Did you say that Joe Biden admitted to a bribe of the Ukrainian President? Yes, I did, because he is on tape admitting to a quid pro quo, threatening to withhold tax payer funds in exchange for him firing the lead prosecutor looking into the Burisma Holdings case, of which his son was directly involved. I look forward to your semantic gymnastics. |
|
|
|
I never drew an equivalence for HOW bad they are. You missed the difference between the statements "both are bad" and "both are equally bad". I acknowledged that right now today china is doing things that are worse than what the present day american government is doing.
You also keep using that same bad (analogy?). Of course I'm not qualified to teach people how to use a machine I've never seen.
I have not made excuses for any of these awful things. You are the only one in this thread making excuses for terrible things. Shame on you.
You can say anything you want about China but don't try to force people into doing things that will hurt Chinese people as well as their own pocket. Lebron can do a lot more with his money here in the US to help oppressed people than he could by getting himself censored in China and losing tons of money. Lebron talking shit about china would certainly reduce morale in China. If you cared about chinese people, you'd understand that. Quantification is not a requirement. You literally made an equivalence by the dictionary definition. Oh look, more "NO U!!!1" arguments... that's a new one. Again, you are ignoring the fact that China is meddling in the domestic affairs of the USA, but all you can do is cry about how its not fair we criticize them. You are brain dead. I do care about the Chinese people, and I am willing to bet I have had far more contact with Chinese than you have. I care enough about them to advocate for the end of the CCP while you just make excuses for it. |
|
|
|
ok captain conflation gender identity and biological sex are not the same thing. I asked for your biological sex because that is what determines who can have abortions. We aren't talking about gender identify which is what you're attempting to ridicule. You'll have to find another opporutnity to make fun of an already emotionally vulnerable group of people.
If you are going to regurgitate the nicknames I give you back at me, at least try to make it amusing. That is sad, as well as your pathetic attempt to guilt me for not bowing to your insane ideology. People can believe they are whatever they want, they are not entitled to force me to share their delusions. |
|
|
|
When you are proven wrong, you just claim you didn't say that. Even when there's an actual record of you saying it. You just claim you didn't say that and insult anyone who says otherwise. Are you actually convincing yourself that you didn't say it? I said what I said, not what you want to interpret my words to mean. I don't give a fuck how convinced you are or how many of your buddies you call to stand around in a circle to jerk off your confirmation bias. |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if I read it from a tattoo on your mama's ass, it is a direct quote from The US Constitution. Its validity is not dependent on 3rd parties that reference it. Run along now with your hive mind buddies and work on your next attack strategy.
The quote doesn't say that impeachment is a criminal trial, you're just stretching it to that meaning because you really want it to mean that. Andrew Johnson was impeached for - among other things - ridiculing the Congress "in a loud voice". Such a horrible crime. "Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." If it is not saying impeachment can be a criminal trial, why exactly does it exclude impeachment from the normal due process of criminal trials? Wouldn't that be totally pointless? I never claimed ALL impeachments were criminal trials, so your point is moot. I am not stretching anything, except for maybe your mama's booty hole. Hello Techole,
We've already established that contrary to your beliefs, not all impeachments are based on actual crimes. Just because you quoted one line from the constitution used by one particular interpretation (out of several in the article you found by doing a Google search for "is impeachment a criminal procedure?"), it doesn't mean the constitution says impeachment hearings are the same thing as a criminal procedure. This whole debate is simply a failure to acknowledge that you made a misstatement earlier and rather than correcting it you are now doubling down and defending it to the death, which is not going well for you.
Again, criminal trials can only be decided upon by a judge and/or jury, and not the house of representatives. The WSJ article is just a well-written summary of common knowledge; well "common" except to you I suppose.
By the way, my name means "silence" in my ancestral language -- something you should probably practice more of. Some, but not all impeachments are in fact criminal trials. You haven't established anything except for your desperation to have a "gotcha" moment regardless of the main premise of discussion. I not only didn't make a misstatement, you made a misstatement in your pathetic attempt to claim I did so. The congress is supervisory authority over the office of the president, so yes, they do in this case hold criminal impeachment trials against them in some circumstances. This is established in the constitution itself, once again... "Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." They are literally stating it can be a criminal proceeding, and that a trial by jury is not required in this specific instance. So are you going to admit you are wrong Nutilduhhhh? |
|
|
|
Male (Lets begin a norm of premising each post in this thread with our sex)
Alright now that I've established that norm, I hope to catch people up on the correct medical terminology because words are being thrown around in contexts where more specificity and/or accuracy is needed.
fetus-an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
embryo-the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
I identify as a military hovercraft. |
|
|
|
Does Trump inspire you to never concede even a single point in a discussion, without any consideration for the truth, and attack anyone that questions you?
I think that's going to be a serious issue long term for the country. The people that admire his disregard for the truth Does Trump inspire you to never concede even a single point in a discussion, without any consideration for the truth, and attack anyone that questions you?
I think that's going to be a serious issue long term for the country. The people that admire his disregard for the truth.
I think you're on to something here. Its like the truth just doesn't even matter anymore. All that matters is pwning the libs. Just because you imagine real hard and get your buddies to jerk you off doesn't make me wrong or untruthful. People question me all the time and I don't attack them. I only attack disingenuous people like you and your pals who are more interested in creating a "gotcha" moment rather than debating the premise. If you don't want to have a legitimate debate then don't cry when I also play by your rules. |
|
|
|
I think your insults are iconic and use them back to acknowledge how clever they are. I would still rather see you focus more on content though.
I prefer to walk and take public transportation. My compact car stays cold 25 days per month. I do fly a lot though so I'm not going to pretend I'm fossil fuel free but I'm evidence of why the GND is so important. Well intended people can't be tasked with curbing global emissions individually because we don't have the means. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of the emissions.
GND would incentivize the airline industry to switch to a low/neutral carbon fuel and allow people to travel around the world without contributing to its destruction. We have the technology but the market is never going to incentivize it over fossil based jet fuel in time.
If we couldn't see the world we wouldn't know what we are fighting so hard to protect.
Thanks for noticing my insults are always accompanied by an actual argument. "100 companies are responsible" So these companies just sit around creating emissions just for the fun of it? Consumers certainly don't have any responsibility here do they? Not that I agree with your concept of CO2 as a pollutant. You know why the market wont incentivize it? Because it is a nonsense theory not based on science and is designed to redistribute wealth, not protect the environment. |
|
|
|
What is important here is a syntax typo resulting from an edit, and some tertiary precident, not the constitution itself, directly quoted, of course. If you will notice you didn't actually refute what I said, you just repeated yourself and made a series of personal attacks. P.S. Zero Hedge focuses on economics, not law.
I apologize, I did not mean to attack your person. I meant to attack your sloppy attempt at an ad hominem and your ridiculous cherry-picking of the Constitution that appeared to be lifted from some conspiracy blog. I apologize if that wasn't Zero Hedge. I shall make a note to myself that you read more than one conspiracy blog. I also apologize that you don't feel sufficiently refuted. There is only so much I can do if you refuse to acknowledge or read things that you don't like. I have long ago accepted that you are never ever wrong. It doesn't matter if I read it from a tattoo on your mama's ass, it is a direct quote from The US Constitution. Its validity is not dependent on 3rd parties that reference it. Run along now with your hive mind buddies and work on your next attack strategy. |
|
|
|
From your source: "The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes." Perjury and conspiracy you say? What is perjury and conspiray? Oh that's right, crimes, crimes independent of the original charges. In this context, you have essentially just proved my point, because a double jeopardy argument would only be valid if they were both criminal proceedings for the same crime (but the crimes were independent), so thanks for that. Of course this is a district judge anyway and not a presidential impeachment, so they aren't the same thing anyway. This is just a fumbled attempt at pulling a Hail Mary out of your ass. What is important here is a syntax typo resulting from an edit, and some tertiary non-precedent, not the constitution itself, directly quoted, of course. If you will notice you didn't actually refute what I said, you just repeated yourself and made a series of personal attacks. P.S. Zero Hedge focuses on economics, not law. |
|
|
|
That's funny he's back to insisting an impeachment is a criminal proceeding after insisting he never said impeachment was a criminal proceeding. Even though did say that, multiple times. Here's another good one from Constitution: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. I never did insist it was a criminal proceeding, I insisted the subpoenas were based upon criminal proceedings. After you two dildors were so insistent on it not ever being a criminal proceeding I did some more research, and lo and behold your argument was totally wrong. I don't need to change my position for your argument to be wrong, you just have to be wrong. Also note the area in red clearly describing a criminal trial process. The red part states that the person can still be subject to a criminal trial after the impeachment. IIRC some federal judge (back in 1980s or 1990s) tried to argue that double jeopardy protection should apply to his impeachment and he lost that one. So this actually seems to reinforce the non-criminal nature of impeachment. Hey look who is here to try to help their dumb pals save face with some unsourced single incident as if it trumps the constitution. You still aren't addressing the constitution itself. ""Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Trial of crimes (impeachment described as a criminal proceeding) shall be by jury, except criminal proceedings of impeachment. Why even include a reference to impeachment if they were not describing it as a criminal trial? Your argument makes zero sense." |
|
|
|
Ah my bad. Honest mistake -- read that wrong.
But the rest of what I put below stands. None of what you provided excludes the point I was making. The Fed does all kinds of stuff in complete darkness. The "audit" you describe is a sham and superficial at best. |
|
|
|
Ah. So you're now going to resort to personal attacks on my field of study and myself in order to push your false claim.
The Fed is probably one of the most scrutinized agencies in the US and they are under audit from themselves, from the GAO, and from third party auditors.
But I'm going to entertain your line of thinking for a moment. What do you think is going to be found in 'full audit of the fed'? What do you think they're hiding?
If 'audit the fed' means that you want Congress/ The President to have more control over the fed -- then okay, that's at least something that has a lot more substance then 'audit the fed' I didn't make a personal attack. I said you should be embarrassed to be so uninformed. That is an observation of your lack of knowledge on a subject that is directly within your field of study, and rightly should be a source of shame. It is not an attack on your character. As I already explained the time for the fed audit to be useful has long since passed, but the fact is they are putting the USA into massive amounts of debt by propping up other nations/banks/currencies, that is one major thing that would be exposed. I am not even advocating for an audit, I am simply pointing out it is really not happening and the fraud happening in the darkness is of globally historic proportions. What do you mean the time for the Fed to be useful has passed? The fed ensures that we have stable financial markets. It's already audited and it's not about honesty. It's about throwing red meat to Fed conspiracy theorists on the far right and far left.
Why should a branch of government that runs up debt and couldn't pass a budget for years be allowed to politicize and/or control the money supply? That's a recipe for disaster. The statement from their most recent meeting is available. So are the minutes. The Fed holds a press conference after every meeting.
Full transcripts of their past meetings are available.
Their balance sheet is available. Their audited financial statements are available.
Their short-term projections of economic variables are available.
Their statement on medium-term strategy is available.
Their statement on longer-term strategy is available.
Even some of their internal forecasting models are available.
The Fed chair meets with Congress twice per year and Fed officials provide official remarks from time to time. Senior Fed officials openly discuss policy options in speeches.
Virtually none of that information was public just twenty years ago.
What else do you desire? "As I already explained the time for the fed audit to be useful has long since passed..." Come on man, you are literally changing my words now. |
|
|
|
No. You literally didn't. You are wrong. Here are some cliffs to refresh your memory. I said this: If you're going to use that logic then all income that Eric or Don Jr. get paid, and any money the company their running gets paid is all being paid directly to Donald Trump. And that would be illegal.
Then you responded with this: Sure, totally the same thing. All you have to do is ignore conflict of interest And then I asked this (with Turkey and Saudi examples): Do you think this qualifies as a conflict of interest?
and then you responded with this: You still aren't telling me what Trump supposedly gave to Saudi Arabia in exchange.
And then I asked you a bunch more time directly if you thought there was a conflict of interest or not and you've just deflected. Yes, I literally did answer you. You selectively editing my quotes and leaving out my actual reply doesn't change that. You don't get to dictate the format of my reply goat fucker. I am not repeating myself in exactly the form you demand so you can jerk yourself off. I already answered you. Do I have to break out the NO U! meme again? You aren't talking about Trump directly, you are talking about his sons. Any accusations of conflict of interest against Trump have already been gone over 1000 times by now. If there was ANYTHING substantial dems would have been all over it like a 2 bit whore by now. The combination of the pattern of Joe Biden's direct involvement in favorable policy towards foreign entities combined with funneling large amounts of money to his immediate family is clearly illicit. There is no equivalence here no matter how desperate you are to manufacture it with more accusations of NO U!!!1 Interesting related article: https://straightlinelogic.com/2019/10/16/make-the-truth-irrelevant-by-robert-gore/ |
|
|
|
Fine fine. muh deepstate, I get it.
Even though the head of the FBI, CIA and DOJ all serve at the pleasure of the president, we should obviously trust Ukraines investigation results more than ours. And the fact that it's the presidents political adversary is just a coincidence. He really just can't stand any corruption anywhere. The corruption in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA are VERY well documented. The Strzok/Page "insurance" texts, Comey's criminal FISA warrant, giving Hillary a pass on releasing classified information, the meeting on the tarmac, there are tons of examples of their corruption, and complicity in coverups of corruption as well as bias against Trump. Don't even bother trying to defend the CIA. Funny you have been watching over 3 years of fruitless investigation into Trump and anyone he has ever met, but you don't ever apply that standard of "coincidence" there now do you? Hi Techole: You are looking at one of several interpretations of the constitution. The main reason why an impeachment cannot be a criminal proceeding is because it is being determined by the house of representatives and not a judge, or as pointed out in your quotations, a jury. According to this particular interpretation, an impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense; that does not necessarily imply that it is a criminal offense. Later, your article entertains a completely opposite interpretation: The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses. Here's a recent article by the WSJ to help you understand why you are wrong, because obviously you don't understand why yet: What’s the difference between impeachment and a criminal trial?
The impeachment process provides a way to remove an officeholder through a majority vote in the House of Representatives followed by a trial in the Senate. Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict to remove an officeholder. Because impeachment is handled by Congress, it is more of a political process than a legal proceeding.
A criminal trial, by contrast, is held in local, state or federal court to determine whether an individual violated criminal law. Defendants in criminal trials must be granted due process of law, access to an attorney, the right to confront their accusers, and the right to a trial by jury, according to the Constitution.
A conviction in a criminal trial can deprive someone of their freedom—or even their life in a capital case. The only possible punishment resulting from conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office. Not just an interpretation, an actual quote from the constitution. "Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Trial of crimes (impeachment described as a criminal proceeding) shall be by jury, except criminal proceedings of impeachment. Why even include a reference to impeachment if they were not describing it as a criminal trial? Your argument makes zero sense. The other interpretations are not exclusive. I was specifically referencing the criminal case upon which the subpoenas issued to Nixon were based, which were the criminal basis upon which the articles of impeachment were based. Even in the counter interpretation is still goes on to explain a criminal impeachment trial can also be based on criminal acts. I never said anything about exclusivity, this is just you trying for a hail Mary. Note the words in red. When is some one convicted and put on trial? That's right, in a criminal proceeding. The Constitution of The United States of America > The Wall-street Journal. So are you going to admit you were wrong Nutilduhhhhh? That's funny he's back to insisting an impeachment is a criminal proceeding after insisting he never said impeachment was a criminal proceeding. Even though did say that, multiple times. Here's another good one from Constitution: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. I never did insist it was a criminal proceeding, I insisted the subpoenas were based upon criminal proceedings. After you two dildors were so insistent on it not ever being a criminal proceeding I did some more research, and lo and behold your argument was totally wrong. I don't need to change my position for your argument to be wrong, you just have to be wrong. Also note the area in red clearly describing a criminal trial process. |
|
|
|
You are dead on that I am not fit to teach people how to use the fryer at mcdonalds but in your disrespect for service industry workers, you fail to see how that is not even an insult. I have never used the fryer at mcdonalds and a lot of times, the corporate people dictating use methods don't even know how to best use the equipment.
Its not even the same ideology. You just happen to be using the same words to describe two completely different things and this makes it difficult for you to see the difference. Present day China is the "different this time" version of the ideology you accuse me of actually working but its still not my ideology.
I do give wealth away when I find causes that deserve it. I'm giving wealth away here by using my time to teach you about leftist ideology. How could you say I have no morals or principles when thats clearly what drives all of my post. One time you told me I was too idealistic and that the world would never be perfect. Well you can't be idealistic without principals and morals. Savior complex could be an accurate criticism but it goes against your claims that I have no principles. A McDonald's worker has never taught one of your classes indoctrination sessions, but I am confident they would do a much better job regardless. It has nothing to do with disrespect. Fast food workers are not skilled laborers, and neither are you, that is the point, though that was cute how you turned that into a further excuse to be indignant. You just denying they are not the same is not an argument. Oh China is the "different this time" example is it? All you have to do is brush off the genocide, organ harvesting, and hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps. You don't have principles or morals, you have a fluid ethos based ideology that shifts depending on whatever you are arguing, because you believe that the ends justify the means. Morals and principles are not a requirement to be a narcissist jerking themselves off over delusions of being a savior. You might actually believe you have them, but you continually demonstrate you don't by constantly contradicting yourself. |
|
|
|
For honest, i'm very doubt about that. About Marx as creation of banks. It's easy: it was 1867 (his work Capital) USA was young country with own problems (colonisation of Wild West, Civil War and others) and in fact, banks of German, USA, England was decentralized from each other. They can't create such conspiracy with specific person (Marx).
And bolsheviks have appeared 50 years after Marx. Creation of USSR could be German and USA plan. But nor a creation of Marx, lol. Banks and goverments can create some figure now, with modern technoligies. But in 19th century it looks like conspiracy theory. Marx was an unemployed leech. Who do you think funded his lifestyle while he wrote his manifesto as well as other works? Remember, he didn't even write it alone either... there was a shadowy hand next to him the whole time funding and making his own contributions from behind the scenes. Furthermore it is possible for people to hold independent ideas and still have them manipulated to serve a purpose. They CAN'T create such a conspiracy? That is quite an assumption. Another important part of this story, Marxism is based largely on the work of Hegel, specifically The Hegelian Dialectic. Thesis + antithesis = synthesis or problem + reaction = solution In the case of Marx, capitalism + communism = international government Communism was never the final goal, but a means to an end. So your argument is because The Bolshevik Revolution happened decades later, it couldn't be the creation of bankers? Communism is designed to be the system that lets them pick the bones of a nation clean after they have exploited capitalism to is maximal extent. It is right in the Communist flag for fuck sake. The hammer and the sickle are ancient symbols. The hammer represents building, the creation of capital, and Capitalism. The sickle represents the harvest, destruction, and Communism. I suggest you actually read the book I linked. It is free in full for fuck sake, how easy does it need to be? It is not even that long. https://archive.org/stream/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution_djvu.txt |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
