I have no choice: I am a liberal (Page 18): Yea, you got it.

Kazudy

JoyV wrote:

Thanks. It is becoming clear that if I said water is wet he would assert it was dry as an old bone.

Yea, you got it.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

Kazudy wrote:

Yea, you got it.

Well you wanted to talk as if it was an absolute t***h.

But I spoke in the relative sense.

That is much you how describe what it is you feel.
Is the absolute t***h & what those who contradict what you say with any thing you disagree with is false.

What you fail to see is there are liberals on this site who could pass as conservative any time they wanted.
it is all in the words you don't wish to hear.

Some people don't buy into the lies & falsehoods dished out to them.

You are just a lackey buying 1n
to the party line.

Just a troll echoing what you think your leaders want you to say.

It would not surprise me if you had a ring in your nose.
All the better to lead you around.

debeda

JoyV wrote:

What law did I say I don't like? What I don't lik... (show quote)

YES best statement I've heard today "I don't like it when the laws aren't enforced". AGREED AGREED AGREED!!!

debeda

Floyd Brown wrote:

Well you wanted to talk as if it was an absolute t... (show quote)

The kindness and courteous thing not working?

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

debeda wrote:

The kindness and courteous thing not working?

Kindness & courtesy only works with some one who as feelings for another human.

That is lacking in your case.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

JoyV wrote:

Neither Trey Gowdy, nor did any other Senator or Congressman, attempt to usurp the executive branch's Justice Department's authority by charging, or trying to charge Hillary. Subpoenaing witnesses and asking them questions in a Congressional hearing is NOT attempting to charge them.

As usual you nit pick to the very end... Who was in charge of congressional hearing? Look it up and tell me..

Find out if it was the same person who tried to introduce false evidence..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

archie bunker wrote:

Go pick weeds. You're being worn out here, and being a l*****t ass about it.

much better then being a right wing ass...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

JoyV wrote:

You mentioned a law. You were asked to identify it. Saying I can find it is not identifying it. Do you know how many laws there are in the US? I certainly don't. So point out which law you referred to.

Why are you afraid to do your own work?

this is your number one trick, do nothing but talk unsupported opinion, then pick a point out of your counter post and ask them to do all the digging for that meaningless detail..

You want to know, git off your lazy butt and do a search.. right winger...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

JoyV wrote:

Thanks. It is becoming clear that if I said water is wet he would assert it was dry as an old bone.

The only thing dry is you and kaduzie head..

JoyV

permafrost wrote:

As usual you nit pick to the very end... Who was in charge of congressional hearing? Look it up and tell me..

Find out if it was the same person who tried to introduce false evidence..

It doesn't matter who was in charge of the congressional hearings. Congressional hearings DO NOT BRING CHARGES!!!! Now if testimony reveals crimes and the Department of Justice acts on that evidence, I will applaud them. But it is up to the Department of Justice to bring charges. Not Congress!!!!

Please take at least an elementary school level civics class which outlines the separation of powers most school kids (when I went to school) were expected to know by no later than 3rd grade.

JoyV

permafrost wrote:

Why are you afraid to do your own work?

this is your number one trick, do nothing but talk unsupported opinion, then pick a point out of your counter post and ask them to do all the digging for that meaningless detail..

You want to know, git off your lazy butt and do a search.. right winger...

So you believe that giving a vague aside about a law with absolutely no detail constitutes you doing your part while I am suppose to search through every law in the US in hopes of finding your obscure reference. If such a law even exists, which you referred to to prove a point; it is your duty to identify it or withdraw your assertion.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

JoyV wrote:

It doesn't matter who was in charge of the congres... (show quote)

did you take a class called twist the words 101?

the purpose of the 2 plus years with 8 investigation was to bring charges against Lady Hillary.

It makes no difference if that writing of the charges were done by the people on the committee or by another set of people, purpose is purpose..

Your intent is not to have a discussion, you simply want to create run around work for whoever is countering the point you wish was true..

So, do your own digging and cite the fact as you see them, not opinion that you wish was true..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

JoyV wrote:

So you believe that giving a vague aside about a law with absolutely no detail constitutes you doing your part while I am suppose to search through every law in the US in hopes of finding your obscure reference. If such a law even exists, which you referred to to prove a point; it is your duty to identify it or withdraw your assertion.

what was the reply in regard to?

go back and look, let me know the context and point of the post that included the elusive "law" mention..

If you were unable to decipher the law or at least the general area of law which was referenced. repost and I will let you know it that seems at all reasonable.

any normal person would easily follow the subject and know from the discussion what the "law" was about.

debeda

Floyd Brown wrote:

Kindness & courtesy only works with some one who as feelings for another human.

That is lacking in your case.

Cuz I'm not a democrat? Really? I've tried to generally be courteous and kind, to most. YOU'RE the one that was pontificating about being kind and respectful. And you're the one making a completely unfounded and uneducated judgment on my nature. Between you and permafrost (who usually doesn't resort to name calling in my experience, but has in this thread) I guess we see which political persuasion is more abusive.....

JoyV

permafrost wrote:

did you take a class called twist the words 101? b... (show quote)

The purpose of an investigation is NOT to bring charges! At least not in the USA where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This presumption is based on multiple amendments in our US Constitution including the 6th and the due process clause in the 5th and 14th amendments. That is the difference between a totalitarian state and a republic. The point of an investigation is to find out the t***h. Whether that t***h leads to any charges or not is beside the point. An investigation might lead to evidence of guilt of the one you thought was guilty, or to another. A good investigator follows where the evidence leads. But if your assertion is what is commonly believed by the left, it explains the attitude regarding the Mueller investigation. When Trump called for an investigation, I'm sure he expected an investigation would be conducted like good police work. This would mean look for evidence and follow it to find the t***h. Also investigations are usually not of a person but are to look into certain actions which may be illegal, or to look into a crime to find the guilty party or parties. You mentioned multiple Hillary investigations. Yet these were not investigations into any possible wrongdoing of Hillary. But each were specific. The most recent was an investigation on whether she violated her oath she took as secretary of State by mishandling classified information. The investigation covered ONLY the time she was Secretary of State, and only regarding her handling of information. For instance it did not look into whether or not she engaged in pay to play. Previous investigations included her actions in the B******i disaster, her involvement in Whitewater, and her cattle futures trading. These were all separate investigations with defined areas of investigation. In the Mueller investigation which is suppose to be investigating whether or not Russia interfered with our e******ns, evidence is ignored when it doesn't fit the goal of finding Trump guilty of something. There is no search for the t***h, but instead a search for anything which can be pinned on Trump who is already presumed guilty by the leaders on the left.

As for my not searching through the entire body of law to find the law you complained about but never identified -- since you refuse to identify what law you were referring to; I will assume you made it up unless and until you produce it.