Blank Discussion Topic

EdsonNascimento

HughFreakingDillon said:

EdsonNascimento said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Sort of like Monica Lewinsky?

Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.

Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.

But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.

I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?

And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.

Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.

utterly laughable.

Did you guys miss the point of that last statement? Too funny. I'll try to talk slower next time.

please, do tell. because to this guy who apparently reads too quickly, it makes very little sense.

Obviously, the scenario I played out is satirical to make a point. It's neither high moral ground nor laughable other than in a satirical sense. So, starting with the "Yeah sure you would," the entirety of the responses are pretty funny. I'm sure most of the folks on here were already in on the joke. Now the 2 of you are, too.

EdsonNascimento

Abe Froman said:

my2hands said:

so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?

lol what a joke

Its always the same defense. "Hillary is worse"..."what about Bill & Monica"..."why can't you all wait and give Trump a chance?"

I don't think I said any of those things.

Cliffy6745

If we want to talk about White House affairs, is there any doubt that Trump is piping Kellyanne?

HughFreakingDillon

EdsonNascimento said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

EdsonNascimento said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Sort of like Monica Lewinsky?

Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.

Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.

But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.

I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?

And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.

Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.

utterly laughable.

Did you guys miss the point of that last statement? Too funny. I'll try to talk slower next time.

please, do tell. because to this guy who apparently reads too quickly, it makes very little sense.

Obviously, the scenario I played out is satirical to make a point. It's neither high moral ground nor laughable other than in a satirical sense. So, starting with the "Yeah sure you would," the entirety of the responses are pretty funny. I'm sure most of the folks on here were already in on the joke. Now the 2 of you are, too.

yeah, I get it was satirical. but the point you were making is still obviously non-existent, since you still failed to express it. I'm guessing you won't.

your condescension is cute. clearly the smartest guy in the room.

kinda like my 10 year old.

ledvedderman

Cliffy6745 said:

If we want to talk about White House affairs, is there any doubt that Trump is piping Kellyanne?

Oh I don't think I'd go that far. I think they're very close and he respects her going through the dirt for him, but I think that's the end of it.

mfc2006

Cliffy6745 said:

If we want to talk about White House affairs, is there any doubt that Trump is piping Kellyanne?

thanks for that image.

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.

Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!

Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.

Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.

Actually you may be off base on this one on a few points. Feel free to do some research. I'm pulling in general knowledge from people I know that work in Defense (I'm relatively close to Pentagon City).

When you achieve the top secret clearance that Flynn has, you give up certain privacy rights related to national security. You aren't giving up your Miranda rights or unlawful search and seizure in criminal case, but I believe the IC can tap you, follow you, etc. if they have reason to believe what you are doing could harm the national security interests. In this case, it clearly could.

Second, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that executive privilege would apply before inauguration. But it's not binary. It's not private citizen or executive privilege. There is also top secret access which Flynn had and with it comes certain responsibilities.

But I'm not sure anyone is saying Flynn broke the law. But the sights will now turn to Trump and what he knew and whether he allowed these conversations to happen. Either he did and he is lying to us, or he didn't and his future cabinet appointee was going rogue on day one. Which one is worse?

Go Beavers

ledvedderman said:

Cliffy6745 said:

If we want to talk about White House affairs, is there any doubt that Trump is piping Kellyanne?

Oh I don't think I'd go that far. I think they're very close and he respects her going through the dirt for him, but I think that's the end of it.

Yup. She's way way too old for him.

EdsonNascimento

HughFreakingDillon said:

EdsonNascimento said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

EdsonNascimento said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Sort of like Monica Lewinsky?

Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.

Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.

But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.

I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?

And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.

Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.

utterly laughable.

Did you guys miss the point of that last statement? Too funny. I'll try to talk slower next time.

please, do tell. because to this guy who apparently reads too quickly, it makes very little sense.

Obviously, the scenario I played out is satirical to make a point. It's neither high moral ground nor laughable other than in a satirical sense. So, starting with the "Yeah sure you would," the entirety of the responses are pretty funny. I'm sure most of the folks on here were already in on the joke. Now the 2 of you are, too.

yeah, I get it was satirical. but the point you were making is still obviously non-existent, since you still failed to express it. I'm guessing you won't.

your condescension is cute. clearly the smartest guy in the room.

kinda like my 10 year old.

I am far from smartest guy in the room. But, while the internet is tough on interpreting things like sarcasm and satire, that one was fairly self evident. I mean c'mon. Who's dumb enough to get caught (see? I did it again. I'm not really doing that - or am I? Jesus. Who knows any more? No. Really I'm not. Maybe.)

To me the amusing part is how both of you have taken a our side, his side that you're blinded by anything that's said no matter how obvious. We all fall into that trap (myself included). Doesn't make it any less amusing.

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.

Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!

Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.

Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.

That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.

CM189191

mfc2006 said:

Cliffy6745 said:

If we want to talk about White House affairs, is there any doubt that Trump is piping Kellyanne?

thanks for that image.

Need brain bleach?
Hope Hicks

EdsonNascimento

ledvedderman said:

EdsonNascimento said:

ledvedderman said:

EdsonNascimento said:

my2hands said:

so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?

lol what a joke

Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?

You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.

So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?

Well, now you know Trump's plan. Get Russia to point nuclear warheads at us from close range, and the libs will only remember that he "stopped" them.

https://youtu.be/ctDhwraJRxs

Actually, I said it in jest, but it's actually happening. Russia has deployed missiles. I think the only thing my joke missed is that Putin is doing that to HELP Trump, so when he backs down, Trump is back in everyone's good graces. Ummm. Ok. Now I've gone too far. But, the Putin-Trump thing is spot on.

mrussel1

EdsonNascimento said:

ledvedderman said:

EdsonNascimento said:

ledvedderman said:

EdsonNascimento said:

my2hands said:

so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?

lol what a joke

Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?

You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.

So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?

Well, now you know Trump's plan. Get Russia to point nuclear warheads at us from close range, and the libs will only remember that he "stopped" them.

https://youtu.be/ctDhwraJRxs

Actually, I said it in jest, but it's actually happening. Russia has deployed missiles. I think the only thing my joke missed is that Putin is doing that to HELP Trump, so when he backs down, Trump is back in everyone's good graces. Ummm. Ok. Now I've gone too far. But, the Putin-Trump thing is spot on.

Well it is quite interesting. Why is Putin choosing now to start violating a treaty? Why not in the last 6 years since he took office? Why not test Obama. The whole thing is curious to say the least.

Cliffy6745

Go Beavers said:

ledvedderman said:

Cliffy6745 said:

If we want to talk about White House affairs, is there any doubt that Trump is piping Kellyanne?

Oh I don't think I'd go that far. I think they're very close and he respects her going through the dirt for him, but I think that's the end of it.

Yup. She's way way too old for him.

Nah, he went out of character on this one. 100% sure.

mfc2006

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

ledvedderman said:

EdsonNascimento said:

ledvedderman said:

EdsonNascimento said:

my2hands said:

so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?

lol what a joke

Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?

You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.

So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?

Well, now you know Trump's plan. Get Russia to point nuclear warheads at us from close range, and the libs will only remember that he "stopped" them.

https://youtu.be/ctDhwraJRxs

Actually, I said it in jest, but it's actually happening. Russia has deployed missiles. I think the only thing my joke missed is that Putin is doing that to HELP Trump, so when he backs down, Trump is back in everyone's good graces. Ummm. Ok. Now I've gone too far. But, the Putin-Trump thing is spot on.

Well it is quite interesting. Why is Putin choosing now to start violating a treaty? Why not in the last 6 years since he took office? Why not test Obama. The whole thing is curious to say the least.

add this to the list of curiosities....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/14/russian-spy-ship-off-east-coast-us-officials-say.html

jeffbr

Cliffy6745 said:

If we want to talk about White House affairs, is there any doubt that Trump is piping Kellyanne?

Ha, yeah, but only in his mind. He's probably been mainlining Propecia for so long that he can't get it up.

EdsonNascimento

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

ledvedderman said:

EdsonNascimento said:

ledvedderman said:

EdsonNascimento said:

my2hands said:

so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?

lol what a joke

Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?

You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.

So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?

Well, now you know Trump's plan. Get Russia to point nuclear warheads at us from close range, and the libs will only remember that he "stopped" them.

https://youtu.be/ctDhwraJRxs

Actually, I said it in jest, but it's actually happening. Russia has deployed missiles. I think the only thing my joke missed is that Putin is doing that to HELP Trump, so when he backs down, Trump is back in everyone's good graces. Ummm. Ok. Now I've gone too far. But, the Putin-Trump thing is spot on.

Well it is quite interesting. Why is Putin choosing now to start violating a treaty? Why not in the last 6 years since he took office? Why not test Obama. The whole thing is curious to say the least.

Well, technically he did do some things while Obama was in office that technically violated the treaty. But, this is clearly on a different level (if in fact you believe its all real and not posturing).

mfc2006

from The Daily Show

PJfanwillneverleave1

Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.

Halifax2TheMax

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.

yea, sure Donald. It takes more than tweeting.