Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

    Originally posted by ericredaxe View Post
    So you assume Brent is a liar? That is a pretty heavy accusation...
    How did you possibly get that from what he posted?

    Asking for a reason is not accusing of lying. That is some serious twisted logic.

    BTW not everyone that argues with you is a lefty...just an FYI.
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

    Comment


    • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

      Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
      They are drafting an exec order to leave NAFTA.
      Maybe this is all for the best. All the wingnut idiocy gets tried out, goes down in flames, and then even though the eejits will keep crying for it (because it enriches them personally) the rest of the country will say "been there, done that."
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

        Originally posted by Handyman View Post
        How did you possibly get that from what he posted?

        Asking for a reason is not accusing of lying. That is some serious twisted logic.

        BTW not everyone that argues with you is a lefty...just an FYI.
        Very much "if you are not with me, you are against me" kind of a reply.

        Which I find pretty funny. Given some of the recourse coming from some of them.

        Comment


        • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

          Brent got called to the carpet (deservedly so) coz he was pretending to be in the "middle" and everyone could easily see through it.

          Comment


          • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
            So, now we're equivocating Hillary and GW/Cheney? Really? Is that where we want to go? Those two weren't even investigated for their war crimes. Hillary has been continuously investigated for decades. She was brought in to the House, under oath, and testified for over 10 hours. It was the GOP's wet dream and what did they get her on? NOTHING.

            I mean this is why the right can't win any arguments. Everything argued is either a logistical fallacy or a false equivalency. Give me some meat.
            I'm not equivocating anyone with anyone. In fact, this seems to be the default accusation leveled whenever someone can't think of a real response.

            What I posted is that a person doesn't need to be convicted of something before people have every right to be critical of their actions or motives.
            That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

            Comment


            • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

              Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View Post
              Yesterday, the headlines were that Trump was proposing to cut the $8.25 million Office of Global Women's Issues among other things and it was Disaster! Today Ivanka is putting together $100 million plus in private funding to invest in women and it's Disaster!


              I kinda like Ivanka and here's why-- I have a very smart and very liberal friend who has worked at the very top levels of a half-dozen or more major clothing retailers over the years. She also worked directly for Ivanka a few years back as a VP for a while. She maintains that Ivanka was the best CEO she has ever worked for (which is saying a lot) and can only say what an exceptional boss, and what an intelligent and kind person she is. Ivanka is naturally going to get murdered over every little thing because Trump, but personally, going by my friend's endorsement, I'm glad she's in the room with a voice.

              I'd like to perhaps wait and see what the entire plan is before shooting it down.
              She has no voice...what are her supposed pet projects? She supposedly supports Planned Parenthood and the Environment...either Daddy is ignoring her or she is full of it

              I am sure Ivanka is a great businesswoman and good for her that is awesome. (leaving out the slave labor charges for now) But she holds no sway over her dad and to me serves no purpose in the WH. That isnt a knock on her as a person, just on her as an advisor to the President.
              "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
              -aparch

              "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
              -INCH

              Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
              -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

              Comment


              • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

                Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                I'm not equivocating anyone with anyone. In fact, this seems to be the default accusation leveled whenever someone can't think of a real response.

                What I posted is that a person doesn't need to be convicted of something before people have every right to be critical of their actions or motives.
                LOL. No.

                1. Horrible examples. Give some better ones.
                2. You can be critical of someone's actions or motives but you can't be critical of them by using alternative facts. See the problem?

                See post #334

                http://board.uscho.com/showthread.ph...=1#post6486226
                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                Comment


                • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

                  Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                  Maybe this is all for the best. All the wingnut idiocy gets tried out, goes down in flames, and then even though the eejits will keep crying for it (because it enriches them personally) the rest of the country will say "been there, done that."
                  Umm..........tax cuts? Hasn't stopped them yet.
                  What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                  Comment


                  • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

                    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                    I'm not equivocating anyone with anyone. In fact, this seems to be the default accusation leveled whenever someone can't think of a real response.

                    What I posted is that a person doesn't need to be convicted of something before people have every right to be critical of their actions or motives.
                    Ok- but then WHY do those "reasons" demonstrate that she would be a bad President? Especially when those exact flaws are seen in don. But more.

                    The accusations that are being made are clearly against the law, in a major way. If they are true. If.

                    This isn't like Bush and Cheney having to face the world court and be war criminals. These are laws on the books in the US that she has allegedly violated. There's no real argument that she should or shouldn't be prosecuted because of jurisdiction- it's treason or not.

                    So if you are going to accusing her of breaking a pretty critical law, one that generals are going to court over doing the same thing, you should have something behind it.

                    Or the accusation is BS.

                    This isn't being critical of Hillary Clinton, this is accusing her of treason. There is a difference.

                    Comment


                    • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

                      Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                      I'm not equivocating anyone with anyone. In fact, this seems to be the default accusation leveled whenever someone can't think of a real response.

                      What I posted is that a person doesn't need to be convicted of something before people have every right to be critical of their actions or motives.
                      Funny how it only seems to be Democrats that certain "centrists" are critical of.
                      What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                      Comment


                      • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

                        Ivanka is filling the role of first lady, since Melania wants nothing to do with it.
                        What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                        Comment


                        • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

                          Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                          She has no voice...what are her supposed pet projects? She supposedly supports Planned Parenthood and the Environment...either Daddy is ignoring her or she is full of it

                          I am sure Ivanka is a great businesswoman and good for her that is awesome. (leaving out the slave labor charges for now) But she holds no sway over her dad and to me serves no purpose in the WH. That isnt a knock on her as a person, just on her as an advisor to the President.
                          Honestly, she is used just to deflect from the real issues people care about. It may not be fair that she is being knocked down for her father's misbehaviors and tweets. But she has no influence on policy even if she believes in the working women and other issues people care about. She can be for women but it has no influence in the WH policy making. She is like a prop just like anything else in the Trump administration. Does it make up for the lack of women in his cabinet and administration in a male dominate WH ?

                          Trump is donating his checks but he makes far more from his conflicts of interests and brandings. It is more for show and to create an illusion that he is honest and transparent.
                          NCAA Champs 2012, 2010, 2008, 2001, 1949, Hockey East Tourney Champs 2012 #11, Beanpot Champs 2016

                          Boston Red Sox 2004, 2007, 2013 Champs

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rufus View Post
                            Ivanka is filling the role of first lady, since Melania wants nothing to do with it.
                            "Aaaaaand just how far does that extend?" -Pres. Trump.
                            If you want to be a BADGER, just come along with me

                            BRING BACK PAT RICHTER!!!


                            At his graduation ceremony from the U of Minnesota, my cousin got a keychain. When asked what UW gave her for graduation, my sister said, "A degree from a University that matters."

                            Canned music is a pathetic waste of your time.

                            Comment


                            • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

                              Originally posted by rufus View Post
                              Ivanka is filling the role of first lady, since Melania wants nothing to do with it.
                              She is the 1ST Daughter )) LOL
                              NCAA Champs 2012, 2010, 2008, 2001, 1949, Hockey East Tourney Champs 2012 #11, Beanpot Champs 2016

                              Boston Red Sox 2004, 2007, 2013 Champs

                              Comment


                              • Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

                                Originally posted by ExileOnDaytonStreet View Post
                                "Aaaaaand just how far does that extend?" -Pres. Trump.
                                3 inches?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X