Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Sondland admits quid pro quo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    "offense" at what?
    oh - ok. So you are good with the relationship between Holder and Obama?
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      oh - ok. So you are good with the relationship between Holder and Obama?
      It was what it was*. I'm not easily "offended", Jim. That was your word.



      *and may still be
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        What you seem unable to comprehend is that if it was wrong for Obama and Holden, it is wrong for Trump and Barr.
        What you seem unable to comprehend is that unlike Eric "Obama's Wingman" Holder, Barr is not shielding the President from being investigated, and in fact, he seems intent on staying out of the political fray. The fact that his current line of investigation into the genesis of the Russian Collusion Delusion could have significant political ramifications is neither here nor there.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          It isn't "blindness" but rather a need for evidence -- not speculation, not jaundiced opinion, not blind hatred -- but actual evidence.
          Evidence which you refuse to see, as you make explicit in the above, makes you either blind to it, or accepting of the actions it evinces.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            Holder used the term for a very simple reason. He thought it was his job description.
            That's simply a biased assertion on your part.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              News is he has his limits. WP is reporting Trump requested he hold a news conference and declare Trump 'not guilty' of any crimes in Ukraine. He 'declined to acquiesce' to his request. Which is a tacit admission Trump at the very least 'might' have committed crimes in Ukraine.
              Yes I heard, I'm sure he's aware of how bad it would make him look after his Mueller report sham of a summary debacle and his opening an investigation into the U.S Intel agencies. Although his name is already mud in history now so not sure why he cares at this point. Probably realizes, unlike Trump, that further exposing himself as a complete fraud as Atty Gen. is not a good move.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                Yes I heard, I'm sure he's aware of how bad it would make him look after his Mueller report sham of a summary debacle and his opening an investigation into the U.S Intel agencies. Although his name is already mud in history now so not sure why he cares at this point. Probably realizes, unlike Trump, that further exposing himself as a complete fraud as Atty Gen. is not a good move.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Or it could simply be that Barr doesn't want the Department of Justice to become embroiled in politics, which would be consistent with how he has operated from day one.

                  You have to watch yourself, ox, whenever there are multiple possibilities, you invariably settle on the one that is the worst for Trump and then delude yourself into believing that your biased assumptions are necessarily true.
                  Don't be such a bird brain, MM. There is an on going congressional investigation, it would be out of bounds for Barr to publicly exonerate the President like he did with respect to the Mueller report, in the middle of an investigation that he has nothing to do with. The only one deluding himself here is you!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    JimL's giving firstfloor a run for his money lately.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                      ...it would be out of bounds for Barr to publicly exonerate the President...
                      Trump has never been charged with a crime. Therefore, he can not be exonerated by definition.

                      All we can say is that unless he is charged and convicted, Trump is innocent.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Trump has never been charged with a crime. Therefore, he can not be exonerated by definition.

                        All we can say is that unless he is charged and convicted, Trump is innocent.
                        Which doesn't translate into "He didn't do anything wrong," which is what he wanted his personal atty. W. Barr to publicly state.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                          Which doesn't translate into "He didn't do anything wrong..."
                          No, it translates to "It has never been proven that he did anything wrong."

                          We could also reasonably conclude from Barr's denial of Trump's request that while he recognizes that the President is innocent, he's confident enough in the system that he doesn't feel the need to become personally involved.

                          Like I said, there are a number of explanations, but ox is so blinded by his hatred for Trump that he can only allow himself to see the one possibility that he desperately wants to be true. For my part, if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a serious enough crime to warrant removal from office then I will support it, but to date, there is zero evidence leading to that conclusion.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • In other news, House Democrats suddenly withdrew their "subpoena" compelling former Bolton aide Charles Kupperman to testify after Kupperman asked a federal judge to rule on whether or not the subpoena was legally sufficient.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              In other news, House Democrats suddenly withdrew their "subpoena" compelling former Bolton aide Charles Kupperman to testify after Kupperman asked a federal judge to rule on whether or not the subpoena was legally sufficient.

                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                No, it translates to "It has never been proven that he did anything wrong."

                                We could also reasonably conclude from Barr's denial of Trump's request that while he recognizes that the President is innocent, he's confident enough in the system that he doesn't feel the need to become personally involved.

                                Like I said, there are a number of explanations, but ox is so blinded by his hatred for Trump that he can only allow himself to see the one possibility that he desperately wants to be true. For my part, if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a serious enough crime to warrant removal from office then I will support it, but to date, there is zero evidence leading to that conclusion.
                                How many times have people on this board gone ballistic of the idea someone else is trying to intuit their motives? The phrase usually used is "your mind reading powers are failing you" or something similar.

                                That applies here in spades. So these continued rants on how bad I am or what motivates me to say what I say are nothing more than rank hypocrisy, not to mention just plain stupid.

                                You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Not only that, I've publicly explained my motives many times. The primary issue for me is Christians excusing and covering for what Trump does when what he does is clearly and simply wrong. That is what creates my interest in trying to sway opinion on this board. It is not 'hatred' of Trump.
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-07-2019, 01:40 PM.
                                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X