Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:49 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80502 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759 ... 2013  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23774
Location: Middle East
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Michael Cohen - personal lawyer of Trump - has come forward and claimed that he paid Stormy Daniels - visual performance artist - 130 grand of his own money, and that neither Trump no the Trump campaign repaid him for this.
He said he will "always protect Trump."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/13/poli ... index.html



Ag, he will pad his fees, a bit, and make it back.

Good to see some personal loyalty, in these modern times.

Quote:
"Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage.


It's cool how he goes out of his way to say it avoid saying that isn't true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6545
houtkabouter wrote:
Santa wrote:
I can't work out which is worse: the white supremacist plot to control US immigration or the sino supremacist plot to control Chinese borders or the hispanic supremacist plot to control Mexican borders or the white supremacist plot to control New Zealand's borders or the Aboriginal supremacist plot to control Australian borders.

Almost certainly the white ones.

The various bantu supremacist plots to control various African borders are morally good.

I don’t know why you can’t work it out. You’re an intelligent guy and it’s an easy problem.

Lots of people rape. Doesn’t make it okay, specially when you’re essentially the self professed role model for the world.


So you tell me which is worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6545
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30172
https://www.news24.com/World/News/trump ... e-20180213


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30172
Turbogoat wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Michael Cohen - personal lawyer of Trump - has come forward and claimed that he paid Stormy Daniels - visual performance artist - 130 grand of his own money, and that neither Trump no the Trump campaign repaid him for this.
He said he will "always protect Trump."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/13/poli ... index.html



Ag, he will pad his fees, a bit, and make it back.

Good to see some personal loyalty, in these modern times.

Quote:
"Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage.


It's cool how he goes out of his way to say it avoid saying that isn't true.



Many things you can say he says, what you pull from that. All imaginary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 636
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Michael Cohen - personal lawyer of Trump - has come forward and claimed that he paid Stormy Daniels - visual performance artist - 130 grand of his own money, and that neither Trump no the Trump campaign repaid him for this.
He said he will "always protect Trump."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/13/poli ... index.html



Ag, he will pad his fees, a bit, and make it back.

Good to see some personal loyalty, in these modern times.

Quote:
"Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage.


So Trump got his lawyer to pay off his mistress and then paid his lawyer back through 'fees' - come on you anti-Trumpists nothing to see here, move on already FFS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6545
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10587
BokJock wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Michael Cohen - personal lawyer of Trump - has come forward and claimed that he paid Stormy Daniels - visual performance artist - 130 grand of his own money, and that neither Trump no the Trump campaign repaid him for this.
He said he will "always protect Trump."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/13/poli ... index.html



Ag, he will pad his fees, a bit, and make it back.

Good to see some personal loyalty, in these modern times.

Quote:
"Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage.


So Trump got his lawyer to pay off his mistress and then paid his lawyer back through 'fees' - come on you anti-Trumpists nothing to see here, move on already FFS


Cohen's reply is wonderfully wanky - and in a greater surprise since the Orange shitgibbon twatted some shite, WT sees this as a great form of loyalty... :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9443
Kiwias wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
Quote:
Mark Herring

@MarkHerringVA
*BREAKING* A federal judge has blocked President @realDonaldTrump's unlawful order ending the #DACA program and granted our request for a nationwide injunction.

3:49 PM - Feb 13, 2018
2,671
1,486 people are talking about this



Democrats should just accept the deal for 1.8mil, it isn't unreasonable

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/trump-d ... ntary.html


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10587
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


or it could be, just maybe that the courts view the Orange shitgibbon's legislation as a pile of shite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6545
Hong Kong wrote:
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


or it could be, just maybe that the courts view the Orange shitgibbon's legislation as a pile of shite


You didn't read it did you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32548
Santa wrote:
I can't work out which is worse: the white supremacist plot to control US immigration or the sino supremacist plot to control Chinese borders or the hispanic supremacist plot to control Mexican borders or the white supremacist plot to control New Zealand's borders or the Aboriginal supremacist plot to control Australian borders.

Almost certainly the white ones.

The various bantu supremacist plots to control various African borders are morally good.


I imagine wakanda has some pretty good border control. I wonder if Tommy can get in because his brother has a degree in electrical engineering from Luton poly and has a job installing sky dishes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30172
BokJock wrote:
So Trump got his lawyer to pay off his mistress and then paid his lawyer back through 'fees' - come on you anti-Trumpists nothing to see here, move on already FFS



Where do you get that ?

You can think what you want, you can sometimes even do what you want, but you cannot (rightfully) always say what you want ... Goes for you, me and Donald Trump.

BTW - I thought she was a prostitute, not a mistress. Or is this another one ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30172
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Santa wrote:
I can't work out which is worse: the white supremacist plot to control US immigration or the sino supremacist plot to control Chinese borders or the hispanic supremacist plot to control Mexican borders or the white supremacist plot to control New Zealand's borders or the Aboriginal supremacist plot to control Australian borders.

Almost certainly the white ones.

The various bantu supremacist plots to control various African borders are morally good.


I imagine wakanda has some pretty good border control. I wonder if Tommy can get in because his brother has a degree in electrical engineering from Luton poly and has a job installing sky dishes.



I know the SA-Lesotho border well.
Anybody can cross those borders almost with impunity (if they are athletic and can climb mountains)

Problem is, nobody wants to STAY in Lesotho.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30172
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Santa wrote:
I can't work out which is worse: the white supremacist plot to control US immigration or the sino supremacist plot to control Chinese borders or the hispanic supremacist plot to control Mexican borders or the white supremacist plot to control New Zealand's borders or the Aboriginal supremacist plot to control Australian borders.

Almost certainly the white ones.

The various bantu supremacist plots to control various African borders are morally good.


I imagine wakanda has some pretty good border control. I wonder if Tommy can get in because his brother has a degree in electrical engineering from Luton poly and has a job installing sky dishes.



The bolded. Is bloody funny :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16615
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
BokJock wrote:
So Trump got his lawyer to pay off his mistress and then paid his lawyer back through 'fees' - come on you anti-Trumpists nothing to see here, move on already FFS



Where do you get that ?

You can think what you want, you can sometimes even do what you want, but you cannot (rightfully) always say what you want ... Goes for you, me and Donald Trump.

BTW - I thought she was a prostitute, not a mistress. Or is this another one ?


She was a porn star, but I don't think there's been any suggestion Trump was paying her to have sex.

As for the bolded bit....c'mon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:14 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 43938
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 636
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
BokJock wrote:
So Trump got his lawyer to pay off his mistress and then paid his lawyer back through 'fees' - come on you anti-Trumpists nothing to see here, move on already FFS


Where do you get that ?

You can think what you want, you can sometimes even do what you want, but you cannot (rightfully) always say what you want ... Goes for you, me and Donald Trump.

BTW - I thought she was a prostitute, not a mistress. Or is this another one ?


Why else did he pay the money? and if it was just to make a 'bogus' story go away - why not admit to paying it when the story eventually broke. it would have made more sense at that stage to say she was out for the money and it was fake news than try to cover it up.

And also she admitted to the affair in an interview in 2011.

On your last point - I wasn't aware that he paid her, if so that makes things worse


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32548
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30172
BokJock wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
BokJock wrote:
So Trump got his lawyer to pay off his mistress and then paid his lawyer back through 'fees' - come on you anti-Trumpists nothing to see here, move on already FFS


Where do you get that ?

You can think what you want, you can sometimes even do what you want, but you cannot (rightfully) always say what you want ... Goes for you, me and Donald Trump.

BTW - I thought she was a prostitute, not a mistress. Or is this another one ?


Why else did he pay the money? and if it was just to make a 'bogus' story go away - why not admit to paying it when the story eventually broke. it would have made more sense at that stage to say she was out for the money and it was fake news than try to cover it up.

And also she admitted to the affair in an interview in 2011.

On your last point - I wasn't aware that he paid her, if so that makes things worse


Many "Why ?s"

Maybe because he is an altruist. Etc. It is his personal stuff, he has the right to privacy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16615
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 636
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

Maybe because he is an altruist. Etc. It is his personal stuff, he has the right to privacy.


Cool Officer Barbrady, that satisfies all my questions surrounding this. Won't mention it again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30172
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23774
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: 16615
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: 30172
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: 30172
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: 43938
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: 636
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 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38306
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: 30172
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: 23774
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: 5391
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: 30172
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 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15476
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: 4644
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: 7898
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: 30172
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: 636
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80502 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759 ... 2013  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 749a, Bing [Bot], Boomslang, comets, ElementFreak, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, UncleFB 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