WWTBAM Bored

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:The left wanted to drive In-N-Out out of business for a single donation to the right.

For someone who gets upset about overbroad descriptions of "Republicans," you toss around terms like "the left" rather freely.

You are right about my generalization. I apologize. I should have said, "Many on the left wanted to drive In-N-Out out of business for a single donation to the right."

You said that I "toss around terms like 'the left' rather freely." I just searched all of my posts and found 54 hits for those words, but the only times that I used the term "the left" in the political context were both regarding In-N-Out in this thread. You, yourself, have 113 hits for those words. You also have 887 hits on Republican*. I did not care to drill into the threads past the rough searches, but I'm pretty sure that many more than 2 are disparaging generalizations.

You're correct that I should have said. "you're tossing around the term 'the left' rather freely." But I think that if you dig into my posts, you'll find that most of my references are to "Congressional Republicans." --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:For someone who gets upset about overbroad descriptions of "Republicans," you toss around terms like "the left" rather freely.

You are right about my generalization. I apologize. I should have said, "Many on the left wanted to drive In-N-Out out of business for a single donation to the right."

You said that I "toss around terms like 'the left' rather freely." I just searched all of my posts and found 54 hits for those words, but the only times that I used the term "the left" in the political context were both regarding In-N-Out in this thread. You, yourself, have 113 hits for those words. You also have 887 hits on Republican*. I did not care to drill into the threads past the rough searches, but I'm pretty sure that many more than 2 are disparaging generalizations.

You're correct that I should have said. "you're tossing around the term 'the left' rather freely." But I think that if you dig into my posts, you'll find that most of my references are to "Congressional Republicans."

Nope. I was actually surprised that 52 of your posts contained that phrase. I didn't think you made the qualification that often. Subtract that from the 888 hits on Republican* and you have a rough number of 1 in 16 mentions that you make the qualification.

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:For someone who gets upset about overbroad descriptions of "Republicans," you toss around terms like "the left" rather freely.

You are right about my generalization. I apologize. I should have said, "Many on the left wanted to drive In-N-Out out of business for a single donation to the right."

You said that I "toss around terms like 'the left' rather freely." I just searched all of my posts and found 54 hits for those words, but the only times that I used the term "the left" in the political context were both regarding In-N-Out in this thread. You, yourself, have 113 hits for those words. You also have 887 hits on Republican*. I did not care to drill into the threads past the rough searches, but I'm pretty sure that many more than 2 are disparaging generalizations.

You're correct that I should have said. "you're tossing around the term 'the left' rather freely." But I think that if you dig into my posts, you'll find that most of my references are to "Congressional Republicans." --Bob

bob-tel, don't worry about whether you use 'republican' or 'congressional republican'. Whatever words you use, we know you mean every person who isn't a liberal democrat like you. It's the only group you are free to mock, disparage and hate according to PC rules.

Well, white men and Christians, too. But they generally come under the 'republican' category anyway.

I'm kind of surprised that no one picked up on the New York Times expose on the Trump financial house of cards, but it looks like it caught the interest of New York State authorities:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/new-yor ... ticle.html

silverscreenselect wrote:I'm kind of surprised that no one picked up on the New York Times expose on the Trump financial house of cards, but it looks like it caught the interest of New York State authorities:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/new-yor ... ticle.html

more garbage from the NYT.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:I'm kind of surprised that no one picked up on the New York Times expose on the Trump financial house of cards, but it looks like it caught the interest of New York State authorities:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/new-yor ... ticle.html

more garbage from the NYT.

You're not interested in actual evidence that Donny committed tax fraud? Why does that not surprise me. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:I'm kind of surprised that no one picked up on the New York Times expose on the Trump financial house of cards, but it looks like it caught the interest of New York State authorities:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/new-yor ... ticle.html

more garbage from the NYT.

You're not interested in actual evidence that Donny committed tax fraud? Why does that not surprise me. --Bob

What about the actual evidence he did not commit tax fraud?

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:I'm kind of surprised that no one picked up on the New York Times expose on the Trump financial house of cards, but it looks like it caught the interest of New York State authorities:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/new-yor ... ticle.html

more garbage from the NYT.

You're not interested in actual evidence that Donny committed tax fraud? Why does that not surprise me. --Bob

He's already worse than Hitler. Why worry about his taxes?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
more garbage from the NYT.

You're not interested in actual evidence that Donny committed tax fraud? Why does that not surprise me. --Bob

He's already worse than Hitler. Why worry about his taxes?

Maybe because being worse than Hitler won't result in any criminal or civil liability while committing tax fraud could well do so.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
more garbage from the NYT.

You're not interested in actual evidence that Donny committed tax fraud? Why does that not surprise me. --Bob

What about the actual evidence he did not commit tax fraud?

That would start with his tax returns, which he refuses to release. I guess now we know one of the reasons why. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You're not interested in actual evidence that Donny committed tax fraud? Why does that not surprise me. --Bob

He's already worse than Hitler. Why worry about his taxes?

Maybe because being worse than Hitler won't result in any criminal or civil liability while committing tax fraud could well do so.

Don't worry, they're constantly looking for it. When they find something, they'll let us know.
I heard that Mueller is letting lawyers go. Maybe he'll let us know what he found in the next few years or so.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
What about the actual evidence he did not commit tax fraud?

That would start with his tax returns, which he refuses to release. I guess now we know one of the reasons why. --Bob

No. He said he didn't. And that was corroborated by his attorney.

It was enough for you that Ford said she was assaulted. We have twice as much evidence Trump did not commit tax fraud: Trump AND his attorney.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
What about the actual evidence he did not commit tax fraud?

That would start with his tax returns, which he refuses to release. I guess now we know one of the reasons why. --Bob

No. He said he didn't. And that was corroborated by his attorney.

It was enough for you that Ford said she was assaulted. We have twice as much evidence Trump did not commit tax fraud: Trump AND his attorney.

It was enough for me that she credibly said she was assaulted to call for a full and fair investigation. If we get to see the FBI report, we'll know whether the investigation we actually got was full and fair. If the Republicans want to hide it from public view, that's a pretty strong indicator that it's nothing more than a fig leaf. It's certainly not encouraging that the FBI spoke to neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh.

We already know that Donny is a liar (so his statements aren't credible) and we already know that he hires attorneys who are willing to commit crimes on his behalf (so their statements aren't credible either). In any event, these allegations certainly deserve an investigation, starting with his tax returns. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:That would start with his tax returns, which he refuses to release. I guess now we know one of the reasons why. --Bob

No. He said he didn't. And that was corroborated by his attorney.

It was enough for you that Ford said she was assaulted. We have twice as much evidence Trump did not commit tax fraud: Trump AND his attorney.

It was enough for me that she credibly said she was assaulted to call for a full and fair investigation. If we get to see the FBI report, we'll know whether the investigation we actually got was full and fair. If the Republicans want to hide it from public view, that's a pretty strong indicator that it's nothing more than a fig leaf. It's certainly not encouraging that the FBI spoke to neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh.

We already know that Donny is a liar (so his statements aren't credible) and we already know that he hires attorneys who are willing to commit crimes on his behalf (so their statements aren't credible either). In any event, these allegations certainly deserve an investigation, starting with his tax returns. --Bob

Her credibility is dwindling away as some actual journalists are investigating her.

Did the batphone say for everyone to emphasize 'credible' and 'serious charges'? All of the people I suspect have batphones always make sure they use those exact words when talking about Dr. Ford and her accusations. Just sayin.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Her credibility is dwindling away as some actual journalists are investigating her.

And THAT is why the NYT decided to publish their IRS "scandal" articles that were scheduled to be published closer to election day: Diversion

"Look over here NOW!"

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
No. He said he didn't. And that was corroborated by his attorney.

It was enough for you that Ford said she was assaulted. We have twice as much evidence Trump did not commit tax fraud: Trump AND his attorney.

It was enough for me that she credibly said she was assaulted to call for a full and fair investigation. If we get to see the FBI report, we'll know whether the investigation we actually got was full and fair. If the Republicans want to hide it from public view, that's a pretty strong indicator that it's nothing more than a fig leaf. It's certainly not encouraging that the FBI spoke to neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh.

We already know that Donny is a liar (so his statements aren't credible) and we already know that he hires attorneys who are willing to commit crimes on his behalf (so their statements aren't credible either). In any event, these allegations certainly deserve an investigation, starting with his tax returns. --Bob

Her credibility is dwindling away as some actual journalists are investigating her.

Did the batphone say for everyone to emphasize 'credible' and 'serious charges'? All of the people I suspect have batphones always make sure they use those exact words when talking about Dr. Ford and her accusations. Just sayin.

If by that you mean the mud has begun to fly against her, that's to be expected. In a world where a sitting United States Senator can still publicize the alleged sexual habits of someone claiming to be a witness to multiple sexual assaults (as though the witness's sexual habits have anything to do with the credibility of her testimony), it's not surprising that partisans will attempt to distract from the lack of a full and fair FBI investigation by tossing out there anything anyone is willing to say against the chief complaining witness.

You can, however, stop wondering why women would be just a tad reluctant to air charges of this nature. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Her credibility is dwindling away as some actual journalists are investigating her.

You may be the first person to refer to the writers at PJ Media as actual journalists.

Bob78164 wrote:If we get to see the FBI report, we'll know whether the investigation we actually got was full and fair. If the Republicans want to hide it from public view, that's a pretty strong indicator that it's nothing more than a fig leaf.

Having been through almost as many background investigations as Kavanaugh, I hope the report isn't made public. These reports contain a lot of personal information that's none of the public's business. Also, witnesses are more forthcoming if what they say is kept confidential. That's true generally, and even more so when everyone involved is getting death threats.

As I keep repeating, the FBI investigation will include whatever the undecided Senators need to know. We'll get an idea of the result from what they say and how they vote.

jarnon wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:If we get to see the FBI report, we'll know whether the investigation we actually got was full and fair. If the Republicans want to hide it from public view, that's a pretty strong indicator that it's nothing more than a fig leaf.

Having been through almost as many background investigations as Kavanaugh, I hope the report isn't made public. These reports contain a lot of personal information that's none of the public's business. Also, witnesses are more forthcoming if what they say is kept confidential. That's true generally, and even more so when everyone involved is getting death threats.

As I keep repeating, the FBI investigation will include whatever the undecided Senators need to know. We'll get an idea of the result from what they say and how they vote.

I can understand that, but given the need to evaluate how our Senators are doing their jobs, I think it's very important that, at a minimum, some kind of summary needs to be provided to the public, and I think it needs to come from the FBI. We need to know whom the FBI did and didn't talk to and we need to have some idea of what was said about the issues in dispute. --Bob

jarnon wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:If we get to see the FBI report, we'll know whether the investigation we actually got was full and fair. If the Republicans want to hide it from public view, that's a pretty strong indicator that it's nothing more than a fig leaf.

Having been through almost as many background investigations as Kavanaugh, I hope the report isn't made public. These reports contain a lot of personal information that's none of the public's business. Also, witnesses are more forthcoming if what they say is kept confidential. That's true generally, and even more so when everyone involved is getting death threats.

As I keep repeating, the FBI investigation will include whatever the undecided Senators need to know. We'll get an idea of the result from what they say and how they vote.

I highly doubt the FBI investigation will include whatever the undecided Senators need to know. They are not interviewing Ford nor Kavanaugh, nor many other witnesses.

Bob Juch wrote: I highly doubt the FBI investigation will include whatever the undecided Senators need to know.

It's going to depend on whether Flake et al wanted a real investigation or the appearance of an investigation.

And so it starts again. Y'all are funny guys. Funny.

BackInTex wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Her credibility is dwindling away as some actual journalists are investigating her.

And THAT is why the NYT decided to publish their IRS "scandal" articles that were scheduled to be published closer to election day: Diversion

"Look over here NOW!"

Right? When's the last time you heard about children being ripped from the loving arms of their parents?

tlynn78 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Her credibility is dwindling away as some actual journalists are investigating her.

And THAT is why the NYT decided to publish their IRS "scandal" articles that were scheduled to be published closer to election day: Diversion

"Look over here NOW!"

Right? When's the last time you heard about children being ripped from the loving arms of their parents?

They'll get back to it.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It was enough for me that she credibly said she was assaulted to call for a full and fair investigation. If we get to see the FBI report, we'll know whether the investigation we actually got was full and fair. If the Republicans want to hide it from public view, that's a pretty strong indicator that it's nothing more than a fig leaf. It's certainly not encouraging that the FBI spoke to neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh.

We already know that Donny is a liar (so his statements aren't credible) and we already know that he hires attorneys who are willing to commit crimes on his behalf (so their statements aren't credible either). In any event, these allegations certainly deserve an investigation, starting with his tax returns. --Bob

Her credibility is dwindling away as some actual journalists are investigating her.

Did the batphone say for everyone to emphasize 'credible' and 'serious charges'? All of the people I suspect have batphones always make sure they use those exact words when talking about Dr. Ford and her accusations. Just sayin.

If by that you mean the mud has begun to fly against her, that's to be expected. In a world where a sitting United States Senator can still publicize the alleged sexual habits of someone claiming to be a witness to multiple sexual assaults (as though the witness's sexual habits have anything to do with the credibility of her testimony), it's not surprising that partisans will attempt to distract from the lack of a full and fair FBI investigation by tossing out there anything anyone is willing to say against the chief complaining witness.

You can, however, stop wondering why women would be just a tad reluctant to air charges of this nature. --Bob

When did the mud start to fly against Kavanaugh, bob-tel? Just when he was about to be recommended by the Judicial Committee? But that's right. Democrats are always on the side of truth, justice and the American way, while the repubs are all evil. This is a world where United States Senators can use the sexual assault of a woman as a political tool and people like you believe it's a good thing.
Now we're at a 'full and fair' investigation? 7 aren't enough?

bob-tel, your one-sided, partisan moral outrage is really getting maudlin.