Simple Question for the Trump illiterates
Dec 19, 2019 10:27:05 #
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Omagosh.
...it's better than you imagine.
...it's better than you imagine.
I'm thirty years off...
Tell me about it....
The fun parts...
Dec 19, 2019 10:37:26 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I'm thirty years off...
Tell me about it....
The fun parts...
Tell me about it....
The fun parts...
This.
Other than applying what sk**ls I've learned in life to my well being in retirement, I travel and play.
OPP is one of my joys.
Dec 19, 2019 10:40:55 #
Michael Rich
Loc: Lapine Oregon
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Omagosh.
...it's better than you imagine.
...it's better than you imagine.
I'm working on it.😀
Dec 19, 2019 10:50:18 #
dtucker300
Loc: Vista, CA
byronglimish wrote:
I'm working on it.😀
I highly recommend it for everyone!
Dec 19, 2019 10:57:04 #
Michael Rich
Loc: Lapine Oregon
dtucker300 wrote:
I highly recommend it for everyone!
I'll take that under advisement.
Dec 19, 2019 11:04:20 #
Dec 19, 2019 11:43:42 #
byronglimish wrote:
I'll take that under advisement.
I'm still in my robe and slippers. Ahhhhhh.
Dec 19, 2019 11:47:53 #
dtucker300
Loc: Vista, CA
Mikeyavelli wrote:
I'm still in my robe and slippers. Ahhhhhh.
Way to rub it in!
Dec 19, 2019 11:52:42 #
Michael Rich
Loc: Lapine Oregon
Mikeyavelli wrote:
I'm still in my robe and slippers. Ahhhhhh.
Enjoy, my friend and brother.
Dec 19, 2019 12:10:52 #
son of witless wrote:
You were shocked and disappointed in 2016, you were wrong when you thought Mueller would throw Trump out of office in 2017, 2018, and you will be wrong in 2019 and 2020.
You would no doubt be surprised to learn that "I thought I was wrong once....only to discover that I was mistaken."
Dec 19, 2019 12:52:25 #
dtucker300
Loc: Vista, CA
JediKnight wrote:
You would no doubt be surprised to learn that "I thought I was wrong once....only to discover that I was mistaken."
Dec 19, 2019 12:54:33 #
JFlorio wrote:
Actually most convictions are not based on assumptions. They are based on facts and evidence; especially white collar crime.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, which is what you folks are calling assumptions.
JFlorio wrote:
I know what article II says. Nowhere in the articles of impeachment do I see the word bribe.
I know what article II says. Nowhere in the articles of impeachment do I see the word bribe.
Actually the word "bribery" is in the first sentence of the first article. Just so you know, bribery actually refers to the act of bribing someone... with a bribe. ;)
Now, you're going to look and say... "Oh... well, yeah it's in there but that's just a incantation of the Article II". So are you referring to the rest of the article then?
Well, this is where I remind you that the Republicans in the committee moved to strike that word from the text. I was watching when it happened. It's not because the Democrats couldn't prove it. It's because the Republicans didn't like that it was in there. 'Pretty hilarious if you ask me because this is what they left...
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States P**********l e******n. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his ree******n, harm the e******n prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States P**********l e******n to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
That's basically what bribery is. I'm guessing the Democrats were cool with the edit because they can still figure out the context, where Republicans are happy because now that can say the word "bribe" isn't in there, so it can't be an impeachable offense. LOL
BTW, thanks for giving me the chance to highlight even MORE of the stupidity on the right. Please keep encouraging me.
JFlorio wrote:
Believe me, if they could prove bribery it would be in there.
Believe me, if they could prove bribery it would be in there.
Not if the Republicans, move to strike the word and the Democrats don't need it to convey the meaning.
JFlorio wrote:
You are looking foolish. Unless you have a paralegal certificate I guarantee I know more law than you do one trick. Give it up.
You are looking foolish. Unless you have a paralegal certificate I guarantee I know more law than you do one trick. Give it up.
And yet you can't make the connection between "conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations" with bribery...
...And now you're trying to claim legal expert superpower with a paralegal certificate. LOL
Look, a paralegal certificate doesn't necessarily mean you know more about constitutional law than I do and by what you are posting I'm going to say you don't.
Dec 19, 2019 13:38:04 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
Lie much? I claimed no such thing. I’m just giving you some facts. From what you’ve said it’s obvious you don’t understand the evidence required. You’ve been busted not knowing s**t. Just opinion. In your arrogant way you just think your opinion is more valid than anyone else’s.
straightUp wrote:
And yet you can't make the connection between "conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations" with bribery...
...And now you're trying to claim legal expert superpower with a paralegal certificate. LOL
Look, a paralegal certificate doesn't necessarily mean you know more about constitutional law than I do and by what you are posting I'm going to say you don't.
...And now you're trying to claim legal expert superpower with a paralegal certificate. LOL
Look, a paralegal certificate doesn't necessarily mean you know more about constitutional law than I do and by what you are posting I'm going to say you don't.
Dec 19, 2019 15:41:24 #
straightUp wrote:
And yet you can't make the connection between "conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations" with bribery...
...And now you're trying to claim legal expert superpower with a paralegal certificate. LOL
Look, a paralegal certificate doesn't necessarily mean you know more about constitutional law than I do and by what you are posting I'm going to say you don't.
...And now you're trying to claim legal expert superpower with a paralegal certificate. LOL
Look, a paralegal certificate doesn't necessarily mean you know more about constitutional law than I do and by what you are posting I'm going to say you don't.
Circumstantial evidence? A specific example please?
Dec 19, 2019 18:20:28 #
Airforceone wrote:
Go suck on your diaper something drastically wrong with you.
Thanks for telling me and others about diapers. I have just leaned that I have advanced prostate cancer which causes bladder problems. As a result I need two a day.
I don't know why they appeal to you. If you wore them and quit was it because of the itch or burn.
Because if it is for a different reason and you need more then send me your address and I will send you some used ones.
I will send them in double bagged grocery bags. Therefore the postal people and your neighbors won't get wind of you fetish.
When you receive them you MIGHT want to wear them, smell them, wash your face with them or any thing your fetish requires.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.