Just what was in the Cool aid that you conservatives drank?
Dec 7, 2019 11:57:13 #
son of witless wrote:
You still here ? I can't believe it. Every single freakin time I dare one of you Liberals to speak with me, I find myself alone. How bout you lay out your case one fact at a time and lets us see if you can convince me ? I am getting really tired of talking to crickets whenever I try to break into one of your echo chambers.
They have no facts. They think hearsay,opinions, perceptions, presumptions, and accusations are proof so facts are not needed.
Dec 7, 2019 12:04:44 #
padremike
Loc: Phenix City, Al
PeterS wrote:
It's a simple question: Can you look at anything without putting your ideology first? Don't try to deflect onto me questions you don't have the balls to answer...
I presume you believe you have a strangle hold on the T***h? You toss out lies and call them t***h without having to prove them as if you honestly think we have to believe what you dishonestly say. A bit presumptuous isn't it? It's not a case of not having the balls to answer you, it's wisdom, common sense not to fall for your lies and misrepresentations. It's probably better to continue lying to yourself yet i don't believe doing so will ever increase the size of your gonads, you claim is an attribute, it only diminish and restricts the capability of your mind.
Dec 7, 2019 12:27:58 #
PeterS wrote:
In listening to the conservative congressman quest... (show quote)
You should know because people of your ilk always try to.fix. everythinghing ever before it broke. You also want wealthy people to pay for everything. Have you thought about taxing members of Congress who, on their salary, came in poor and become wealthy?
Dec 7, 2019 12:48:30 #
TommyRadd
Loc: Midwest USA
PeterS wrote:
I heard Pelosi speak and she made a clear distinct... (show quote)
What part of no factual witnesses don’t you understand?
What part of the fact that the only factual eyewitnesses testified that there was no quid pro quo stated, implied, intended or understood, in fact it was verbally and explicitly repudiated, don’t you understand? The only ones making the “accusation” are doing so on their strong, overly-stated desire and determination to impeach the President over something before they ever had a crime to convince him of.
Is that the American ideal you strive for: guilty until proven innocent and even then not innocent unless he agrees with you?
That’s what this has been about the whole time. That is what conservatives are up in arms about. That seems to be lost on you.
If you think that being “guilty by mere accusation, before and without being proven, and even contrary to the exculpatory evidence” is the kind of America you want to live in, and then you also accuse others of us who don’t think it is, or was intended on being, of lacking in intelligence, then you are welcome to your opinion, even if it is uninformed, misdirected and just flat out wrong.
Open your eyes Peter. There is nothing new or “progressive” about the tyranny of the masses led by a minority of intolerant leaders. And furthermore, just because Trump is human and isn’t perfect, and you don’t like or agree with him or his policies or procedures, is not enough to impeach him over.
This is where your Democratic leaders were correct: an impeachment that is not based on compelling and overwhelming evidence, and has bi-partisan support will only be d******e, and that is perfectly fine with your leaders. They’ve made their bed and now they are sleeping in it, as the saying goes.
Is that d******eness the goal you seek, Peter?
Dec 7, 2019 12:56:11 #
PeterS wrote:
In listening to the conservative congressman quest... (show quote)
The Constitution was written so that any person of average intelligence would have no problem understanding it. I understand why someone like you might think some level of scholarship is required. Your position is easy to understand. You understand very little. You think that somehow the Constitution is malleable to your own opinions and preferences.
You are mistaken.
Dec 7, 2019 14:10:51 #
Smedley_buzk**l wrote:
The Constitution was written so that any person of average intelligence would have no problem understanding it. I understand why someone like you might think some level of scholarship is required. Your position is easy to understand. You understand very little. You think that somehow the Constitution is malleable to your own opinions and preferences.
You are mistaken.
You are mistaken.
"Average" is the magical word.
Dec 7, 2019 14:42:44 #
PeterS wrote:
Well, I think about what I know--that allows me to be certain of what I think. And so far none of you has addressed the question--is there not a single one of you who can put your country above your ideology? How is it the Constitution and the rule of law don't take precedence over your ideology and your political beliefs?
Its clear from your posts you put your ideology before country and the Constitution.
Just more hypocrisy.
Dec 7, 2019 16:49:38 #
PeterS wrote:
Well, I think about what I know--that allows me to be certain of what I think. And so far none of you has addressed the question--is there not a single one of you who can put your country above your ideology? How is it the Constitution and the rule of law don't take precedence over your ideology and your political beliefs?
You think about what you know, therefore you are certain about what you think. How certain are you that the things you know are the t***h?
The question you ask is up in the air, it has no logical foundation, the assumptions you make are not defined. There is no way to comprehend a question until its assumptions are understood. In any case, your question is based on an ideological perspective, i.e., what you know and what you think about.
It is truly pitiful that you cannot see the projection of your own ideological and political beliefs onto conservatives.
Our political beliefs are based in the philosophies of the men who framed our constitution, and the constitution itself is our platform. We do not subscribe to the political philosophies of Marx, Hegel, Engels and Rousseau.
Dec 7, 2019 18:09:27 #
Liberty Tree wrote:
They have no facts. They think hearsay,opinions, perceptions, presumptions, and accusations are proof so facts are not needed.
Every single freaking time they run their big mouths and I say okay here I am, give me your arguments, and nothing. Once again, nobody here but us crickets.
Dec 7, 2019 20:43:57 #
PeterS wrote:
It's a simple question: Can you look at anything without putting your ideology first? Don't try to deflect onto me questions you don't have the balls to answer...
Your questions are like those of Schiff who begins the questioning by beginning with a false statement, then following up with more false arguments and then asks one to challenge the false argument assuming the initial statement was gospel. Schaffer’s is a master at doing this and it appears you follow suit. You fail to listen to those on the OPP who challenge your initial premise. Like Schiff, we get gaveled out!
Dec 8, 2019 05:26:11 #
Dec 8, 2019 06:53:21 #
PeterS wrote:
In listening to the conservative congressman quest... (show quote)
Go take a ride on SloJo's Malarkey bus. Like hair sniffer and child groping Joe you are so full of Malarkey, bs, and dementia that you don't even know when your Malarkey bus is in reverse and going backwards!! Take dope head, H****r, with you too. You regressives love to be mentally out of it anyway with your dopehead selves. Why drink kool aid when you guys can snort coke and smoke rope??
Dec 8, 2019 06:58:53 #
PeterS wrote:
It's a simple question: Can you look at anything without putting your ideology first? Don't try to deflect onto me questions you don't have the balls to answer...
Little Peter you are a l*****t totalitarian lackey of Nanny Peeloosli's. Nanny tells you to jump and you ask her "how high". You have the emotional and intellectual maturity of all l*****t sheepie's that can't think for themselves, love to be told what to do and say, and try to intimidate others and be big bullies until someone pulls an mma maneuver on you and then you whine like a little baby.
Dec 8, 2019 07:04:14 #
Liberty Tree wrote:
You refer to the alleged constitutional scholars who are by their own admission blatantly biased againt trump but ignore the one who was not a trump supporter who spoke against impeachment. By your lack ofobjectivety you show yourself to be the real koolaid drinker.
Weren't all these impeachment scholars Ovommit and Hitlery supporters? Like Muellers group of l*****t Hitlery and Ovommit supporters these lackeys carried no credibility. I think H****r and Slow Joe offered them some of their Ukrainian bribe money and some cocaine and marijuana which effected their neuronal cells and inability to think clearly. The woman on that panel was taking ugly pills and was highly emotional like all l*****t women.
Dec 8, 2019 07:06:21 #
PeterS wrote:
I heard Pelosi speak and she made a clear distinct... (show quote)
Nanny Peeloosli can not think clearly. She is definitely heading toward a diagnosis of Alzheimer's or paranoia and is probably in the beginning stages of both.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.