Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 | 369 | 370 | 371 | | Last >
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26750335 -

Enlil said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
This will be decided on 16 July.  How about a signature bet on whether it's dropped or not (I bet it gets dropped)?


Dropped on July 16?  Doubtful.


Well, a hearing is scheduled on the 16th.  I don't know how long it typically takes to get to a decision.

koods said:
We all know this will end with his pardon, because a vacated conviction doesn’t mean the next DOJ couldn’t retry him


I think it does if it is dismissed with prejudice.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26750346 -

Quote:
So lawyers are not to be trusted?  Is that right, Enlil?


You’re such a disingenuous debater. She’s Flynn’s lawyer. She’s giving you her side of the story.

You presented that video as evidence of government corruption. Her assertions are evidence of nothing.


Quote:
Source, or make believe?  He didn't convince the Russians of shit, you make believer.  He was unable to get them to veto a resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank.


You have a lot of nerve calling me a make believer when you completely misrepresented what the charges against Flynn were. Fuck off. You’re such a dishonest person. You constantly misrepresent what other people say. You constantly call other people liars with this “make believe” shit. I don’t know why you are allowed to get away with it.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Edited by koods (06/17/20 12:20 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26750383 -

koods said:
You’re such a disingenuous debater. She’s Flynn’s lawyer. She’s giving you her side of the story.


Yes, that's what lawyers do.  Do you any evidence she was lying, or is that make believe?

koods said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Source, or make believe?  He didn't convince the Russians of shit, you make believer.  He was unable to get them to veto a resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank.


You have a lot of nerve calling me a make believer


So Flynn did convince the Russians to veto a UN resolution condemning the Israeli settlements?  Source, or make believe?

koods said:
...you completely misrepresented what the charges against Flynn were. Fuck off. You’re such a dishonest person. You constantly misrepresent what other people say. You constantly call other people liars with this “make believe” shit. I don’t know why you are allowed to get away with it.


Because you keep make believing, that's why.  We can do a search for how many times I asked you "Source, or make believe" (over 100 times), and you almost never have an answer.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26750397 -

So now you acknowledge Flynn made a request. Before it was him just asking where he stood.

Remember this lie?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:He didn't disclose that he asked the Russian Ambassador where he stood on an upcoming UN Security Council resolution on Israel.

"Oh no!  Flynn wanted to know where Russia stood on something related to another country!  He's selling out the United States!!!"  Gimme a break.



--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26750543 -

koods said:
So now you acknowledge Flynn made a request. Before it was him just asking where he stood.


Two different issues, my dude.

He made a request that Russia not escalate the bullshit Obama had started, and he also asked Russia where they stood on a resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank.  Got it yet?

koods said:
Remember this lie?
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
He didn't disclose that he asked the Russian Ambassador where he stood on an upcoming UN Security Council resolution on Israel.

"Oh no!  Flynn wanted to know where Russia stood on something related to another country!  He's selling out the United States!!!"  Gimme a break.



Yes, of course I remember.  Those are my quotes.  For the bajillionth time, I said that over three years ago.  A lot of new reasons came up for the DOJ to drop the case, but since Flynn worked for Trump, you ignore those things.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26750545 -

What a bunch of assholes. The court documents released in the Bolton lawsuit didn’t redact his home address.



--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26750546 -

Quote:
He made a request that Russia not escalate the bullshit Obama had started, and he also asked Russia where they stood on a resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank.  Got it yet?



Still wrong 🤦‍♂️

Google “Flynn plea” and educate yourself


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Edited by koods (06/17/20 02:11 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26750582 -

to be fair it says in the article that the case wont be dropped without Sullivan's approval. Enlils arguing semantics

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26750586 -

koods said:
MagicMush123 said:
You lost because you said that trump's supreme court would ban abortion and roll back gay rights


The administration argued against the ruling. You can’t put lipstick on that pig. This administration is anti-gay


His administration threatened countries that criminalize being gay

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: MagicMush123] * 2
    #26750590 -

I don’t give a fuck. They wanted the court to rule against gay Americans. They are anti-gay.

And let’s be clear. The policy about countries that criminalize homosexuality isn’t a pro-gay policy. It’s an anti-Islam policy.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Edited by koods (06/17/20 02:48 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26750591 -

koods said:
Quote:
He made a request that Russia not escalate the bullshit Obama had started, and he also asked Russia where they stood on a resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank.  Got it yet?



Still wrong 🤦‍♂️

Google “Flynn plea” and educate yourself


Dude, we read the text of the conversation together.  Here it is again for you.

Quote:
Do not let this administration (the Obama administration) box us in right now, okay?  Depending on what actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, where they're looking like they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, but I would ask Russia to only make it reciprocal. Don't make it go any further than you have to. Because I don't want us to get into something that has to escalate on a tit for tat.

We don't need that right now, we need cool heads to prevail, and we need to be very steady about what we're going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East right now.



--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 3
    #26750594 -

It’s not possible to have an honest conversation with you.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: MagicMush123]
    #26750602 -

MagicMush123 said:
to be fair it says in the article that the case wont be dropped without Sullivan's approval. Enlils arguing semantics


Fair enough, that was towards the very end:

Quote:
The dismissal of the case is subject to Sullivan's approval, but the Justice Department's filing Thursday suggested that should be more or less a formality. It would be extraordinary for a judge to order prosecutors to proceed with a case they are seeking to drop.


There's a lot of articles I've read saying he'll have to drop it.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26750604 -

koods said:
It’s not possible to have an honest conversation with you.


What's dishonest?  Pointing out all your make believe?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26750605 -

koods said:
I don’t give a fuck. They wanted the court to rule against gay Americans. They are anti-gay.


Was there a specific case or did they merely claim that they thought the original ruling wasn't meant to meant protect gays? Either way gays have protection now and you can thank the same supreme court you claimed would roll back those very protections

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26750606 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
to be fair it says in the article that the case wont be dropped without Sullivan's approval. Enlils arguing semantics


Fair enough, that was towards the very end:

Quote:
The dismissal of the case is subject to Sullivan's approval, but the Justice Department's filing Thursday suggested that should be more or less a formality. It would be extraordinary for a judge to order prosecutors to proceed with a case they are seeking to drop.


There's a lot of articles I've read saying he'll have to drop it.


Thats why i said he was arguing semantics :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: MagicMush123]
    #26750620 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
to be fair it says in the article that the case wont be dropped without Sullivan's approval. Enlils arguing semantics


Fair enough, that was towards the very end:

Quote:
The dismissal of the case is subject to Sullivan's approval, but the Justice Department's filing Thursday suggested that should be more or less a formality. It would be extraordinary for a judge to order prosecutors to proceed with a case they are seeking to drop.


There's a lot of articles I've read saying he'll have to drop it.


Drop what? There’s already a conviction. The case can’t simply be dropped. The prosecutors don’t have a case to proceed with. What don’t you understand?


MagicMush123 said:
koods said:
I don’t give a fuck. They wanted the court to rule against gay Americans. They are anti-gay.


Was there a specific case or did they merely claim that they thought the original ruling wasn't meant to meant protect gays? Either way gays have protection now and you can thank the same supreme court you claimed would roll back those very protections


The trump administration is the party that opposed the interpretation that the law covered gay people. It was administration lawyers who argued in front of the court against protecting gays and trans people. It takes a lot of nerve to try to pass that off as anything but anti-gay. They didn’t have to defend the narrow interpretation of the law. They chose to.

In 2015 the Obama administration refused to defend the defense of marriage act. Not an interpretation of language in law. They refused to defend the entire law, even though they were legally bound to enforce it. And it was overturned as unconstitional. That’s being on the right side of history.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Edited by koods (06/17/20 03:19 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26750641 -

koods said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
to be fair it says in the article that the case wont be dropped without Sullivan's approval. Enlils arguing semantics


Fair enough, that was towards the very end:

Quote:
The dismissal of the case is subject to Sullivan's approval, but the Justice Department's filing Thursday suggested that should be more or less a formality. It would be extraordinary for a judge to order prosecutors to proceed with a case they are seeking to drop.


There's a lot of articles I've read saying he'll have to drop it.


Drop what? There’s already a conviction. The case can’t simply be dropped. The prosecutors don’t have a case to proceed with. What don’t you understand?


MagicMush123 said:
koods said:
I don’t give a fuck. They wanted the court to rule against gay Americans. They are anti-gay.


Was there a specific case or did they merely claim that they thought the original ruling wasn't meant to meant protect gays? Either way gays have protection now and you can thank the same supreme court you claimed would roll back those very protections


The trump administration is the party that opposed the interpretation that the law covered gay people. It was administration lawyers who argued in front of the court against protecting gays and trans people. It takes a lot of nerve to try to pass that off as anything but anti-gay. They didn’t have to defend the narrow interpretation of the law. They chose to.

In 2015 the Obama administration refused to defend the defense of marriage act. Not an interpretation of language in law. They refused to defend the entire law, even though they were legally bound to enforce it. And it was overturned as unconstitional. That’s being on the right side of history.


Sounds like they argued that the original law probably wasn't meant to cover gays as well. Not that it mattered anyways since a shit load of american companies have anti discrimination policies already in place

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: MagicMush123] * 4
    #26750651 -

Yes they argued against gays being protected by the law. That is anti-gay. One of the first things the administration did was remove the protections for gay people working for federal contractors. The admistration has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of discriminating against gay people who want to be foster parents.  Trump banned trans people from serving in the military. Trump has said he opposes the equality act:

Quote:
The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.


Trump serves the interests of his evangelical base. There is nothing pro gay about his policies.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: PLUMP 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26750702 -

koods said:
Yes they argued against gays being protected by the law. That is anti-gay. One of the first things the administration did was remove the protections for gay people working for federal contractors. The admistration has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of discriminating against gay people who want to be foster parents.  Trump banned trans people from serving in the military. Trump has said he opposes the equality act:

Quote:
The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.


Trump serves the interests of his evangelical base. There is nothing pro gay about his policies.


Because trumps pro freedom and he doesn't think gays should be forced into every area of society.  What if you owned a business and the state was forcing you to keep on employees you didn't like?
Im sorry koods, but a shit load of people dont think gays or trannys should be adopting kids or that mentally ill people should be allowed to join the military or people should have something other than M or F on their licenses or that cake shops should be forced to bake for gay weddings or that doctors should have to perform sex changes even if they think its not good for the patient or allowing kids to change their gender and mutilate their bodies or that you should allow men to compete as women in sports or that trannys should be considered real women just because they say they are

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 | 369 | 370 | 371 | | Last >

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 2020 VISION What will Canada look like in 15 years?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 lonestar2004 10,876 65 12/12/19 01:38 PM
by JohnRainy
* 2020 VISION What will America look like in 15 years? trendalM 2,265 15 01/03/20 01:55 AM
by Loaded Shaman
* China could build a modern military by 2020
( 1 2 all )		 Green_T 3,249 23 08/28/11 08:48 PM
by Madtowntripper
* Donald Trump for President
( 1 2 all )		 mm. 4,000 23 03/04/16 02:51 PM
by 2500 ug. Club
* Donald Trump: Mideast Explosion Could Destroy OPEC lonestar2004 1,351 14 02/01/11 03:17 PM
by zappaisgod
* political trump card afoaf 898 6 12/03/03 03:02 PM
by Rono
* White house corrospondence dinner and Seth Mirers and Trump. timelapses 708 4 05/02/11 06:47 PM
by timelapses
* Anti-vaxxers are fucking our healthcare system up and under RFK we're getting measles again
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Cannabischarlie 662 84 09/07/26 02:50 PM
by durian_2008

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
490,512 topic views. 2 members, 43 guests and 19 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.