Does Anyone Doubt This? (Page 7): NWR (not worst a response)...

fullspinzoo

working class stiff wrote:

I see I hit a nerve.

NWR (not worst a response)

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

working class stiff wrote:

First, I'm not the one who turned ' whistleblowing ' into a gay sex metaphor on this thread. That would be you and Mikey. You guys are the ones disparaging.

Second...I'm not offended as I don't see being gay as a 'sexual perversion'.
Third, my wife of 20+ years would be pretty surprised that I came out of the closet, though she would be supportive if that were the case.

Three strikes in one post...you're out.

Look, you support all things Obama.

Obama's greatest accomplishments were for sexual deviance.

Your fundamental change lord Hanuman dev**ed a huge portion of his last official speech toward the abominable.

fullspinzoo

working class stiff wrote:

First, I'm not the one who turned ' whistleblowing ' into a gay sex metaphor on this thread. That would be you and Mikey. You guys are the ones disparaging.

Second...I'm not offended as I don't see being gay as a 'sexual perversion'.
Third, my wife of 20+ years would be pretty surprised that I came out of the closet, though she would be supportive if that were the case.

Three strikes in one post...you're out.

Beyond help....and another one to ignore. BTW, I feel sorry for your wife.

Silent Hammer

peg w wrote:

The whistleblower deserves to reman anonymous. Thats the law. I do think it is possible for him to testify by phone or written statements. He did the right thing, and so many people backed him up that I think his testimony is unnecessary.

What if "he" is lying? What if he's cooperating with a c**p attempt against the duly elected president of The U.S? What if "he" doesn't really exist at all, but is a figment of political subterfuge to sabotage the acts, none of which are AGAINST ANY LAW, of The POTUS? The VI Amendment guarantees a man or woman the right to confront his/her accuser in court. The House Intelligence(?) Commit is OBSTRUCTING that LAW by preventing The President or his representatives from establishing the veracity of this accusation by questioning the accuser. And how do you know, Peg, that the guy is telling the t***h? Whether or not I support this President is irrelevant. What is MATERIAL in this instance is that this political circus is VERY SERIOUS, not trivial, and NEEDS to be addressed by Constitutional Law, not rumor and deception. The President deserves that, at the very least. And we citizens do also. God Bless America! God Bless The Constitution!

fullspinzoo

working class stiff wrote:

First, I'm not the one who turned ' whistleblowing ' into a gay sex metaphor on this thread. That would be you and Mikey. You guys are the ones disparaging.

Second...I'm not offended as I don't see being gay as a 'sexual perversion'.
Third, my wife of 20+ years would be pretty surprised that I came out of the closet, though she would be supportive if that were the case.

Three strikes in one post...you're out.

First, position on full-term a******n.
Second, cartels burning children alive just over the border ~ bad news for the open borders agenda.
Third, $125 million raised in one week. Don't think many Americans care about your "whistleblower attorney: "C**p is started" impeachment bulls**t which began back in Jan 2017.
Three strikes....you're screwed. Let me know if you guys get a 'real' whistleblower and not just some punk off the street. You and your ilk.....a joke.

fullspinzoo

working class stiff wrote:

I see I hit a nerve.

I've been called a C---sucker. Those are your people. You can't try to insult someone with what might be considered by some a d********g name and then defend what they do. Or maybe in your case, you can. Such hypocrites.

debeda

Silent Hammer wrote:

What if "he" is lying? What if he's coo... (show quote)

Right on

Singularity

Silent Hammer wrote:

What if "he" is lying? What if he's coo... (show quote)

Maybe we should open an inquiry aimed at those questions.....

Mikeyavelli

byronglimish wrote:

How eloquent.

🤜🤛

MaryGrace Loc: New England

Liberty Tree wrote:

If it were Republicans trying to impeach a Democrat President and there was a whistle blower the MSM would have already outed that person and would be doing everything to discredit him. Think back how the women who accused Clinton were treated.

But Clinton was not accused of committing treason.

MaryGrace Loc: New England

Liberty Tree wrote:

If it were Republicans trying to impeach a Democrat President and there was a whistle blower the MSM would have already outed that person and would be doing everything to discredit him. Think back how the women who accused Clinton were treated.

However, President Clinton was not being accused of treason, as far as I can recall.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Liberty Tree wrote:

If it were Republicans trying to impeach a Democrat President and there was a whistle blower the MSM would have already outed that person and would be doing everything to discredit him. Think back how the women who accused Clinton were treated.

"If it were Republicans trying to impeach a Democrat President and there was a whistle blower the MSM would have already outed that person and would be doing everything to discredit him. Think back how the women who accused Clinton were treated." - Liberty Tree]

Ohhh! The hypocrisy does shine through.

debeda

MaryGrace wrote:

But Clinton was not accused of committing treason.

??? Neither is President Trump - except in the fevered minds of proglibs

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

debeda wrote:

??? Neither is President Trump - except in the fevered minds of proglibs

Exactly !!

debeda

byronglimish wrote:

Exactly !!