Verified Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


homersapien last won the day on August 21 2016

homersapien had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,538 Sterling

About homersapien

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,964 profile views
  1. Irony https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-lindsey-graham-says-he-told-john-mccain-to-give-trump-russia-dossier-to-fbi/2019/03/25/f35e28ca-4f26-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.86a4e9e58867 Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday he had told Sen. John McCain to give the FBI the dossier on the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, a revelation that comes after Trump repeatedly assailed the late Arizona Republican over the issue. Last week, Trump accused McCain of handing over the document “for very evil purposes.” McCain died of brain cancer in August. Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters Monday McCain showed him the dossier when he received it in late 2016. “And I told him the only thing I knew to do with it, it could be a bunch of garbage, it could be true, who knows? Turn it over to somebody whose job it is to find these things out, and John McCain acted appropriately,” Graham said, according to CNN. Graham said he “was very direct” with Trump on the issue and told the president McCain “deserves better” than Trump’s recent public attacks on him. The infamous dossier, compiled for Democrats by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, contains a number of unverified claims about Trump’s alleged Russia connections. Earlier this month, Trump falsely claimed in a tweet that McCain had “sent the Fake Dossier to the FBI and Media hoping to have it printed BEFORE the Election.” “He & the Dems, working together, failed (as usual). Even the Fake News refused this garbage!” Trump said in the tweet. McCain was not made aware of the Steele dossier until Nov. 18, 2016 — after Trump had won the election. And while McCain himself gave the dossier to the FBI, there is no evidence he gave it to the media. Former McCain aide David Kramer, a Russia expert, has testified that he gave the dossier to the media in December 2016.
  2. I am still waiting on a specific quote that reflects Schiff's alleged unfairness/intemperance/misrepresentation/lying.
  3. Nevertheless, I would prefer we ignore each other in the future.
  4. Interesting article discussing the current state of politics in the country. As someone who clearly remembers the Nixon Watergate scandal, I find it frightening. The reaction to AG William Barr’s Mueller letter reveals a disturbing truth about America. Attorney General William Barr’s summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report has not resolved all of the disputes surrounding Donald Trump’s ties to Russia during the 2016 election. But the reaction to it has revealed one of the ways in which American politics is deeply and profoundly broken. Democrats have responded to Barr’s summary by calling the attorney general’s impartiality into question (not entirely without reason). Leading members of Congress have raised the alarm about “very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department” and are pushing for the full release of Mueller’s report and for Barr to testify under oath. Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, have responded by blasting “the biased media” for spreading “a collective scam and fraud.” The chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), even called for investigations into the FBI’s investigation itself, to see if the bureau’s pursuit of Trump and his allies was in any way improper. A quick gander at social media shows this polarized reaction from partisan politicians is reflected in their parties’ respective media surrogates and rank-and-file voters. There’s not even a pretense of neutrality: Everyone is reading what they want into Barr’s letter, establishing a reality in which their side is right and the other side is making things up. Barr’s document is particularly vague on some points, an ambiguity heightened by the fact that no one weighing in — from either side — has read the full report. But even the most unequivocal report would be subject to the deeper forces: the death of the neutral arbiter. All in all, this reflects a collapse in trust in two core American institutions: politically independent federal law enforcement and the free press. This lack of faith, combined with a concomitant rise in partisanship, means that virtually every major political event is interpreted through a partisan lens. There’s no political institution widely accepted as being neutral anymore; instead, Americans judge the quality of the country’s leading institutions based on how favorable each one’s outputs are to their political interests..... Read the rest at: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/25/18280802/donald-trump-mueller-report-barr-news-trust
  5. If UCF's Taco Fall had a vertical of more than 10-12 inches he'd dominate the game. All you would need is to feed him high alley-oops.
  6. Why did you ask if I thought "we would be dead in 12 years"? Why did you take issue when all I said was the IPCC report didn't mention extinction? You are just trying to be disagreeable. You have misrepresented many of my posts. In fact it's typical. And you always include the obligatory insult. Always. (See above.) Please, ignore me from now on and I will return the favor.
  7. Lots of Sturm und Drang, generalized accusations and ranting but no specifics. Sounds a lot like this forum. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/25/kellyanne-conway-adam-schiff-resign-1234370
  8. "That's like your opinion, man." You don't think much of Mueller do you? Why is that?
  9. Is that supposed to be a clarification and apology for the confusing ambiguity inherent in your subject post? If so, it's sort of incoherent. The bolded part sounds more like a rant. I don't know what you mean by "article" and I am not arguing AOC's understanding of the report. You inferred her complete statement came from the IPCC report. All I am arguing is that the IPCC report didn't mention extinction at all. AOC apparently misunderstood it. Granted you only mentioned the "12 year part" in the first sentence, but your subsequent statements indicated you were talking about her complete statement, including the term "extinction". (See especially the second sentence in red.) And the only thing I said to spark the below response was to say AOC misunderstood what the report said, which is true. She got the 12 years right, but the IPCC paper said nothing about extinction. "Extinction" is the key word here. And that was my only point So, I said AOC misunderstood the IPCC report and you responded (emphasis mine): "Look, AOC did, in fact, say 12 years. She got that from a UN Paper. (What you "believe" in that head of yours is another matter.) Are you saying that we are all going to die in 12 years then? If not, then welcome to reality with the rest of us where AOC does, in fact, say crazy s*** from time to time. And she got that crazy s*** from a UN paper." What an over-the top response to a post saying AOC didn't understand what the IPCC report said. And you cannot even clarify your position without getting snarky and insulting. David, you are just an unpleasant person who is apparently incapable of having a civil conversation, at least with me. I should stop trying - and probably would if you weren't constantly misrepresenting my posts. So please start ignoring me and I will reciprocate. Deal?
  10. What is the "lie" you are specifically referring to? Can you quote it please? Surprise me with a "first".
  11. Just because you don't understand someone's point doesn't mean it's a lie. The appropriate response is to ask for clarification. And it's possible to disagree with someone's point when you do understand it without calling them a liar. And calling someone a liar - in particular the worst liar you have ever known - without actually producing the lie is nothing more than pathetic poo flinging. You are one strange dude. Fortunately, you are self-revealing.
  12. Nope. "Tiny bits" of evidence don't generate indictments. Of course, DOJ policy holds Trump immune from indictment in the first place.
  13. So are you denying the Russians tried to help Trump defeat Clinton? And seriously, "apologize" for investigating it??
  14. Well, largely due to the way the internet has changed the political environment, and the closeness of the election, this is probably the first one they had a real possibility of actually influencing. That gets people's attention.
  15. Does "accepting" Mueller's report mean not wanting to read it?