Page 23 of 41 FirstFirst ... 1319202122232425262733 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 460 of 814

Thread: For Politards Only Thread

  1. #441
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Wasilla, you libtard bitches are 2-faced as hell. Forget that Joe’s son worked for Burisma. Joe withheld aid already legally committed to Ukraine until the Ukrainians performed a certain action. That is called a QUID PRO QUO and is highly illegal under American law. You libtard bitches ignore that.

    Then Dems accused Trump of a QUID PRO QUO for a phone call he had with the Russian President and tried to impeach him for it. You phony 2-faced bags of shit. You all need your punk asses kicked.
    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given. That is the part of logic that is skipped here and where you are clearly confused.

    Very smart for a corrupt eastern-euro/russian style gas/oil company to bring Hunter onto their board.
    You dumb motherfucker. Firing the prosecutor was the favor given. When god said brains you thought the said rain and ran for cover.
    Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.

  2. #442
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Hey, sling. Notice the date in this vid. It's Obama nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court in an election year, 2016. Look who is standing beside him, China Joe Biden. If the Dems dont' believe in putting someone on the SCOTUS in an election year then what the fuck were they doing trying to put someone on the SCOTUS in an election year?

    Explain it to us like we are 3rd graders.

    Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.

  3. #443
    This is what anyone who votes for and supports liberals deserves in their neighborhood.

    Name:  1F615F25-3562-41F9-B7C5-7072507B3C89.jpg
Views: 575
Size:  53.6 KB

  4. #444
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Hey, sling. Notice the date in this vid. It's Obama nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court in an election year, 2016. Look who is standing beside him, China Joe Biden. If the Dems dont' believe in putting someone on the SCOTUS in an election year then what the fuck were they doing trying to put someone on the SCOTUS in an election year?

    Explain it to us like we are 3rd graders.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...th/5837543002/

  5. #445
    Liberals have proven to be dumber than dirty socks. Every time they think they're being smart by pulling one of their dirty tricks, it comes back to bite them.

    Harry Reid and the fillibuster. Who's crying now.
    Obama and his snide/arrogant proclamation that "election's have consequences". People "elected" the Senate when Garland was nominated. That Senate chose to wait until the election before confirming. Tough love, whining democrats.

    Democrats in the Senate chose to lie about and smear Bret Kavanaugh instead of acting respectfully towards a highly regarded judge and human being. And as they AGAIN learned the hard way....actions have consequences. Not only was all that despicable BS meaningless in the end as we now have JUSTICE Kavanaugh---Trump and Senate Republicans are now making those idiots pay dearly for their disgusting behavior by getting ACB confirmed close to an election---which is entirely legal per the Constitution by the way.
    So sweet.....

    So sling----as a confused Never-Trumper, tell us what your ilk will actually do if Trump wins on Nov. 3rd? I mean, you people should be used to the many Trump beatdowns by now, correct? Will their be crocodile tears? How about minds coming apart at the seams? You leaving the country for "greener pastures"? Or will it just be the easy way out--suicide?

  6. #446
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Hey, sling. Notice the date in this vid. It's Obama nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court in an election year, 2016. Look who is standing beside him, China Joe Biden. If the Dems dont' believe in putting someone on the SCOTUS in an election year then what the fuck were they doing trying to put someone on the SCOTUS in an election year?

    Explain it to us like we are 3rd graders.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...th/5837543002/
    Sling, you're wasting your time. I know everything that was said by both sides in 2016 and everything said in 2020 on Supreme Court nominations.

    The Dems (all of them) demanded Garland to be confirmed in 2016, an election year. But they didn't have the votes. The republicans controlled the senate so the effort failed.

    In 2020 the Dems are doing just the opposite. They are demanding the appointment be postponed until after the election. But once again they don't have the votes to get their way. The republicans hold the majority and will confirm Barret this coming week.

    The whole thing boils down to political power. If dems had the power in 2016 they would have confirmed Garland in an election year. If they had the political power in 2020 they would stop the confirmation of Barret in an election year.

    So quit whining about it.
    Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.

  7. #447
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    Hey, sling. Notice the date in this vid. It's Obama nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court in an election year, 2016. Look who is standing beside him, China Joe Biden. If the Dems dont' believe in putting someone on the SCOTUS in an election year then what the fuck were they doing trying to put someone on the SCOTUS in an election year?

    Explain it to us like we are 3rd graders.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...th/5837543002/
    Sling, you're wasting your time. I know everything that was said by both sides in 2016 and everything said in 2020 on Supreme Court nominations.

    The Dems (all of them) demanded Garland to be confirmed in 2016, an election year. But they didn't have the votes. The republicans controlled the senate so the effort failed.

    In 2020 the Dems are doing just the opposite. They are demanding the appointment be postponed until after the election. But once again they don't have the votes to get their way. The republicans hold the majority and will confirm Barret this coming week.

    The whole thing boils down to political power. If dems had the power in 2016 they would have confirmed Garland in an election year. If they had the political power in 2020 they would stop the confirmation of Barret in an election year.

    So quit whining about it.
    Correct! So to keep the voters from having a say in 2020 they rushed to nominate her- to dismantle the ACA- thereby soothing Trump's ego- since for 4 years he refused to come up with ANYTHING or work on a bipartisan improvement.

  8. #448
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Wasilla, you libtard bitches are 2-faced as hell. Forget that Joe’s son worked for Burisma. Joe withheld aid already legally committed to Ukraine until the Ukrainians performed a certain action. That is called a QUID PRO QUO and is highly illegal under American law. You libtard bitches ignore that.

    Then Dems accused Trump of a QUID PRO QUO for a phone call he had with the Russian President and tried to impeach him for it. You phony 2-faced bags of shit. You all need your punk asses kicked.
    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given. That is the part of logic that is skipped here and where you are clearly confused.

    Very smart for a corrupt eastern-euro/russian style gas/oil company to bring Hunter onto their board.
    You dumb motherfucker. Firing the prosecutor was the favor given. When god said brains you thought the said rain and ran for cover.
    You are such a surprisingly simple and naive person. I'm honestly surprised no one has talked you out of giving them your bankroll. I'm not going to argue politics with you. Total waste.

  9. #449
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Liberals have proven to be dumber than dirty socks. Every time they think they're being smart by pulling one of their dirty tricks, it comes back to bite them.

    Harry Reid and the fillibuster. Who's crying now.
    Obama and his snide/arrogant proclamation that "election's have consequences". People "elected" the Senate when Garland was nominated. That Senate chose to wait until the election before confirming. Tough love, whining democrats.

    Democrats in the Senate chose to lie about and smear Bret Kavanaugh instead of acting respectfully towards a highly regarded judge and human being. And as they AGAIN learned the hard way....actions have consequences. Not only was all that despicable BS meaningless in the end as we now have JUSTICE Kavanaugh---Trump and Senate Republicans are now making those idiots pay dearly for their disgusting behavior by getting ACB confirmed close to an election---which is entirely legal per the Constitution by the way.
    So sweet.....

    So sling----as a confused Never-Trumper, tell us what your ilk will actually do if Trump wins on Nov. 3rd? I mean, you people should be used to the many Trump beatdowns by now, correct? Will their be crocodile tears? How about minds coming apart at the seams? You leaving the country for "greener pastures"? Or will it just be the easy way out--suicide?
    I've been crying all year for family and friends dying from ignoring CDC recommendations. The timing, character,players- the whole scenario- is so obvious as to baffle me why anyone is so easily fooled.

  10. #450
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post

    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given. That is the part of logic that is skipped here and where you are clearly confused.

    Very smart for a corrupt eastern-euro/russian style gas/oil company to bring Hunter onto their board.
    You dumb motherfucker. Firing the prosecutor was the favor given. When god said brains you thought the said rain and ran for cover.
    I'm not going to argue politics with you. Total waste.
    Back to the drawing board for you to study the definition of 'QUID PRO QUO'

  11. #451
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    You dumb motherfucker. Firing the prosecutor was the favor given. When god said brains you thought the said rain and ran for cover.
    I'm not going to argue politics with you. Total waste.
    Back to the drawing board for you to study the definition of 'QUID PRO QUO'
    I'm trying to figure out how to explain it, but it seems like a waste of time. Just because you guys want to think this was some big favor to Biden, doesn't make it so. No one else thinks there was corruption there outside of the fact that companies hire the children of big politicians. That is an unfortunate side effect of representative democracies.

    In the world of you and Dickey, because these dots can be connected, they are connected.

  12. #452
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post

    I'm not going to argue politics with you. Total waste.
    Back to the drawing board for you to study the definition of 'QUID PRO QUO'
    I'm trying to figure out how to explain it, but it seems like a waste of time. Just because you guys want to think this was some big favor to Biden, doesn't make it so. No one else thinks (LOL) there was corruption there outside of the fact that companies hire the children of big politicians. That is an unfortunate side effect of representative democracies.

    In the world of you and Dickey, because these dots can be connected, they are connected.
    Forget about connecting dots and forget about trying to explain.

    You said,

    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given. That is the part of logic that is skipped here and where you are clearly confused.


    Quid Pro Quo literally means Something for Something, or This For That


    Forget about "favors", If there was a quid pro quo, firing the prosecutor to get the money constituted one.

  13. #453
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post

    Back to the drawing board for you to study the definition of 'QUID PRO QUO'
    I'm trying to figure out how to explain it, but it seems like a waste of time. Just because you guys want to think this was some big favor to Biden, doesn't make it so. No one else thinks (LOL) there was corruption there outside of the fact that companies hire the children of big politicians. That is an unfortunate side effect of representative democracies.

    In the world of you and Dickey, because these dots can be connected, they are connected.
    Forget about connecting dots and forget about trying to explain.

    You said,

    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given. That is the part of logic that is skipped here and where you are clearly confused.


    Quid Pro Quo literally means Something for Something, or This For That


    Forget about "favors", If there was a quid pro quo, firing the prosecutor to get the money constituted one.
    Yes, which would be the case for literally any negotiation done by any government official.

    Maybe amongst your simpleton friends this shit flies.

    Humor me. What is it again that Hunter Biden is being accused of in regards to Burisma?

  14. #454
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post

    I'm trying to figure out how to explain it, but it seems like a waste of time. Just because you guys want to think this was some big favor to Biden, doesn't make it so. No one else thinks (LOL) there was corruption there outside of the fact that companies hire the children of big politicians. That is an unfortunate side effect of representative democracies.

    In the world of you and Dickey, because these dots can be connected, they are connected.
    Forget about connecting dots and forget about trying to explain.

    You said,

    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given. That is the part of logic that is skipped here and where you are clearly confused.


    Quid Pro Quo literally means Something for Something, or This For That


    Forget about "favors", If there was a quid pro quo, firing the prosecutor to get the money constituted one.
    Yes, which would be the case for literally any negotiation done by any government official.

    Maybe amongst your simpleton friends this shit flies.

    Humor me. What is it again that Hunter Biden is being accused of in regards to Burisma?
    I was just trying to bring you back to what the definition of Quid Pro Quo was because what you wrote to Mickey was wrong.

    I'm not going down a rabbit hole with you over what Hunter is/was accused (?) of.

  15. #455
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post

    Forget about connecting dots and forget about trying to explain.

    You said,

    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given. That is the part of logic that is skipped here and where you are clearly confused.


    Quid Pro Quo literally means Something for Something, or This For That


    Forget about "favors", If there was a quid pro quo, firing the prosecutor to get the money constituted one.
    Yes, which would be the case for literally any negotiation done by any government official.

    Maybe amongst your simpleton friends this shit flies.

    Humor me. What is it again that Hunter Biden is being accused of in regards to Burisma?
    I was just trying to bring you back to what the definition of Quid Pro Quo was because what you wrote to Mickey was wrong.

    I'm not going down a rabbit hole with you over what Hunter is/was accused (?) of.
    I am not sure what to tell you. There is a dictionary definition and a legal definition. Yes, there was a negotiation going on there with the withholding of aid and so therefore there will always be "QUID PRO QUO".

    This will be true for all government negotiations.

    If there is any merit to this what so ever, you should at least be able to say a few sentences about what the corruption is.

    You bothered to highlight my claim otherwise but when pressed you don't have shit to say on the subject.

    Thats because no one has told you what to think on the subject.

  16. #456
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post

    Yes, which would be the case for literally any negotiation done by any government official.

    Maybe amongst your simpleton friends this shit flies.

    Humor me. What is it again that Hunter Biden is being accused of in regards to Burisma?
    I was just trying to bring you back to what the definition of Quid Pro Quo was because what you wrote to Mickey was wrong.

    I'm not going down a rabbit hole with you over what Hunter is/was accused (?) of.
    I am not sure what to tell you. There is a dictionary definition and a legal definition. Yes, there was a negotiation going on there with the withholding of aid and so therefore there will always be "QUID PRO QUO".
    Agreed.

    That's why what you wrote to Mickey was wrong.

    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given

  17. #457
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post

    I was just trying to bring you back to what the definition of Quid Pro Quo was because what you wrote to Mickey was wrong.

    I'm not going down a rabbit hole with you over what Hunter is/was accused (?) of.
    I am not sure what to tell you. There is a dictionary definition and a legal definition. Yes, there was a negotiation going on there with the withholding of aid and so therefore there will always be "QUID PRO QUO".
    Agreed.

    That's why what you wrote to Mickey was wrong.

    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given

    Not really. Nice total duck of the simple question I asked and the actual core of this matter. Pathetic. I wish I was so shameless. Must be nice.

    Your watered down standard of what constitutes quid pro quo makes it so that the phrase is basically useless.

  18. #458
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post

    I am not sure what to tell you. There is a dictionary definition and a legal definition. Yes, there was a negotiation going on there with the withholding of aid and so therefore there will always be "QUID PRO QUO".
    Agreed.

    That's why what you wrote to Mickey was wrong.

    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given

    Not really. Nice total duck of the simple question I asked and the actual core of this matter. Pathetic. I wish I was so shameless. Must be nice.

    Your watered down standard of what constitutes quid pro quo makes it so that the phrase is basically useless.
    Lol. What is my standard? You wrote what is highlighted above...

  19. #459
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post

    Agreed.

    That's why what you wrote to Mickey was wrong.

    It is only 'QUID PRO QUO' if there is a favor given

    Not really. Nice total duck of the simple question I asked and the actual core of this matter. Pathetic. I wish I was so shameless. Must be nice.

    Your watered down standard of what constitutes quid pro quo makes it so that the phrase is basically useless.
    Lol. What is my standard? You wrote what is highlighted above...
    Your standard for what constitutes quid pro quo means that any government negotiation is quid pro quo.

    And you still can't answer the question. Thats because you don't have any integrity.

  20. #460
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post


    Not really. Nice total duck of the simple question I asked and the actual core of this matter. Pathetic. I wish I was so shameless. Must be nice.

    Your watered down standard of what constitutes quid pro quo makes it so that the phrase is basically useless.
    Lol. What is my standard? You wrote what is highlighted above...
    Your standard for what constitutes quid pro quo means that any government negotiation is quid pro quo.

    And you still can't answer the question. Thats because you don't have any integrity.
    I gave you the literal latin meaning of quid pro quo. Not my standard. LOl.

    Because you want to obfuscate by bringing Hunter questions into it and calling it the CORE of the matter, sorry i'm not falling for it. I never even hinted that there was an accusation against Hunter as it relates to Burisma, other than being on the board because of his last name.

    Maybe if Shokin was able to interview Hunter like he wanted to we'd know more. But he was fired for corruption. Go figure.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The WoV Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 10239
    Last Post: 09-30-2024, 09:09 AM
  2. The Genealogy Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 06:29 AM
  3. The Thread Without Argentino
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 04-15-2018, 02:46 PM
  4. Closed Thread
    By coach belly in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 08:29 PM
  5. Sportsbetting ONLY thread
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 04:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •