Ah, yes. The report is here

The word "if" is used liberally (pun intended).

But let's say it is true. Let's also say it can be proven.

Shows one thing for sure. Even though the witch hunt has been a failure in uncovering witches (collusion with Russia to steal an election), it has been magnificent in creating them(lying to the FBI, lying to Congress).

So a deal that never happened is the central feature of all this?

All I know is that I don't go public with my real estate deals until they are done deals. This one was never a done deal. Suspicious, huh?

Why are the Democrats so intent on preventing Trump from helping the US? Oh, yes, revenge for Hillary.

Back to a question I posed earlier here: If Trump is impeached, and then not removed by the Senate, does double jeopardy attach? If so, let's impeach ASAP.

(01-18-2019 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even though the witch hunt has been a failure in uncovering witches (collusion with Russia to steal an election), it has been magnificent in creating them(lying to the FBI, lying to Congress).

A quarter century ago, when Bill Clinton committed perjury during the Lewinsky investigation, Democrats and their allies were vociferous in proclaiming that mere lying should not be held against him -- that the real blame for his perjury lay with the investigators (presumably for giving Clinton the opportunity to lie under oath), rather than with the liar.

Or as Homer Simpson once explained: "Marge, it takes two to lie: one to lie, and one to listen."

(01-18-2019 09:36 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even though the witch hunt has been a failure in uncovering witches (collusion with Russia to steal an election), it has been magnificent in creating them(lying to the FBI, lying to Congress).

A quarter century ago, when Bill Clinton committed perjury during the Lewinsky investigation, Democrats and their allies were vociferous in proclaiming that mere lying should not be held against him -- that the real blame for his perjury lay with the investigators (presumably for giving Clinton the opportunity to lie under oath), rather than with the liar.

Or as Homer Simpson once explained: "Marge, it takes two to lie: one to lie, and one to listen."

Well, if you are looking for gold, and strike coal, does that mean the hunt for gold was a success?

(01-18-2019 09:36 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even though the witch hunt has been a failure in uncovering witches (collusion with Russia to steal an election), it has been magnificent in creating them(lying to the FBI, lying to Congress).

A quarter century ago, when Bill Clinton committed perjury during the Lewinsky investigation, Democrats and their allies were vociferous in proclaiming that mere lying should not be held against him -- that the real blame for his perjury lay with the investigators (presumably for giving Clinton the opportunity to lie under oath), rather than with the liar.
Or as Homer Simpson once explained: "Marge, it takes two to lie: one to lie, and one to listen."

All that I would ask is that the same rule be applied with equal vigor to all.

Wow. You guys are really willing to go down with the Trump ship. Why? Does he have kompromat on you?

Obviously, we need more evidence than a buzzfeed article or claims from Cohen, the implication from multiple sources is that they do. If that's the case, I suspect there will be enough Republicans jumping ship to convict. I don't think the Dems will impeach if the R's in the Senate are united in standing behind this corrupt, dishonest POtuS.

Illini might be right about Trump not running for reelection.

Edit: Also we now have Guiliani all but admitting collusion between the campaign and Russia, despite earlier denials.

(01-18-2019 10:12 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Wow. You guys are really willing to go down with the Trump ship. Why? Does he have kompromat on you?
Obviously, we need more evidence than a buzzfeed article or claims from Cohen, the implication from multiple sources is that they do. If that's the case, I suspect there will be enough Republicans jumping ship to convict. I don't think the Dems will impeach if the R's in the Senate are united in standing behind this corrupt, dishonest POtuS.
Illini might be right about Trump not running for reelection.
Edit: Also we now have Guiliani all but admitting collusion between the campaign and Russia, despite earlier denials.

Who has expressed any willingness to go down with the ship?

All I've heard is let's have actual evidence instead of allegation and innuendo.

All I've said is that I want the same rule applied with equal vigor to all. I don't know whether Trump obstructed justice or not, although there certainly are allegations that he did. I know that Hillary did, or at least I know that James Comey recited claimed facts that certainly would be sufficient to convict her of obstruction of justice as well as information security violations that fall under the treason statutes.

If Trump committed a felony, then by all means impeach him and remove him from office. But be prepared to deal with a possible backlash when it comes to light just how one-sided our justice system has been in these matters.

At this point, I actually kind of hope he is impeached, or at least decides not to seek re-election. The democrat field is a bunch of wild-eyed collectivists/redistributionists (or at least those with a chance of winning the nomination are) and I'd rather see a more socially acceptable republican, instead of a battle between two extremists.

(01-18-2019 10:12 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Wow. You guys are really willing to go down with the Trump ship. Why? Does he have kompromat on you?

Obviously, we need more evidence than a buzzfeed article or claims from Cohen, the implication from multiple sources is that they do. If that's the case, I suspect there will be enough Republicans jumping ship to convict. I don't think the Dems will impeach if the R's in the Senate are united in standing behind this corrupt, dishonest POtuS.

Illini might be right about Trump not running for reelection.

Edit: Also we now have Guiliani all but admitting collusion between the campaign and Russia, despite earlier denials.

I am willing to down with the ship if the ship is named Fairness. It appears the ship you have boarded is the USS Get Trump

I find it interesting that you have already determined in your mind that this is a 'corrupt, dishonest" POTUS.

You still believe in collusion? You really think Trump made a deal with Putin to publish the emails without any editing? Why? Talk about a fantasy.

anthem of oppressive country to be sung at the SB

(01-18-2019 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  anthem of oppressive country to be sung at the SB

The article seems to indicate that the NFL engaged in deliberate racial discrimination in its choice of halftime performers, and that its discriminatory stance almost backfired on it. Nice!

(01-18-2019 11:34 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  anthem of oppressive country to be sung at the SB

The article seems to indicate that the NFL engaged in deliberate racial discrimination in its choice of halftime performers, and that its discriminatory stance almost backfired on it. Nice!

It's actually not clear at all.

Quote:The Super Bowl halftime performance has been fraught with controversy since word of Maroon 5’s performance first leaked to the media in September. Their performance was not confirmed until this past Sunday, sources say, because Maroon 5 struggled to find artists of color to perform with them and appearing at the Super Bowl amounts to an endorsement of the NFL’s policies and its treatment toward Kaepernick in particular.

I can't tell if the NFL is the one pushing the artists of color or Maroon 5. And reading the Vanity Fair article doesn't make it clearer. It just says that Maroon 5 struggled to find local acts to perform because they didn't want to be associated with the NFL.

(01-18-2019 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ah, yes. The report is here

The word "if" is used liberally (pun intended).

But let's say it is true. Let's also say it can be proven.

Shows one thing for sure. Even though the witch hunt has been a failure in uncovering witches (collusion with Russia to steal an election), it has been magnificent in creating them(lying to the FBI, lying to Congress).

So a deal that never happened is the central feature of all this?

All I know is that I don't go public with my real estate deals until they are done deals. This one was never a done deal. Suspicious, huh?

Why are the Democrats so intent on preventing Trump from helping the US? Oh, yes, revenge for Hillary.

Back to a question I posed earlier here: If Trump is impeached, and then not removed by the Senate, does double jeopardy attach? If so, let's impeach ASAP.

In this case, I find it hard to see how this created a witch, in the sense that Trump did not have to try and cover up his Russia Trump Tower deal if it was all legal, and dead. This isn't some sort of perjury trap.

One of the issues of electing Trump was that he had significant business interests and could easily violate the emoluments clause due to them. And that's why he said he would get out of the day to day and stop any foreign deals from going forward. Dude knew the rules when he signed up.

(01-18-2019 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am willing to down with the ship if the ship is named Fairness. It appears the ship you have boarded is the USS Get Trump

Welcome to the USS Strawman, I guess.

(01-18-2019 11:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote:The Super Bowl halftime performance has been fraught with controversy since word of Maroon 5’s performance first leaked to the media in September. Their performance was not confirmed until this past Sunday, sources say, because Maroon 5 struggled to find artists of color to perform with them and appearing at the Super Bowl amounts to an endorsement of the NFL’s policies and its treatment toward Kaepernick in particular.

I can't tell if the NFL is the one pushing the artists of color or Maroon 5. And reading the Vanity Fair article doesn't make it clearer. It just says that Maroon 5 struggled to find local acts to perform because they didn't want to be associated with the NFL.

And this "and appearing at the Super Bowl amounts to an endorsement of the NFL’s policies and its treatment toward Kaepernick in particular." seems to be unattributed speculation on behalf of the author.

So yes, its not clear at all. The article is terribly written.

(01-18-2019 12:28 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

\You sure do like slanted BS.

(01-18-2019 12:32 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote:The Super Bowl halftime performance has been fraught with controversy since word of Maroon 5’s performance first leaked to the media in September. Their performance was not confirmed until this past Sunday, sources say, because Maroon 5 struggled to find artists of color to perform with them and appearing at the Super Bowl amounts to an endorsement of the NFL’s policies and its treatment toward Kaepernick in particular.

I can't tell if the NFL is the one pushing the artists of color or Maroon 5. And reading the Vanity Fair article doesn't make it clearer. It just says that Maroon 5 struggled to find local acts to perform because they didn't want to be associated with the NFL.

And this "and appearing at the Super Bowl amounts to an endorsement of the NFL’s policies and its treatment toward Kaepernick in particular." seems to be unattributed speculation on behalf of the author.

So yes, its not clear at all. The article is terribly written.

Reading it again, I think Variety made a jump from the original article that says that Maroon 5 was attempting to get a lot of local artists (which happened to mostly be POC), but having trouble doing so, to suggest that Maroon 5 was intentionally trying to have POC perform with them.

(01-18-2019 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ah, yes. The report is here

The word "if" is used liberally (pun intended).

But let's say it is true. Let's also say it can be proven.

Shows one thing for sure. Even though the witch hunt has been a failure in uncovering witches (collusion with Russia to steal an election), it has been magnificent in creating them(lying to the FBI, lying to Congress).

So a deal that never happened is the central feature of all this?

All I know is that I don't go public with my real estate deals until they are done deals. This one was never a done deal. Suspicious, huh?

Why are the Democrats so intent on preventing Trump from helping the US? Oh, yes, revenge for Hillary.

Back to a question I posed earlier here: If Trump is impeached, and then not removed by the Senate, does double jeopardy attach? If so, let's impeach ASAP.

In this case, I find it hard to see how this created a witch, in the sense that Trump did not have to try and cover up his Russia Trump Tower deal if it was all legal, and dead. This isn't some sort of perjury trap.

One of the issues of electing Trump was that he had significant business interests and could easily violate the emoluments clause due to them. And that's why he said he would get out of the day to day and stop any foreign deals from going forward. Dude knew the rules when he signed up.

The problem is you don't know the definition of a witch. In this context, it is evidence that he colluded with Russia to subvert the election. That is the witch that Mueller was selected to find. But if there was no witch hunt, there would be no interviews with Flynn et al regarding the collusion, and thus no indictments for lying. So if the cops tear your home apart looking for evidence of meth manufacture, but instead find you have an illegal rifle and a dog running loose without a collar or leash, does that constitute a successful meth hunt, and does the gun and/or dog count as finding meth? That is the argument you are making.

(01-18-2019 11:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:34 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  anthem of oppressive country to be sung at the SB

The article seems to indicate that the NFL engaged in deliberate racial discrimination in its choice of halftime performers, and that its discriminatory stance almost backfired on it. Nice!

It's actually not clear at all.

Quote:The Super Bowl halftime performance has been fraught with controversy since word of Maroon 5’s performance first leaked to the media in September. Their performance was not confirmed until this past Sunday, sources say, because Maroon 5 struggled to find artists of color to perform with them and appearing at the Super Bowl amounts to an endorsement of the NFL’s policies and its treatment toward Kaepernick in particular.

I can't tell if the NFL is the one pushing the artists of color or Maroon 5. And reading the Vanity Fair article doesn't make it clearer. It just says that Maroon 5 struggled to find local acts to perform because they didn't want to be associated with the NFL.

It is unclear indeed. I said that the "The article seems to indicate", but on reflection even that looks like too strong a characterization. I suppose someone could drill into it, but it would be hard to name anything on earth that I care less about than the Super Bowl halftime show. That's my cop-out and I'm sticking to it. :)

(01-18-2019 01:27 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:34 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  anthem of oppressive country to be sung at the SB

The article seems to indicate that the NFL engaged in deliberate racial discrimination in its choice of halftime performers, and that its discriminatory stance almost backfired on it. Nice!

It's actually not clear at all.

Quote:The Super Bowl halftime performance has been fraught with controversy since word of Maroon 5’s performance first leaked to the media in September. Their performance was not confirmed until this past Sunday, sources say, because Maroon 5 struggled to find artists of color to perform with them and appearing at the Super Bowl amounts to an endorsement of the NFL’s policies and its treatment toward Kaepernick in particular.

I can't tell if the NFL is the one pushing the artists of color or Maroon 5. And reading the Vanity Fair article doesn't make it clearer. It just says that Maroon 5 struggled to find local acts to perform because they didn't want to be associated with the NFL.

It is unclear indeed. I said that the "The article seems to indicate", but on reflection even that looks like too strong a characterization. I suppose someone could drill into it, but it would be hard to name anything on earth that I care less about than the Super Bowl halftime show. That's my cop-out and I'm sticking to it. :)

Haha, that last bit we can agree on.

edit: to clarify, that was referencing the Super Bowl half time show.

(01-18-2019 09:36 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even though the witch hunt has been a failure in uncovering witches (collusion with Russia to steal an election), it has been magnificent in creating them(lying to the FBI, lying to Congress).

A quarter century ago, when Bill Clinton committed perjury during the Lewinsky investigation, Democrats and their allies were vociferous in proclaiming that mere lying should not be held against him -- that the real blame for his perjury lay with the investigators (presumably for giving Clinton the opportunity to lie under oath), rather than with the liar.

Or as Homer Simpson once explained: "Marge, it takes two to lie: one to lie, and one to listen."

Clinton's perjury wasnt all the result of the investigation. It was established that not only did he perjure himself to the grand jury in the investigation, but perjured himself during the deposition to a sexual assault-based civil lawsuit.