What a Buffoon

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
3RA1N1AC said:
all photos from all media should be neither flattering or non-flattering. People need to only consume sugar free vanilla ice cream, anything else will trigger a tummy ache.
Click to expand...

And always wait an hour after eating before any Russian watersports.

barfo
 
tlongII said:
No they aren't, but if you research it you will see that the New York Times photographer that took the photos had an axe to grind. He took many more photos than the ones published. Why do you think they chose those photos to be published? I'm certain there were photos of the ceremony that were more flattering.
Click to expand...

So you wanna pacify this ass? I'm confused... Just because the media holds his feet to the fire doesn't mean they have an axe to grind. Not sure why so many people are in protection mode over this piece of shit.
 
dviss1 said:
Not sure why so many people are in protection mode over this piece of shit.
Click to expand...

Haven't you ever taken a shit, noticed how attractive and sweet-smelling it is, and then showed it to all your friends and kept it on your pillow at night?

No? Me neither, but that's the sort of thinking that's involved here.

barfo
 
dviss1 said:
So you wanna pacify this ass? I'm confused... Just because the media holds his feet to the fire doesn't mean they have an axe to grind. Not sure why so many people are in protection mode over this piece of shit.
Click to expand...

No, I don't want to pacify him. I want him to be treated like any other president. That isn't happening.
 
tlongII said:
No, I don't want to pacify him. I want him to be treated like any other president. That isn't happening.
Click to expand...

So you want him treated like Barack was?
obama_racist_sign_hussein.jpg
AIAfKOM.jpg
Obama-noose.jpg
obamabucks3.jpg


Don't Re-Nig????
renig.png
hqdefault.jpg
 
dviss1 said:
So you want him treated like Barack was?
obama_racist_sign_hussein.jpg
AIAfKOM.jpg
Obama-noose.jpg
obamabucks3.jpg


Don't Re-Nig????
renig.png
hqdefault.jpg
Click to expand...

Those pictures are disgraceful. However, I believe main stream media has unquestionably been harsher toward Trump than they were toward Obama. Trump brings a lot of his criticism upon himself, but I think the media is over-doing it.
 
tlongII said:
Those pictures are disgraceful. However, I believe main stream media has unquestionably been harsher toward Trump than they were toward Obama. Trump brings a lot of his criticism upon himself, but I think the media is over-doing it.
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding me... They wouldn't say anything if he didn't give them ammo... There's PLENTY of ammo...
 
Hi lawyers don't want to put him in front of Mueller under oath because man is literally a pathological liar and they can't risk a perjury charge, on top of his Russia collusion and obstruction problems. At least Bill Clinton thought he could outthink Ken Starr. Not so the Manchurian Candidate. Pathetic.

And, btw,
  • Campaign chairman Manafort - Russian operative
  • Rick Gates, deputy campaign mamager - Russian ties
  • Natl Security Advisor Flynn - Russian Operative. Natl security advisor!!!!!
  • George Papadopoulos - Lied to the FBI about his extensive contacts with Russia
  • Roger Stone - The Trump contact with Julian Assange, Russian puppet and Wikileaks founder.
No Russia collusion? What planet are they from? Oh, I know - Planet Russki!

Lies, collusion, and Russians, oh my!
 
The Clintons under oath were perjury waiting to happen.

How on earth can the FBI let her off without putting her under oath? How could they allow her to destroy evidence by bleach-bitting the hard drive and taking hammers to devices?

Things could be much worse - she could have been elected.

Anyone who ever did business with Russians is an operative? How much money was Bill Clinton paid by Russians as speaking fees? Let's be accurate here.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of that...

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372457-ig-poised-to-reignite-war-over-fbis-clinton-case

IG poised to reignite war over FBI’s Clinton case

Few people have heard of Michael Horowitz, but that’s about to change.

Horowitz, the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general, is an increasingly critical player in the controversy surrounding the FBI, President Trump and the Russia investigation.

With little fanfare, he has been conducting a sprawling probe of the FBI’s handling of the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. His full report, which could set off shockwaves, is expected by the early spring.

A political appointee in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Horowitz’s yearlong investigation already reportedly contributed to the early resignation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. And his work has been felt in other ways.

Horowitz also uncovered a series of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that led special counsel Robert Mueller to remove Strzok from his team. Those texts have fueled accusations among GOP lawmakers that Mueller’s probe is tainted by partisanship.
 
@Denny Crane, my friend, you are a smart guy. Quite capable of making cogent, persuasive arguments. You have stopped me in my tracks more than once I hate to say, and I admire that.

Having said that, let me suggest that you are doing yourself and your take a disservice by 1) continuing to bring up Hillary, and 2) bringing up Hillary as a way to deflect against Trump's buffoonery. I think most of us tune it out now when you do that.

What I love about this forum (when I do love it) is that we can disagree without being disagreeable. You deserve for us to hear your arguments, but your Hillary obsession has blinded you a bit it seems. My take above has ZERO to do with Hillary, for example.

My 2 cents.
 
You cannot separate the Clintons from Trump because the whole Russia narrative is a product of her sore loser campaign.

My take is that there's no point in putting either on some pedestal. When put under oath, Bill Clinton did lie. He did suborn perjury by dictating Lewinsky's testimony in the court case against him.

The Clintons have done well to keep from being deposed or put under oath. Skilled lawyers make excellent white collar criminals. Too bad they have so many sycophants who refuse to admit their wrongdoing at any level.

Trump would likely fall into a perjury trap if he testifies under oath, but I don't see the reason for lying as being the same at the heart of it. His bragging is absolutely over the top and would be considered lies much of the time. If he's not precise in answering questions under oath, the results will not be good for him.

Trump has done so many deals in his career to build his fortune. It wouldn't be shocking if some of them weren't with the greatest of partners.

I think it is perfectly fair to point out the inconsistencies in your claims about who are Russian agents. The Clinton campaign and the DNC hired someone to meet with agents of the Russian government and used the (factually incorrect) Russian misinformation to prosecute what Trump (fairly) calls a witch hunt. The Clinton campaign colluded with foreign powers (Ukraine, for one) to tilt the election toward her. Why ignore it?
 
Denny Crane said:
You cannot separate the Clintons from Trump because the whole Russia narrative is a product of her sore loser campaign.

My take is that there's no point in putting either on some pedestal. When put under oath, Bill Clinton did lie. He did suborn perjury by dictating Lewinsky's testimony in the court case against him.

The Clintons have done well to keep from being deposed or put under oath. Skilled lawyers make excellent white collar criminals. Too bad they have so many sycophants who refuse to admit their wrongdoing at any level.

Trump would likely fall into a perjury trap if he testifies under oath, but I don't see the reason for lying as being the same at the heart of it. His bragging is absolutely over the top and would be considered lies much of the time. If he's not precise in answering questions under oath, the results will not be good for him.

Trump has done so many deals in his career to build his fortune. It wouldn't be shocking if some of them weren't with the greatest of partners.

I think it is perfectly fair to point out the inconsistencies in your claims about who are Russian agents. The Clinton campaign and the DNC hired someone to meet with agents of the Russian government and used the (factually incorrect) Russian misinformation to prosecute what Trump (fairly) calls a witch hunt. The Clinton campaign colluded with foreign powers (Ukraine, for one) to tilt the election toward her. Why ignore it?
Click to expand...
This is where you go off track...the whole Russian narrative is a product of Russians.....and yes Denny, you can separate Trump from Clinton...actually the whole world already has
 
"Why ignore it?"

BECAUSE SHE LOST. She has no power. It's a moot point.

It's like still obsessing over that 2000 Game 7 game between the Blazers and Lakers. Lakers won. Blazers lost. Rasheed sucked. But it's not relevant anymore.

Get over it.

No one cares about what you think Hillary did. She has no power. She's a grandma in upsate New York.
 
riverman said:
This is where you go off track...the whole Russian narrative is a product of Russians.....and yes Denny, you can separate Trump from Clinton...actually the whole world already has
Click to expand...

No, it's the product of the Clinton campaign.

HuffPost. Not Fox News.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ot-so-much-torque_us_5906e5f6e4b03b105b44ba15

Soon after Clinton’s defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. “Within 24 hours of her concession speech,” the authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta “assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

Six months later, that centerpiece of the argument is rampant ― with claims often lurching from unsubstantiated overreach to outright demagoguery.

A lavishly-funded example is the “Moscow Project,” a mega-spin effort that surfaced in midwinter as a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s led by Neera Tanden, a self-described “loyal solider” for Clinton who also runs the Center for American Progress (where she succeeded Podesta as president). The Center’s board includes several billionaires.

The “Moscow Project” is expressly inclined to go over the top, aiming to help normalize ultra-partisan conjectures as supposedly factual. And so, the homepage of the “Moscow Project” prominently declares: “Given Trump’s obedience to Vladimir Putin and the deep ties between his advisers and the Kremlin, Russia’s actions are a significant and ongoing cause for concern.”

Let’s freeze-frame how that sentence begins: “Given Trump’s obedience to Vladimir Putin.” It’s a jaw-dropping claim; a preposterous smear.
 
Stevenson said:
"Why ignore it?"

BECAUSE SHE LOST. She has no power. It's a moot point.

It's like still obsessing over that 2000 Game 7 game between the Blazers and Lakers. Lakers won. Blazers lost. Rasheed sucked. But it's not relevant anymore.

Get over it.

No one cares about what you think Hillary did. She has no power. She's a grandma in upsate New York.
Click to expand...

She lost. I'm more than over it. But... see my previous post, the HuffPost article.

No, she's not a grandma in upstate New York. She and her foundation funded support system have been highly active in promoting all this nonsense. It's not like she doesn't have friends or those favorable to her in high positions in DoJ, FBI, CIA, State, etc. That's the swamp.

Who's not over it? Those who push this Russia narrative. You don't see it, but it is what it is.
 
...

After Trump’s election triumph, the top tier of Clinton strategists quickly moved to seize as much of the narrative as they could, surely mindful of what George Orwell observed: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” After all, they hardly wanted the public discourse to dwell on Clinton’s lack of voter appeal because of her deep ties to Wall Street. Political recriminations would be much better focused on the Russian government.

In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post opinion article: “If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they’ll be with us.”

Norman Solomon is the author of a dozen books including “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death”
 
Denny Crane said:
Your point is that she's just a grandmother in NY state. HuffPost disproved that.

I disproved your point.
Click to expand...

Not everybody is as hung up on Hillary as you are, Denny. What her ex-campaign staffers do/don't push as a story line isn't that relevant.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top