Davey the Fat Boy wrote:A little back-pedaling, eh Jimbo?
Just a little.
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:A little back-pedaling, eh Jimbo?
Jimbo wrote:If the Clinton email scandal goes as deeply as my sources say it does
zoomboogity wrote:Well, I've got "sources" too. One is them really wants some ice cream right now
zoomboogity wrote:Jimbo wrote:If the Clinton email scandal goes as deeply as my sources say it does
Hold on a second... what? What is this? I mean, what the actual literal fuck is this? "My sources"? Who and what do you know that the rest of us don't?
zoomboogity wrote:Okay, I just clicked right to all of it. It took about two seconds to connect to each one. This is "my source" as much as it yours. This isn't about whether we agree or not. The question is how is you "have sources" that none of us have (or had the capacity to achieve). It seems to me just a cheap device to win arguments: "I'm right because I have information you don't" - do you see the logical fallacy there?
Jimbo wrote:Is it egotistical to say "my source?"
Jimbo wrote:
If the Clinton email scandal goes as deeply as my sources say it does
sloopjohnc wrote:Now I wonder how much he can pull us down with each decision.
Tactful Cactus wrote:sloopjohnc wrote:Now I wonder how much he can pull us down with each decision.
In a way its good he's being so blunt and reckless. A slow burning and calculated 4/8 year plan could be much more harmful but I don't think he has the patience. How much more do you have to go through before an impeachment attempt becomes reality? (because we're all waiting)
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
Still Baron wrote:Without direct evidence of treason or something truly ghastly (which we can't rule out) it will have to wait until (and if) Democrats control the House. Next election in 2018.
zoomboogity wrote:Jimbo wrote:If the Clinton email scandal goes as deeply as my sources say it does
Hold on a second... what? What is this? I mean, what the actual literal fuck is this? "My sources"? Who and what do you know that the rest of us don't? Well, I've got "sources" too. One is them really wants some ice cream right now, another one is recommending chips and salsa. And that's just two of them.
But seriously now, don't do that, please, it's borderline insulting. You have the same internet as the rest of us do, don't pull the special card. Otherwise, who are these "sources" and what information have they given you? I mean, specifically. Because whatever it may be, had I been entrusted with that information, I wouldn't think this is a good place to intimate about it. I mean, what, Injun Joe is ticklish?
"My sources." Just no, okay?
Still Baron wrote:Tactful Cactus wrote:sloopjohnc wrote:Now I wonder how much he can pull us down with each decision.
In a way its good he's being so blunt and reckless. A slow burning and calculated 4/8 year plan could be much more harmful but I don't think he has the patience. How much more do you have to go through before an impeachment attempt becomes reality? (because we're all waiting)
Without direct evidence of treason or something truly ghastly (which we can't rule out) it will have to wait until (and if) Democrats control the House. Next election in 2018.
Tactful Cactus wrote:What line is there still to cross that would bring about bi-partisan consensus for impeachment?
Tactful Cactus wrote:Still Baron wrote:Without direct evidence of treason or something truly ghastly (which we can't rule out) it will have to wait until (and if) Democrats control the House. Next election in 2018.
What constitutes truly ghastly? He could launch a nuke on Pyongyang but the American people could believe he did it to protect them, although you could believe he's capable of authorising a nuke to deflect attention from that weeks bad press. The Comey firing is ghastly because he's removing a direct threat to his position, there's nothing there that serves the American people. What line is there still to cross that would bring about bi-partisan consensus for impeachment?
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
Tactful Cactus wrote:Still Baron wrote:Without direct evidence of treason or something truly ghastly (which we can't rule out) it will have to wait until (and if) Democrats control the House. Next election in 2018.
What constitutes truly ghastly? He could launch a nuke on Pyongyang but the American people could believe he did it to protect them, although you could believe he's capable of authorising a nuke to deflect attention from that weeks bad press. The Comey firing is ghastly because he's removing a direct threat to his position, there's nothing there that serves the American people. What line is there still to cross that would bring about bi-partisan consensus for impeachment?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
Count Machuki wrote:Tactful Cactus wrote:What line is there still to cross that would bring about bi-partisan consensus for impeachment?
I mean, selling the election to Russia for profit seems pretty actionable to me, but I don't know the legal ins and outs.
Like most all thinking people, I reckon there's another shoe to drop any moment.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.