Jump to content

Book Excerpt on Current White House


Brad_ATX

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Still lying.

I did say Trump would probably be impeached, but not until after the midterms.  I said nothing specific about why.

If you have the goods on me then go back to that date and time and retrieve it.  I say you are liar. 

Then what was the reason when the only game in town at the time was the bogus collusion story? 

Who is the liar here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Then what was the reason when the only game in town at the time was the bogus collusion story? 

Who is the liar here...

Doesn't have to be collusion. Impeachment has very little to do with the law. If he becomes enough of a liability, they'll highlight some (relatively) minor infraction to kick him out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Then what was the reason when the only game in town at the time was the bogus collusion story? 

Who is the liar here...

So, is that an admission you are lying?  You are now apparently deducing what I meant?

Why not just cut and paste what I said?  You cited the day I supposedly said it. Go get it.

I don't get you DKW. You can really be a pos.  For no good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

So, is that an admission you are lying?  You are now apparently deducing what I meant?

Why not just cut and paste what I said?  You cited the day I supposedly said it. Go get it.

I don't get you DKW. You can really be a pos.  For no good reason.

Will do later today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2018 at 11:28 AM, homersapien said:

And how is it you know that?

And isn't such a contention the logical equivalent of declaring him guilty?

And you didn't provide a straight response to this DKW:

1) How do you know there is no evidence of collusion?

2) And if you know there is no evidence of collusion, is that not equivalent to proclaiming him innocent?

Try to answer this time instead of evading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Doesn't have to be collusion. Impeachment has very little to do with the law. If he becomes enough of a liability, they'll highlight some (relatively) minor infraction to kick him out.

Like the emoluments clause, or the 25th amendment, just for starters.

Here's more:

 http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homey said:

Quote

"Collusion" is not a legal term.   It's a subjective - political - term. Regardless, Donald Trump Jr. is guilty of it.

 

Quote

 

Homey also said: 

On 7/14/2017 at 3:05 PM, homersapien said:

Fascinating.

That sounds exactly like the sort of arguments the Clinton's used to make. 

Russians offered Jr info on Hillary

Jr says great, even better if you can time it for late summer.

Legal definitions and/or requirements aside, to an ordinary layman, that sounds like actual collusion whether or not it reaches a given legal threshold or not.   

You sound like Bill equivocating about what "sex" is.

This is the most fascinating observation today. Legal Defnitions of Collusion, etc 

"It all depends on what your definition of the word 'collusion' is..."

KARMA...;)

 

2

 

Quote

 

homey also said:

  On 7/15/2017 at 8:42 PM, homersapien said:

Unless you want to specify specific arguments being made by anyone on this forum - or even by someone else in the media - that's a straw man argument.

It's tiresome - the non-intellectual equivalent of watching someone masturbate.

And the Democrats can't demand impeachment all they want, they can't do it. It will be the Republicans who must decide to remove him from office, and I think it will happen.

Archived.

 

Image result for liar liar pants on fire

 

 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

    Homey said:

     

     

    Image result for liar liar pants on fire

     

     

      This is hilarious.

      David, take a lap. You need a break from this forum. Again. 

      Link to comment
      Share on other sites

      Why... In a thread in which all homey talked about was collusion, he then GUARANTEED Impeachment. 

      Now he is as his usual trying to rewrite everything so it doesnt sound so crazy. 24/7/365 with him.

      I am just having a good ole time getting him to eat some of his own words. :bananadance:

      Link to comment
      Share on other sites

      14 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

      Why... In a thread in which all homey talked about was collusion, he then GUARANTEED Impeachment. 

      Now he is as his usual trying to rewrite everything so it doesnt sound so crazy. 24/7/365 with him.

      I am just having a good ole time getting him to eat some of his own words. :bananadance:

      It's hard to reason with infidels, especially those with dementia.

      Link to comment
      Share on other sites

      15 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

       

        First, there is nothing I said that is untrue.

        Secondly - and more importantly, I never said he would be impeached for collusion, which is what you claimed (the lie).   There is nothing in my statements that support your claim. 

        In fact, if anything, my statements refute such an assertion.  

        Your claim is untrue and now you are weaseling about it. 

        Link to comment
        Share on other sites

        15 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

        Why... In a thread in which all homey talked about was collusion, he then GUARANTEED Impeachment. 

        Now he is as his usual trying to rewrite everything so it doesnt sound so crazy. 24/7/365 with him.

        I am just having a good ole time getting him to eat some of his own words. :bananadance:

        Still lying.

        I never said Trump would be impeached for collusion.  In fact, just the opposite.  Nor did I "GUARANTEE" anything.

        And I don't need "re-write" anything.  You are lying about that, too.

        I will stand by what I originally wrote.  We can go over it sentence by sentence if you like.  Show the sentence in which I said Trump will be impeached for collusion.   It's not there.

        I was willing to say you were merely wrong and not deliberately lying about what I said.  Now that you have presented your "supporting evidence"- which does no such thing,  it is clear you are deliberately lying.

        That's sad.  I kind of liked you David.  I actually agreed with many of your posts. 

        But to deliberately lie about me is unforgivable.

        Link to comment
        Share on other sites

        On 1/13/2018 at 11:38 AM, homersapien said:

        Dementia is nothing to joke about, ass hole.

        My dear 87 year old mother has vascular dementia. It is a terrible and crippling disease. The hard part, is when they don't know you. The comment did not offend me at all. I understand that his statement was sarcasm. Now, the a*&hole, offends me. I think I will go scream up into the sky. LOL

        Link to comment
        Share on other sites

        On 1/13/2018 at 10:42 AM, homersapien said:

        Still lying.

        I never said Trump would be impeached for collusion.  In fact, just the opposite.  Nor did I "GUARANTEE" anything.

        And I don't need "re-write" anything.  You are lying about that, too.

        I will stand by what I originally wrote.  We can go over it sentence by sentence if you like.  Show the sentence in which I said Trump will be impeached for collusion.   It's not there.

        I was willing to say you were merely wrong and not deliberately lying about what I said.  Now that you have presented your "supporting evidence"- which does no such thing,  it is clear you are deliberately lying.

        That's sad.  I kind of liked you David.  I actually agreed with many of your posts. 

        But to deliberately lie about me is unforgivable.

        Dude, I laughed at you and your crazy as hell comments the day you made it. I archived it because after all the time on this forum with you I KNEW you would be backtracking on it. Homey, you are NOTHING IF NOT 100% TOTALLY PREDICTABLE. 

        Quote

         

        8:42PM 7-15-17

        Thread: 
        Not news: Clinton campaign aided by Ukrainian government
        Started by Auburnfan91, Wednesday at 07:41 PM

        Unless you want to specify specific arguments being made by anyone on this forum - or even by someone else in the media - that's a straw man argument.


        It's tiresome - the non-intellectual equivalent of watching someone masturbate.
        And the Democrats can't demand impeachment all they want, they can't do it. It will be the Republicans who must decide to remove him from office, and I think it will happen. :ucrazy::bananadance::lmao:

         

         

         

        Link to comment
        Share on other sites

        17 hours ago, Farmer Brown said:

        My dear 87 year old mother has vascular dementia. It is a terrible and crippling disease. The hard part, is when they don't know you. The comment did not offend me at all. I understand that his statement was sarcasm. Now, the a*&hole, offends me. I think I will go scream up into the sky. LOL

        Probably not,  but then, I'm not a jerk.

        Link to comment
        Share on other sites

        2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

        Dude, I laughed at you and your crazy as hell comments the day you made it. I archived it because after all the time on this forum with you I KNEW you would be backtracking on it. Homey, you are NOTHING IF NOT 100% TOTALLY PREDICTABLE. 

         

        Still waiting for the quote that actually demonstrates I said what you assert I did.

        My saying it will be the Republicans who impeach Trump - the statemnet you highlighted - doesn't do it.  Of course it will be the Republicans who impeach him.  But the root cause, IMO,  will likely be something to do with trade protectionism like revoking NAFTA or imposing a trade tariff on China.  It won't be collusion.

        Look David, I am willing to allow for you to be simply mistaken.  There's absolutely no reason for you to double down on calling me a liar when you can't demonstrate it.

        I do deserve and expect an apology though.  Calling someone a liar without being able to prove it is a pretty egregious  offense, even on this forum.

        If you don't back down on this, I will be forced to ignore you, which is unfortunate, since I generally enjoy your comments when they aren't maniacally focused on some obscure point you are obsessed about.  We actually agree on many things.  But you are simply off-base on this one and I cannot let it slide.

         

         

        Link to comment
        Share on other sites

        24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

        Bye.

        Painful

        Link to comment
        Share on other sites

        Archived

        This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

        • Members Online

        • Recently Browsing   0 members

          • No registered users viewing this page.



        ×
        ×
        • Create New...