Chat Forum
It is currently Sat May 26, 2018 10:37 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75500 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761 ... 1888  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23338
Location: Middle East
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

he has the right to privacy.


I'd say running for president kind of means he doesn't.

Also, 'altruist' :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: He doesn't give a flying f*ck about anyone who doesn't advance his own interests.



Who ? The lawyer ? I am talking of his rights.


He deserves a medal, throwing himself on this pornstar grenade for his client like that. And not even getting paid. The man's a saint!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15884
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

he has the right to privacy.


I'd say running for president kind of means he doesn't.

Also, 'altruist' :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: He doesn't give a flying f*ck about anyone who doesn't advance his own interests.



Who ? The lawyer ? I am talking of his rights.


Oh him. He has many rights, but the right to talk completely transparent bullshit and not be called on it isn't one of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29203
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

he has the right to privacy.


I'd say running for president kind of means he doesn't.

Also, 'altruist' :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: He doesn't give a flying f*ck about anyone who doesn't advance his own interests.



Who ? The lawyer ? I am talking of his rights.


Oh him. He has many rights, but the right to talk completely transparent bullshit and not be called on it isn't one of them.



I reckon he can handle it. He is a lawyer, after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29203
Turbogoat wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

he has the right to privacy.


I'd say running for president kind of means he doesn't.

Also, 'altruist' :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: He doesn't give a flying f*ck about anyone who doesn't advance his own interests.



Who ? The lawyer ? I am talking of his rights.


He deserves a medal, throwing himself on this pornstar grenade for his client like that. And not even getting paid. The man's a saint!



Yup.

And some people say lawyers are immoral, dishonest fokkers .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:27 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42324
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

My understanding is that only parents, spouses, siblings and children of a green card holder can immigrate under the family migration system. If so, what is the major problem with this?

Similarly, people applying through the visa lottery have to go through reasonably rigorous vetting at present. Clearly any system can be improved but are there any fundamental flaws with teh current system?


Most migration rules around the world allow you to migrate with your spouse and minor children so let’s not pretend that ending this is a) unusual or b) racist (as DT shrilly contends).

The issue with extending it to parents and siblings is that it adds a very large multiplier when your parents add their siblings who add their children, or your siblings add their spouses and their parents and siblings, who do the same and on and on.

Not saying that it’s right or wrong but it certainly is unusual and ending it is not white supremicism as Mr dialled up to 11 on the shrill-o-meter would have you believe.


Is that actually how it works? If one person has his green card and his parents gain their visa as entitled to, can they then immediately add their siblings and their children? I thought it was all based on the relationship with the green card holder. If a sibling applies, can he then bring his wife and children?

The basic concept seems sound so surely the sensible thing would be not to end it but to revise the conditions, to narrow or tighten them.


I'm sure Japan would be fine with such a policy.


Thanks for adding 2/5 of 5/8 of fudge all to what was a decent exchange.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 431
In an astounding turn of events that absolutely no one saw coming - Sarah Sanders is caught in a blatant lie about the Rob Porter story, when the FBI director confirms the actual timeline of the security clearance background checks.

But of then even more incredibly flat out denies to reporters that she said what she said to those same reporters the day before - even though they had like cameras and tape recorders and ears and stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 36660
Location: in transit
BokJock wrote:
In an astounding turn of events that absolutely no one saw coming - Sarah Sanders is caught in a blatant lie about the Rob Porter story, when the FBI director confirms the actual timeline of the security clearance background checks.

But of then even more incredibly flat out denies to reporters that she said what she said to those same reporters the day before - even though they had like cameras and tape recorders and ears and stuff.


Alternative facts, dude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29203
guy smiley wrote:
BokJock wrote:
In an astounding turn of events that absolutely no one saw coming - Sarah Sanders is caught in a blatant lie about the Rob Porter story, when the FBI director confirms the actual timeline of the security clearance background checks.

But of then even more incredibly flat out denies to reporters that she said what she said to those same reporters the day before - even though they had like cameras and tape recorders and ears and stuff.


Alternative facts, dude.



A collective memory lapse. A contagious disease caught from several Democratic Party office bearers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23338
Location: Middle East
BokJock wrote:
In an astounding turn of events that absolutely no one saw coming - Sarah Sanders is caught in a blatant lie about the Rob Porter story, when the FBI director confirms the actual timeline of the security clearance background checks.

But of then even more incredibly flat out denies to reporters that she said what she said to those same reporters the day before - even though they had like cameras and tape recorders and ears and stuff.


Was that the day when she had an incredibly sour look on her face?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5033
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

he has the right to privacy.


I'd say running for president kind of means he doesn't.

Also, 'altruist' :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: He doesn't give a flying f*ck about anyone who doesn't advance his own interests.



Who ? The lawyer ? I am talking of his rights.


Oh him. He has many rights, but the right to talk completely transparent bullshit and not be called on it isn't one of them.


Is this the same lawyer who lied about... er... admitted to tweeting some incriminating statement from Trump's Twitter account or is it another one?


On the subject of that, there were no apparent consequences to pretending to be the president and using an official channel to make unapproved statements, were there?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29203
4071 wrote:
Is this the same lawyer who lied about... er... admitted to tweeting some incriminating statement from Trump's Twitter account or is it another one?


On the subject of that, there were no apparent consequences to pretending to be the president and using an official channel to make unapproved statements, were there?



If there are no consequences to invading a sovereign country, killing it's inhabitants, it's political leadership, fomenting unrest and war , and even boasting and laughing at the death of elected leaders - why should someone be prosecuted or a tweet ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:59 pm
Posts: 550
Quote:
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/20/saudi-arabia-arms-deal-us-trump.cnn


This isn't a new deal, this is a deal that began during the Obama administration. More lies as truths.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:04 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15067
Location: South Oxfordshire
100MileDad wrote:
Quote:
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/20/saudi-arabia-arms-deal-us-trump.cnn


This isn't a new deal, this is a deal that began during the Obama administration. More lies as truths.


Not sure what you're complaining about here?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4561
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
4071 wrote:
Is this the same lawyer who lied about... er... admitted to tweeting some incriminating statement from Trump's Twitter account or is it another one?


On the subject of that, there were no apparent consequences to pretending to be the president and using an official channel to make unapproved statements, were there?



If there are no consequences to invading a sovereign country, killing it's inhabitants, it's political leadership, fomenting unrest and war , and even boasting and laughing at the death of elected leaders - why should someone be prosecuted or a tweet ?

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7624
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
Bokkom wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
4071 wrote:
Is this the same lawyer who lied about... er... admitted to tweeting some incriminating statement from Trump's Twitter account or is it another one?


On the subject of that, there were no apparent consequences to pretending to be the president and using an official channel to make unapproved statements, were there?



If there are no consequences to invading a sovereign country, killing it's inhabitants, it's political leadership, fomenting unrest and war , and even boasting and laughing at the death of elected leaders - why should someone be prosecuted or a tweet ?

:thumbup:

Or a blowjob?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29203
houtkabouter wrote:
Or a blowjob?


I've been watching your posts for the past few weeks. Always going for the man, mostly in a cowardly, sniping way ..

Jissus man, be a fokken MAN, stand up and be counted, do not be such a slinking creeping coward ....

Sies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 431
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
4071 wrote:
Is this the same lawyer who lied about... er... admitted to tweeting some incriminating statement from Trump's Twitter account or is it another one?


On the subject of that, there were no apparent consequences to pretending to be the president and using an official channel to make unapproved statements, were there?



If there are no consequences to invading a sovereign country, killing it's inhabitants, it's political leadership, fomenting unrest and war , and even boasting and laughing at the death of elected leaders - why should someone be prosecuted or a tweet ?


Decent post.

You could also argue that BOTH should be prosecuted (your example being valid and far more serious of course)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:59 pm
Posts: 550
Saint wrote:
100MileDad wrote:
Quote:
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/20/saudi-arabia-arms-deal-us-trump.cnn


This isn't a new deal, this is a deal that began during the Obama administration. More lies as truths.


Not sure what you're complaining about here?


The link was posted after it was decided that Trump isn't the primary cause for Saudi getting all uppity, as was suggested.


Last edited by 100MileDad on Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4561
Bickering about tweets and Western war criminals are still walking around scot free. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney. What they have done is there for everyone to see; the most uneducated citizen of the world can clearly understand what they have done.
Justice, anyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 431
Bokkom wrote:
Bickering about tweets and Western war criminals are still walking around scot free. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney. What they have done is there for everyone to see; the most uneducated citizen of the world can clearly understand what they have done.
Justice, anyone?


your argument seems to be - "murder is worse than shop lifting, so we shouldn't mention the shoplifting"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19471
Bokkom wrote:
Bickering about tweets and Western war criminals are still walking around scot free. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney. What they have done is there for everyone to see; the most uneducated citizen of the world can clearly understand what they have done.
Justice, anyone?


I'd like to see all of them in jail, without a doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12372
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
_fatprop wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:


The Visa system is pretty merit based as it is. unless you don't think a guy with a bachelors in Electrical engineering and a masters in environmentally progressive engineering is not merit. But as usual you just go off a tabloid rag and don't know the caliber of Visa winners.

As for family migration why should it end? it is the bedrock of this country and it has had continued positive effect in this country. Why do you think Miller alter reports or won't release them?

There is no statistical reason for this outside of xenophobia. Business people disagree with the changes as well as academics.


Diversity Visa applicants only need a High School Education to go into the lottery, you highlight my point someone with a "bachelors in Electrical engineering and a masters in environmentally progressive engineering" should not need to go into a random lottery, merit based system is simply fairer.

Family migration? It would be politically prudent to get DACA through and fix Family Migration under the next Dem president. And that would be before the current applicants have even been processed.



The next Dem president already will have to repair the economy, America's global image, the ACA, the Civil rights dept of the DOJ and every other thing Trump has ruined. How about we not add more to his plate. My point is the VISA lottery gives well educated people a chance as well as not so well educated. What about the low education labor Trump continues to employ at Mar-a-lago? Aren't those type of workers needed in the country too?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 431
BokJock wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
Bickering about tweets and Western war criminals are still walking around scot free. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney. What they have done is there for everyone to see; the most uneducated citizen of the world can clearly understand what they have done.
Justice, anyone?


your argument seems to be - "murder is worse than shop lifting, so we shouldn't mention the shoplifting"


I do agree with those guys being war criminals though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4561
BokJock wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
Bickering about tweets and Western war criminals are still walking around scot free. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney. What they have done is there for everyone to see; the most uneducated citizen of the world can clearly understand what they have done.
Justice, anyone?


your argument seems to be - "murder is worse than shop lifting, so we shouldn't mention the shoplifting"

Now that your are mentioning it. A couple of years ago I discussed the issue of bicycle theft with some police officers in Caledon. They told me, without blinking an eye, that because there were so many more serious crimes to contend with, they actively stopped investigating bicycle theft. :?
Back to your point: Of course we should mention the shoplifting, but why did we let the murderers walk away without even bringing them to trial? Here I also blame the (supposedly) watchdogs of the common man - the mainstream media.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 431
Bokkom wrote:
BokJock wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
Bickering about tweets and Western war criminals are still walking around scot free. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney. What they have done is there for everyone to see; the most uneducated citizen of the world can clearly understand what they have done.
Justice, anyone?


your argument seems to be - "murder is worse than shop lifting, so we shouldn't mention the shoplifting"

Now that your are mentioning it. A couple of years ago I discussed the issue of bicycle theft with some police officers in Caledon. They told me, without blinking an eye, that because there were so many more serious crimes to contend with, they actively stopped investigating bicycle theft. :?
Back to your point: Of course we should mention the shoplifting, but why did we let the murderers walk away without even bringing them to trial? Here I also blame the (supposedly) watchdogs of the common man - the mainstream media.


See above, I realized after I posted that I forgot to mention I greed with war criminal bit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12372
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Santa wrote:
Here's a very interesting article on the spate of judicial rulings against the Trump administration. It's quite long but well worth the read.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/judicial-resistance

He explores the notion of judicial resistance.

The guts of it is that, in his view, many judges have abandoned the normal way of treating executive power by:
1.
Quote:
abandoned the traditional deference afforded to the President based on Trump’s conduct. That is, the presumption of regularity has been abandoned


2.
Quote:
courts have been motivated to reach out to resolve difficult constitutional questions when countless prudential barriers (standing, justiciability, constitutional avoidance, etc.), which would usually be adhered to, are ignored. In particular, the courts have shown no hesitation in second-guessing the government’s national security rationales, and have even demanded confidential White House documents to assuage their concerns


3.
Quote:
the courts have repeatedly questioned the president’s motivations as acting in bad faith, and doubted government lawyers who have offered legitimate reasons in court


That happens when the president is calling for a muslim ban then the DoJ is court trying to say it is not and so on. It is tough to argue that you are not being a bigot when your boss is yelling bigoted things!! Remember too, a tweet is now consider a presidential document as if he was doing a press conference and stating for the record. IT IS EVIDENCE.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12372
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Santa wrote:
shanky wrote:
Santa wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
shanky wrote:
Except that’s not what he wrote.



Calling somebody by some or other vaunted (and unearned) pejorative (white supremacist, by DT, in this case) is absolutely SO PR and divorced from reality.

If white supremacists finally get a real say in the USA government, I do not want to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth ...


I've got no idea what Shanky is on about. I accidentally wrote borders when I meant to write immigration. Maybe that's it.



You were explaining that the proposed border policy was, in fact a product of white supremacy but questioning why that was such a big deal because, you know, other theoretical examples may exist elsewhere to the same effect


No. I was suggesting that it is normal to want to control immigration into your country and to control immigration is not necessarily an expression of racial or ethnic superiority, which is what DT claimed.


I was refering to the Trump offer but don't let me stop you from proving your one-eyed stupidity. Please carry on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12372
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
zt1903 wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

That is a f**king white supremist ransom note. I would do a Dreamers for the funding for the wall but not touching Family migration or the Visa lottery.


My understanding is that only parents, spouses, siblings and children of a green card holder can immigrate under the family migration system. If so, what is the major problem with this?

Similarly, people applying through the visa lottery have to go through reasonably rigorous vetting at present. Clearly any system can be improved but are there any fundamental flaws with teh current system?


Most migration rules around the world allow you to migrate with your spouse and minor children so let’s not pretend that ending this is a) unusual or b) racist (as DT shrilly contends).

The issue with extending it to parents and siblings is that it adds a very large multiplier when your parents add their siblings who add their children, or your siblings add their spouses and their parents and siblings, who do the same and on and on.

Not saying that it’s right or wrong but it certainly is unusual and ending it is not white supremicism as Mr dialled up to 11 on the shrill-o-meter would have you believe.


As I told your fellow one-eyed loon, I was talking about the Trump/Cotton proposal regarding Dreamers, when I called it a white supremacist ransom note but go ahead Mr. dailed up to 12 on the bull shit meter.

As long as they are not a criminal and you sign off on the affidavit of support and they become contributing citizens, what is the problem. Immigrants are making the country better. The move into bad neighborhoods and make them good again. They come from countries with low immigration to the US as it is. Finally, the US is to the left of many countries on this which is very rare as most of the time it is on the far right. However, this is a basic tenet of American history and because the stats (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigrants ... -7-charts/) bare out that it is positive for the country on several levels the only argument for it is based on xenophobia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5033
houtkabouter wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
4071 wrote:
Is this the same lawyer who lied about... er... admitted to tweeting some incriminating statement from Trump's Twitter account or is it another one?


On the subject of that, there were no apparent consequences to pretending to be the president and using an official channel to make unapproved statements, were there?



If there are no consequences to invading a sovereign country, killing it's inhabitants, it's political leadership, fomenting unrest and war , and even boasting and laughing at the death of elected leaders - why should someone be prosecuted or a tweet ?

:thumbup:

Or a blowjob?

Or indeed anything at all! The last defence of the Trumpist is nihilism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11992
Deadtigers wrote:
As long as they are not a criminal and you sign off on the affidavit of support and they become contributing citizens, what is the problem. Immigrants are making the country better. The move into bad neighborhoods and make them good again. They come from countries with low immigration to the US as it is. Finally, the US is to the left of many countries on this which is very rare as most of the time it is on the far right. However, this is a basic tenet of American history and because the stats (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigrants ... -7-charts/) bare out that it is positive for the country on several levels the only argument for it is based on xenophobia.


Agree with this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12372
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bokkom wrote:
BokJock wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
Bickering about tweets and Western war criminals are still walking around scot free. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney. What they have done is there for everyone to see; the most uneducated citizen of the world can clearly understand what they have done.
Justice, anyone?


your argument seems to be - "murder is worse than shop lifting, so we shouldn't mention the shoplifting"

Now that your are mentioning it. A couple of years ago I discussed the issue of bicycle theft with some police officers in Caledon. They told me, without blinking an eye, that because there were so many more serious crimes to contend with, they actively stopped investigating bicycle theft. :?
Back to your point: Of course we should mention the shoplifting, but why did we let the murderers walk away without even bringing them to trial? Here I also blame the (supposedly) watchdogs of the common man - the mainstream media.


Too big to fail (or fall in this case). I don't disagree with you at all. The media completely dropped the ball on this as they let circular logic prevail and now act like they didn't know they were being feed lies and publishing lies. But the only people that could try Bush would be the Hague and they specialize in going after dictators and despots, never major western leaders, though they should.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6123
I don't think Cohen said Donald Trump didn't reimburse him the money he paid. He said neither the Trump Organisation or Trump Campaign paid him back (which makes sense, as it was in response to the election commission investigating the payment). Looks like a very deliberate avoidance as to whether Trump personally paid him back. As plausible deniability is the only thing that is keeping the entire presidency above water, it would be more shocking if it wasn't very carefully worded that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29203
Regarding the low educated . Doesn't the USA have their own uneducated/challenged people to help before taking in low educated labour from outside ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29203
Demilich wrote:
I don't think Cohen said Donald Trump didn't reimburse him the money he paid. He said neither the Trump Organisation or Trump Campaign paid him back (which makes sense, as it was in response to the election commission investigating the payment). Looks like a very deliberate avoidance as to whether Trump personally paid him back. As plausible deniability is the only thing that is keeping the entire presidency above water, it would be more shocking if it wasn't very carefully worded that way.



Keep on, you will find a whole book filled with suspicions, this way.

None of any importance, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4561
Deadtigers wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
BokJock wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
Bickering about tweets and Western war criminals are still walking around scot free. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney. What they have done is there for everyone to see; the most uneducated citizen of the world can clearly understand what they have done.
Justice, anyone?


your argument seems to be - "murder is worse than shop lifting, so we shouldn't mention the shoplifting"

Now that your are mentioning it. A couple of years ago I discussed the issue of bicycle theft with some police officers in Caledon. They told me, without blinking an eye, that because there were so many more serious crimes to contend with, they actively stopped investigating bicycle theft. :?
Back to your point: Of course we should mention the shoplifting, but why did we let the murderers walk away without even bringing them to trial? Here I also blame the (supposedly) watchdogs of the common man - the mainstream media.


Too big to fail (or fall in this case). I don't disagree with you at all. The media completely dropped the ball on this as they let circular logic prevail and now act like they didn't know they were being feed lies and publishing lies. But the only people that could try Bush ;) would be the Hague and they specialize in going after dictators and despots, never major western leaders, though they should.

Let's rather talk about Trump.
This common sense makes me feel a bit uneasy. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6123
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Demilich wrote:
I don't think Cohen said Donald Trump didn't reimburse him the money he paid. He said neither the Trump Organisation or Trump Campaign paid him back (which makes sense, as it was in response to the election commission investigating the payment). Looks like a very deliberate avoidance as to whether Trump personally paid him back. As plausible deniability is the only thing that is keeping the entire presidency above water, it would be more shocking if it wasn't very carefully worded that way.



Keep on, you will find a whole book filled with suspicions, this way.

None of any importance, though.


It makes it less suspicious if Trump actually paid him back, you racist old dullard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12372
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Regarding the low educated . Doesn't the USA have their own uneducated/challenged people to help before taking in low educated labour from outside ?


Ask the president. http://www.newsweek.com/trump-gets-visa ... dge-702295


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29203
Demilich wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Demilich wrote:
I don't think Cohen said Donald Trump didn't reimburse him the money he paid. He said neither the Trump Organisation or Trump Campaign paid him back (which makes sense, as it was in response to the election commission investigating the payment). Looks like a very deliberate avoidance as to whether Trump personally paid him back. As plausible deniability is the only thing that is keeping the entire presidency above water, it would be more shocking if it wasn't very carefully worded that way.



Keep on, you will find a whole book filled with suspicions, this way.

None of any importance, though.


It makes it less suspicious if Trump actually paid him back, you racist old dullard.



I do not think they care a fig if you find things "suspicious". You are of exactly zero importance to them. As to MST other people, me included.

You dumb young plum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29203
Deadtigers wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Regarding the low educated . Doesn't the USA have their own uneducated/challenged people to help before taking in low educated labour from outside ?


Ask the president. http://www.newsweek.com/trump-gets-visa ... dge-702295



Probably like South Africa. Where the menial labour market is overflowing, yet immigrants secure most jobs, due to better work ethic. Hell, I had a graduated Zimbabwean trying out for a gardner's job. Luckily I could help him find decent emoyment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12372
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bokkom wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
BokJock wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
Bickering about tweets and Western war criminals are still walking around scot free. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney. What they have done is there for everyone to see; the most uneducated citizen of the world can clearly understand what they have done.
Justice, anyone?


your argument seems to be - "murder is worse than shop lifting, so we shouldn't mention the shoplifting"

Now that your are mentioning it. A couple of years ago I discussed the issue of bicycle theft with some police officers in Caledon. They told me, without blinking an eye, that because there were so many more serious crimes to contend with, they actively stopped investigating bicycle theft. :?
Back to your point: Of course we should mention the shoplifting, but why did we let the murderers walk away without even bringing them to trial? Here I also blame the (supposedly) watchdogs of the common man - the mainstream media.


Too big to fail (or fall in this case). I don't disagree with you at all. The media completely dropped the ball on this as they let circular logic prevail and now act like they didn't know they were being feed lies and publishing lies. But the only people that could try Bush ;) would be the Hague and they specialize in going after dictators and despots, never major western leaders, though they should.

Let's rather talk about Trump.
This common sense makes me feel a bit uneasy. ;)


Your view on politics and politicians isn't always askew. It is more how you chose to have a blindspot then hold tight to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75500 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761 ... 1888  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Achahoish, alliswell, BBB, Big Nipper, Bing [Bot], Blackrock Bullet, Chilli, Cookie Monster, Denirostaxidriver, Double, duke, EverReady, Farva, Idle_Wild, Marshall Banana, obelixtim, rfurlong, Rinkals, Saint, Scrummie, sewa, SilverGrin, small fry, Ted., The Man Without Fear, UncleFB, unseenwork, Waka Nathan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group