion based on the generality that all politicians are pigs, you just had stated it in such certain terms that led me to believe you had something specific. One is just generalized pontificating, the other provides an actual basis. All good.
No, it's an example of you bitching and moaning about Trump getting his comeuppance. You wrote in your earlier post "that all prosecutors have to take an oath as part of starting their jobs." and "that oath will include a promise to do 'justice.'"
What proof do you have besides your dubious hunches that Matthew Colangelo is betraying his oath and making his courtroom argument based on anything besides the evidence before him?
With Biden??? No! With Trump! If Trump offered him a position. I mean, it's not impossible for Barr to accept a Biden appointment or whatever. There is literally no bottom for them. But, no... I was talking about Trump, not Biden.
Well, I know that this will be difficult, but try your best to follow. Almost universally, this particular case has been crapped on by legal scholars (and there have been many lib commentators lamenting that this case is the first one out of the box rather than one or two of the others that might actually have legs). The biggest thing going for this particular case is a judge that is clearly not in any fashion pro-trump (I'm allowing for the possibility that he is fair, which is not my actual belief) and that the judge forced this matter to go forward in a jurisdiction that voted Biden over Trump 9 out of 10 times. Hardly a picture of neutrality and that's not what one calls a jury of your peers.
But back to your specific question, a prosecutor is required to decide what to do about investigations, charges, and prosecutions. It's called prosecutorial discretion. Part of the history of these particular charges is that they were looked at by NY and they were decided to not be pursued. Then the Feds looked at them and decided they wouldn't pursue them. Then, Biden's boy parachutes into Bragg's office (leaving his much more prestigious DOJ position) and suddenly the case is looked at again and the indictment follows. He's been anti-trump for years and he was sent there with an agenda. You're lying to yourself if you think otherwise. Watch what happens down the road. Particularly if Joe wins again, this guy will almost assuredly have a place in a future Biden DOJ or other position.
As to the evidence presented, it's early. I did read that Colangelo referred to Trump and his conspiracy a whole bunch of times in his opening statement. The really odd thing about that is they never charged him with conspiracy in any of the 30 plus counts. Time will tell, but don't kid yourself about the plan and what's going on here.
Yes, yes the question remains apparently.
Strum, you say there is a general bottom feeder tendency of politicians to do anything to their benefit. Ok, I think most would generally agree with that. And that tendency is the reason that Bill Barr, a politician even though he's never been elected to anything in Washington, would take a position in a Trump cabinet again in the future if offered. This is despite him unequivocally crapping on Trump.
And that stance is not because of anything specific, but because he is a politician with all those flaws and warts - no other basis. But those same flaws and warts don't make it equally likely that he'd accept an appointment from good ole Joe?
Do you not see the issue with this logic? That's why I assumed you were basing it on a Trump hatred or had something specific that Barr had said. I'm done. Either you see it, can't see it, or are just too stubborn to admit it.
So cuz the guy was part of Biden admin's DOJ in the past we shouldn't enforce the law and make criminals pay the price for things related to election fraud?
FIFY. Don't forget it comes with a pledge of allegiance, onst, and declaration of independence... non-americans can F off and read the koran or books about atheism.
See? Every once in a blue moon you say something that is actually true.
Drop mic.
No, unfortunately he can't.
You're eviscerating him and he hasn't a clue it's happening.
No numbnuts, but someone else should be prosecuting it. That's all he's saying.
The fact that he and Michael Cohen were together involved with the hush-money payments and the ledger make it a conspiracy.
I wish you could learn to make your point more succinctly, like in one sentence -- as I just did -- rather than three long paragraphs.
Last edited:
Similar threads
