One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Posts for: rebob14
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 61 next>>
May 19, 2019 09:46:00   #
sierratr wrote:
Is Pelosi' hatred for Trump stronger than her love for America? Unless dementia is destroying her synapses {remember she is 79 years old}, she must realize the leadership of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are watching with amazement and delight as she continues to block the president as he tries to secure the southern border. She must realize that among the million or more illegal aliens that have poured into America in the last year are many that are here to harm and cause chaos within our country. Alas, hatred is a powerful emotion. I believe it has overwhelmed her patriotism. She is a direct threat to the United States.
Is Pelosi' hatred for Trump stronger than her lov... (show quote)

May 16, 2019 06:06:57   #
Iliamna1 wrote:
Bandera is beautiful as is Stillhouse Hollow Lake near Belton and the Vanishing River Cruise near Burnet with some pretty good fishing for croppie in Lake Buchanan, and there are bald eagles to see there. The central Texas hill country is beautiful, especially during bluebonnet season. Monarch butterflies should be migrating through there right now.

We spent last weekend in Fredericksburg and drove through the area you describe. I had no idea that Lake Buchanan existed! Beautiful country!
May 16, 2019 05:54:51   #
Rose42 wrote:
Did they give a reason why? Sounds very odd

Election! It’s aphid feed
May 15, 2019 07:18:32   #
lpnmajor wrote:
Our Secretary of State is wandering from country to country, trying to drum up support for a war with Iran, backed by the moronically brilliant National Security Advisor, the same dude that so skillfully lead George W. Bush to invade Iraq to search for non existent WMD's. For some strange reason, the British Commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, doesn't see the same threat posed by Iran as our illustrious leaders do, or at least, pretend to see.

What could possibly prompt the United States, already embroiled in multiple wars simultaneously, to seek an additional war? I don't know, we'd have to ask ole Net and Jared Kushner. We could ask Bolton, but he's barely competent enough to order a meal from a menu containing more than three items. It's no secret that Bolton has been aching for a war with Iran for some time, well, a war with anybody at all really.

If someone, anyone, made a list of total amounts of ordnance used in foreign countries against civilian populations, the United States would be at the top of that list, with Iran somewhere below Saudi Arabia. It is quite clear that the US is actively trying to goad Iran into doing something to spark a war, is trying desperately to convince other countries of the need to attack Iran immediately and spinning this false narrative to create a false flag event. What is remarkable, is that Iran's Supreme Leader is wise to this farce, prompting him to emphatically state that there will NOT be war with the US. Of Course, that does not preclude the US from going ahead with it's war plans, so we'll see whether or not their conjob is successful.
Our Secretary of State is wandering from country t... (show quote)

Oh, you mean the British commander who works for the British government which wants to continue doing business with the Persian theocracy whose sole purpose is to exterminate the Jewish nation? The peaceful mullahs who are funding the majority of terrorism in the Middle East?
May 13, 2019 05:45:01   #
Gatsby wrote:
Abstinence to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and the need for abortions, what a novel idea.

May 13, 2019 05:40:44   #
DaWg44 wrote:
Reckon this will be another reason for us to be called “reprehensible, red necks, God, gun, grub reprobates. Bring it on. We can take it. You might want to read some history about where you are headed w/ all your liberal/leftist/ communist ideals. I have read a good bit of history, not school books, & looks like to me, you the newest generation of this insane ideology have found a new way to eat your own.

May 5, 2019 09:38:45   #
Airforceone wrote:
One question did you read the Muellar report, did you read the summary put out by the Muellar team and the DOJ officials who actually did the investigation or do you just listen to what Trump and Barr are telling you.

If you get all your info from Trump and Barr you are living in fantasyland.

Your ignoring facts that was stated in that Muellar report, your ignoring the intelligence that was created by our 19 intelligence agencies and you (BELIEVE TRUMP) wow the ignorance to facts is unbelievable
One question did you read the Muellar report, did ... (show quote)

Your “facts” don’t rise to the level of prosecutable evidence, even after 17 Trump Haters spent 30 million dollars of your money trying to manufacture it. Does THAT fact not make any impression on you?
May 1, 2019 07:09:27   #
Blade_Runner wrote:

Best post that rather than link it. In my experience on forums like this, many people will skip over links. It's in-your-face stuff that is most effective.

About That Letter That Mueller Wrote To Barr...

Another deep state "leak" has hit the tape, and as usual it has gone to the WaPo and NYT almost at the exact same time... but this it's even more laughable than usual.

In what the WaPo breathlessly reports late on Tuesday was a rebuke and "complaint" to Attorney General William Barr, special counsel Robert Mueller sent a letter to the AG in late March, just days after Barr sent out his summary to Congress, in which Mueller stated that Barr's 4-page summary to Congress on the sweeping Russia investigation failed to "fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of Mueller’s work and conclusions, citing a copy of the letter it had obtained using its trusted deep intel sources.

This is what Mueller said to Barr, according to the leaked NSA intercept:

"There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

And if one reads just that, it certainly does not look good for Attorney General Barr, especially just one day before his first official Congressional hearing on the topic of the Mueller report: so bad that even the absolute lunatic fringe of conspiracygate - which had mercifully shut up for the past month with its daily predictions that this member of the Trump clan is going to jail, or that website will be shut down - has roared back into life with the sage assessment that "this is bad."

Pouring more fuel on the fire, the always pithy Axios adds that "this revelation about Mueller's dissatisfaction with the characterization of his report will likely escalate the growing rift over Barr's handling of the special counsel's investigation. House Democrats, who have expressed distrust in the attorney general, are set to vote on Wednesday to allow House Judiciary Committee lawyers to question Barr at Thursday's hearing."

Or maybe not, and perhaps the WaPo/NYT report is not "so bad" if one actually reads it, because once the breathless WaPo finally does come up for air, we get to paragraph 13 - a point by which most readers have turned out - to read the following real punchline in the WaPo report:

When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not...

So, Mueller felt there was confusion... but he did not think the memo was inaccurate. Wait, what's going on here and how is this even a story? Well, if we read the rest of the above sentence, we find the true object of Mueller's "complaint":

Mueller felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

Which means that, as the WaPo itself reports, what Mueller was really angry with was the coverage of his report by media such as... the WaPo and the NYT?? The irony, it burns.

But wait, because if one reads even further - and yes, we know most Russiagaters have troubles getting beyond sentence one so they are excused - we find that throughout a subsequent 15 minutes telephone conversation between the special counsel and the attorney general, Mueller’s main worry was "that the public was not getting an accurate understanding of the obstruction investigation."

This goes back to what Mueller's letter requested: "that Barr release the 448-page report’s introductions and executive summaries, and made some initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials," the WaPo writes.

What happened then? A few weeks later Barr did just that, and absent occasional redactions - some of which apparently revealed that Russia had taped Bill Clinton having phone sex with Monica Lewinsky - he did just that.

So if Mueller thought Barr's memo was not inaccurate, and his ire was instead targeted at the media for "misinterpreting the investigation" - although it remains unclear just how they did this, after all Mueller does not dispute that there was no collusion (yes, Russiagaters, that means you) and did not dispute Barr's conclusion of no obstruction - then what is the point of these two rather confused pieces? Well, as noted above, tomorrow Barr is scheduled to testify on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation, and the entire article is meant to focus on the headlines of the WaPo (and NYT) article, and certainly not on paragraph 13 which, not only refutes the prevailing tone that Barr did something wrong, but in fact exonerates him. But that won't have any impact on tomorrow's hearing which is now assured to be a complete kangaroo court.

As for tonight's really big, if unspoken, story - if this is the best leak Mueller has to defy Barr and the president, then Trump has indeed won.
Thanks. br br Best post that rather than link it.... (show quote)

And this pointless round robin of adolescent “debate” is exactly the point of all this drama; declare personality defects in your opponents to maintain a voting base.
Apr 23, 2019 06:51:04   #
Sew_What wrote:
...apparently your state or where she teaches has a very low bar for pay...maybe she should fight for better pay? If she feels she can't then she should look for a different school district.

We don’t have enough money to fix your suicidal ideaology.
Apr 23, 2019 06:47:30   #
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
The joke is on all of us. The man is subject to numerous investigations and allegations. That right there should raise more than just my eyebrow.

Brought by the people who thought they had the only secret decoder ring.........!
Apr 23, 2019 06:41:53   #
jimpack123 wrote:
they must be related to TRUMP

If the Trumps know anything well, it’s money!!
Apr 19, 2019 10:11:37   #
slatten49 wrote:

Rick Newman, Yahoo Finance. April 18, 2019

Special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence linking President Donald Trump to any crimes involving Russian interference with the 2016 U.S. election. And he declined to prosecute Trump for obstructing justice or interfering with prosecutors investigating the Russian interference.

But the 448-page Mueller report contains numerous damning details of Trump asking subordinates to obstruct justice on his behalf, condoning other people’s crimes, covering up facts, telling people to lie and lying himself. Trump may avoid prosecution, but critics will feast for years on the mendacity Mueller revealed. Even some Trump supporters may question their fealty to a president now revealed to operate like a mob boss, except with poorer judgment.

Anybody interested in Mueller’s findings should read the report for themselves. It’s a complicated document with threads that partisans can spin almost any way they want. And the overarching narrative is confounding, because Trump repeatedly sought ways to quash an investigation into a crime he apparently didn’t commit. Trump acted guilty of something Mueller himself found no evidence of.

It’s good news that the Trump campaign did not work deliberately with Russia during the 2016 election. Yet, there were numerous contacts between Trump campaign officials and representatives of Russia, with nobody from the campaign ever thinking to tell the FBI about them. Maybe Trump acted guilty because he realized at some point that his campaign’s contacts with Russia were fishy, at a minimum, and might look a lot worse than that to a zealous prosecutor.

How did Trump act guilty? Some of his paranoia was on public display, through the recurring “witch hunt” tweets and statements meant to discredit the Mueller investigation before we knew anything about its findings. And Trump seemed to publicly threaten witnesses such as Michael Cohen, who might testify against him.

Trump went much further than that, as the Mueller report now reveals. On June 14, 2017, according to the Mueller report, Trump called White House Counsel Donald McGahn and told him to have Justice Department leadership fire Mueller — which probably would have been obstruction of justice. McGahn declined to do that, one of several times people around Trump prevented overt crimes from happening. “The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful,” the Mueller report states, “but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

After McGahn refused to have Mueller fired, Trump tried to have former campaign aide Corey Lewandowski pass a message to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions about Mueller. Trump wanted Sessions to publicly exonerate him of any crimes, and to limit the Mueller investigation so it excluded investigation into Trump’s personal behavior. Lewandowsky didn’t want to deliver the message and tried to get a White House advisor to do it. Neither delivered the message to Sessions, who apparently never got it.

In June 2017, news organizations began to learn of the now-notorious meeting at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, between representatives of the Russian government and Trump campaign officials, including Trump’s son Don, Jr. That meeting was about compromising information Russia had obtained on Hillary Clinton, Trump’s general-election opponent, which Russia offered to share with the Trump campaign. But once news of that meeting broke a year later, Trump told press aids to lie to news organizations, saying the meeting was really about policies toward adopting Russian babies.

“Each of these efforts by the President involved his communication team and was directed at the press,” the Mueller report found. “They would amount to obstructive acts only if the President, by taking those actions, sought to withhold information from or mislead congressional investigators of the Special Counsel.” Lying to the media, in other words, isn’t a crime, so Trump is off the hook on that one, too.

In January 2018, press reports recounted Trump’s effort to have McGahn get Mueller fired seven months earlier. That story was accurate, but Trump, through a personal lawyer, asked McGahn to put out a statement denying what had, in fact, taken place. Trump, in other words, asked McGahn to lie, so Trump wouldn’t look bad. McGahn refused.

‘President knew Cohen provided false testimony’'

It’s also not a crime, evidently, if you knowingly let somebody else commit perjury on your behalf. Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, pled guilty to lying to Congress about Trump’s pursuit of a real-estate project in Russia, saying the project ended by January 2016 when in fact it continued until at least June 2016. Cohen told Congress earlier this year that Trump knew Cohen would be lying and did nothing to discourage him.

The Mueller report corroborates that. “There is evidence … that the President knew Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project,” the Mueller report said. But “the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen's false testimony.”

Once Cohen began cooperating with prosecutors, Trump publicly called Cohen a “rat” and made what sounded like veiled threats of government legal action against his family. Obstruction? Here’s what Mueller found: “The President's statements insinuating that members of Cohen's family committed crimes after Cohen began cooperating with the government could be viewed as an effort to retaliate against Cohen and chill further testimony adverse to the President by Cohen or others.” There’s some evidence of a crime, in other words. Yet, Mueller still felt this didn’t reach the threshold required for prosecution.

There are many more examples in the Mueller report of Trump behaving in ways that might sound illegal to ordinary people, but don’t rise to what seems to be a very high Justice Department bar for prosecuting the president. Partisans, pundits, legal experts and historians will debate Mueller’s findings for a long time, and voters will of course get to render their own judgment once the 2020 election finally rolls around.

At a simpler level, however, the Mueller report reveals behavior many Americans would not normally tolerate in business executives, educators, religious leaders, local politicians or their own family members. Trump may not have committed crimes he can be prosecuted for. But he came damn close, and another prosecutor might have been less deferential. No wonder Trump tried to kill the Mueller investigation. (show quote)

Really! It’s nothing more than priming Pablum for the next round of prog base station keeping. This entire “debate” resembles nothing so much as sixth grade girls vying for being most popular.......demeaning and disgusting for the country!
Apr 11, 2019 08:35:23   #
SchneckenFresser wrote:
You are so very cute and clever, Wolfie, with your brilliant play on words such as "faggot" and "sissy." Such puerile name calling indicates that you are a sad, unhappy person, whose opinions are not worth noting, except for their entertainment value. Pete Buttigieg has been twice elected mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He won his second election with 80% of the vote. This must prove that a great majority of the thinking, appreciative citizens of South Bend are merely "liberal spooks." Keep spouting your ugly thoughts, Wolfster, 'cause Miss Karma is gonna getcha sooner or later!
You are so very cute and clever, Wolfie, with your... (show quote)

Those not yet gunned down ..............what happened to that city???
Apr 11, 2019 08:25:33   #
Kevyn wrote:
As with most religious texts including the Bible, the Koran contains many contradictions and as such is interpreted by many people in many ways. There are passages in the Bible that say children who disobey their parents should be stoned to death. I would bet some ISIL propagandists use this sort of cherry picking from the Bible to discredit the Christian faith which is exactly what hate groups like jihad watch and American jihad do to denigrate Muslims. The view and values of a vast majority of Muslims was and is reflected in George W. Bush’s statement that Islam is a religion of peace. As stated by the Grand Mulah of Egypt in response to the inexcusable Charlie Hedbo attack. God upholds the sanctity of life as a universal principle. “And do not kill one another, for God is indeed merciful unto you,” says the Koran (4:29). Islam views murder as both a crime by law in this world and as major sin punishable in the afterlife as well. The prophet Muhammad said: “The first cases to be decided among the people on the day of judgment will be those of bloodshed.”
As with most religious texts including the Bible, ... (show quote)

Did ya ever hear about an Old Covenant and a New Covenant, the difference between the law and the spirit?? Maybe not, as the Koran does not contain such a concept.........only Christianity does. Check it out!
Apr 11, 2019 08:17:02   #
dsyvanen wrote:
The Quran has 109 verses of violence listed on a web page: or at

Why did most Americans believe George W. bush when he said: "Islam is a religion of Peace?" When it is NOT?

Not sure most was pretty obvious he was trying to avert a full blown round of jihads and crusades?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 61 next>> - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.