Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 12 May '17 17:35
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/05/11/brutal-rnc-releases-video-mashup-of-democrats-calling-for-comeys-firing-n2325654

    Here is a long list of Dims who wanted Comey fired.

    Of course, they were for it before they were against it cuz they are cutting edge Progressives.
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    12 May '17 18:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/05/11/brutal-rnc-releases-video-mashup-of-democrats-calling-for-comeys-firing-n2325654

    Here is a long list of Dims who wanted Comey fired.

    Of course, they were for it before they were against it cuz they are cutting edge Progressives.
    The hypocrisy on both sides of this issue (the Republicans who loved him and now hate him and the Dems who wanted him lynched and now are terrified at his firing) is amusing.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 May '17 18:51
    Originally posted by sh76
    The hypocrisy on both sides of this issue (the Republicans who loved him and now hate him and the Dems who wanted him lynched and now are terrified at his firing) is amusing.
    Sounds like the one terrified is Trumpf himself, worried over the investigation of the Russians involvment in the election.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    12 May '17 19:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Sounds like the one terrified is Trumpf himself, worried over the investigation of the Russians involvment in the election.
    Very possibly; or it could be that he's just angry that Comey wouldn't bark when Trump ordered him to.

    So far, there's no evidence of Trump's complicity in Russian interference with the US election and my guess is that he was not complicit.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 May '17 19:42
    Originally posted by sh76
    Very possibly; or it could be that he's just angry that Comey wouldn't bark when Trump ordered him to.

    So far, there's no evidence of Trump's complicity in Russian interference with the US election and my guess is that he was not complicit.
    Well that's that then.

    Fold up the chairs and go home.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 May '17 19:45
    Originally posted by sh76
    The hypocrisy on both sides of this issue (the Republicans who loved him and now hate him and the Dems who wanted him lynched and now are terrified at his firing) is amusing.
    How about this situation:

    Boss A fires Receptionist B. Does it make any difference if he does so BECAUSE:

    1) B plays chess on her smartphone and ignores office phone calls and visitors: OR

    2) B refuses to have sex with A.

    is someone a "hypocrite" if they believe a firing based on Reason 1 is justified but a firing based on Reason 2 is not?
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 May '17 20:07
    Originally posted by sh76
    Very possibly; or it could be that he's just angry that Comey wouldn't bark when Trump ordered him to.

    So far, there's no evidence of Trump's complicity in Russian interference with the US election and my guess is that he was not complicit.
    Nixon didn't personally burglar the Watergate either. Nor is there evidence he knew it would be burglarized.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    12 May '17 20:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    How about this situation:

    Boss A fires Receptionist B. Does it make any difference if he does so BECAUSE:

    1) B plays chess on her smartphone and ignores office phone calls and visitors: OR

    2) B refuses to have sex with A.

    is someone a "hypocrite" if they believe a firing based on Reason 1 is justified but a firing based on Reason 2 is not?
    Of course, but if Person C screams up and down that Receptionist B should be fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors and then Boss A fires Receptionist B and tells the world that she's being fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors, it's a little disingenuous of Person C to now scream about how Boss A is bad for firing Receptionist B.

    If Person C wants to criticize Boss A for making sexual advances towards Receptionist B, he should do so on those terms (and it would be especially nice if there were evidence that Boss A made sexual advancements towards Receptionist B).
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    12 May '17 20:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Nixon didn't personally burglar the Watergate either. Nor is there evidence he knew it would be burglarized.
    Then I'll settle for evidence that people working under Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election and that Trump knew about it after the fact and intentionally covered it up and lied about it many times.

    Prove all of that and I'll support impeaching him.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 May '17 20:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Of course, but if Person C screams up and down that Receptionist B should be fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors and then Boss A fires Receptionist B and tells the world that she's being fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors, it's a little disingenuous of Person ...[text shortened]... cially nice if there were evidence that Boss A made sexual advancements towards Receptionist B).
    In this case, A had his mouthpieces say he fired B for reason 1, but then turned around and contradicted them. He also repeatedly tweeted that he'd like to have sex with B.

    EDIT: In case it's confusing:

    Reason 1 are the ones outlined in the Rosenstein memo.

    Reason 2 is a desire to shut down the Russia investigation.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 May '17 20:25
    Originally posted by sh76
    Then I'll settle for evidence that people working under Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election and that Trump knew about it after the fact and intentionally covered it up and lied about it many times.

    Prove all of that and I'll support impeaching him.
    Well sure, but Trump is clearly trying to shut down the investigation before evidence of Step 1 can be produced IF it exists.
  12. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    12 May '17 20:44
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Well sure, but Trump is clearly trying to shut down the investigation before evidence of Step 1 can be produced IF it exists.
    What like the evidence on a wiped mail server that existed only for the purpose of evading record retention laws?
  13. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    12 May '17 20:47 / 1 edit
    God damn!
    Seriously, watching republicans being buggered by penguins isn't as funny as this faeces.

    Gotta love Trump!
  14. 12 May '17 20:54
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Well that's that then.

    Fold up the chairs and go home.
    Why, when you can continue to sling poo for the next 4 years?