-
Posts
3456 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by hpslugga
-
-
45 minutes ago, David Dennison said:
The Leahy Law has waiver provisions.
Just sayin'.
It’s beyond insane to assume that each of those violations met those conditions. I’ll admit the law is vague and enforcement has been weak, but the point is those guys violated the living shit out of it as a matter of course, not just occasional mishaps.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:
But what happens when Trump is out of the picture? Back to Paul Ryans and Ben Sasses? Or do they prop up Ivanka and Don Jr?
Trump cant live forever.
Well he can't live forever, but the thing is that he's mainlined some of the most outlandish features of electoral politics that we've ever seen. "Alternative facts" and "fake news" won't just go away with Trump. They'll still be around.
-
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
Again, wishing and hoping for the GOP to become a decent and sane political party is a complete waste of time.
One would have better luck standing in front of a moving train and stopping it.
-
Just now, Eggo said:
Nixon
Among others, yes.
I'll offer some others
Reagan: Circumvented the Boland Amendment to aid a terrorist group with money they acquired from dealing weapons to a country against which we had an arms embargo.
Bush Jr: Violated the Leahy Law numerous times
Obama: see Bush Jr.
Trump: see Obama and Bush Jr., plus whatever else he's guilty of regarding all these shenanigans that were discussed yesterday w/Cohen.And I'd even put Clinton in that group of Leahy Law violators since that was enacted during his second term, but lying about a blowjob in a deposition is hardly something an intelligent person gets upset about.
-
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:
I agree with all of that.
He still deserved to be impeached for what he did.
So let me ask you this:
Did any President other than Clinton (and obviously other than Andrew Johnson) deserve impeachment?
Please note, if you do say yes, you're basically proving my point: that whole thing was nothing more than romanticized political theater in its absolute worst form.
-
Just now, David Dennison said:
But he's the one who broke the law. He did that. He knew what he was doing.
I don't dispute that. I'm just saying that Congress has discretion over whether or not to do it, and they chose to based on completely ridiculous grounds. Bill Clinton isn't the first President who broke the law while in office, but he's only the second to be impeached. Let's not kid ourselves into believing that the GOP did it out of some undying loyalty to the law. They're faithful to the law when it suits their purposes.
-
5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:
He lied under oath. He also suborned perjury and obstructed justice.
He didn't have to do any of those things.
What he lied about was completely frivolous as it relates to what his job description was, and the GOP wasn't required to pursue impeachment in the slightest. They set a trap, he took the bait, and they followed the script of what they'd been wanting to do since Jan. 20, 1993. That whole thing was a circus.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
Bottom line, the GOP is doing more to destroy the institution that is the Office of President of the United States than they ever imagined/accused Obama of doing -- and many, they imagined a LOT back then.
Trump is a deranged narcissist shitbag. Okay. But he is an isolated, limited shitbag if Congress will do its job. Mitch McConnel and the GOP are not only NOT doing their job as a representative body....they are doing everything they can to run INTERFERENCE for Trump. Their complicity will go down as one of the more shameful episodes in our political history.
The thing is that the number 1 job of any elected official is to get re-elected. The GOP today represents the absolute lowest common denominator in the electorate, and as such, the party cannot afford to piss them off lest they lose their seat. In this situation, they cannot afford to go after Trump or to get out of the Democrats' way in pursuit of Trump. They have to defend him...or else. They have to do it because Trump is a demagogue and his supporters bought every line of his bullshit hook, line and fucking sinker, and there's nothing that can separate them from that, which is why Trump's approval rating will never get close to 0. Sure, it may dip beneath 33% or so, but the point is there's a floor for it no matter how rotten he is.
-
Who's their keynote 14-year old speaker this year?
-
I doubt anything will come of it, but it'd be nice.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:
Donald Trump said avoiding paying taxes means you're smart. I've heard him say that.
I've also heard him pretend to be a P.R. guy named John Barron to pimp himself in the media.
Someeone should remind Jim Jordan of those things.
Jordan is one of those guys who's anatomically constructed to be deliberately backwards.
He farts out of his mouth
He talks out of his ass
He hears with his eyes
He sees with his earsI've not watched him very often, but in the times that I've done so, he goes down like the Hindenburg and walks away from it thinking he's Roger Bannister breaking the 4-minute mile.
-
9 minutes ago, tjhooker said:
How is that anything near impeachment? He paid off an affair to be quiet? OK. Although disgusting he would cheat on his wife especially while pregnant it is not impeachment worthy unless he lied about it under oath.
You seem to think that a crime has to be committed in order to impeach.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, happyfunball said:
George Orwell would have been impressed.
-
5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:
Lulz. Ben Shapiro is just another grifter taking advantage of the Trump era.
Seriously, if Ben Shapiro had said something worth a shit in his public life, I would have remembered it.
-
1 hour ago, mdmost said:
This is terrible. Next thing you know other Congressional staffers will get living wages and you know what that leads to, right? Anarchy.
You skipped a step. The next thing it leads to is dancing.
-
7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:
"Democracy" is simply about people being able to vote and have a voice
Well that vote has to count for something. Even Hosni Mubarak was "elected."
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, EuroHorn said:
Damn it shit libs! Quit trying to undermine the first guy that will get socialism right!
There's that word again! Everyone take a shot!
-
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:
Again, straw man. If you can cite one post by me -- even one -- where I suggest an American military invasion/action, then you can keep your post up. Otherwise, you are fucking lying.
To be fair, in practical application, you don't need to say it. And that's not even to attribute some sinister desires on your part; it's just how the game is played. I'm sorry, but when a United States administration, let alone this gang of clowns, is putting out statements such as:
"We’re in conversation with major American companies now. I think we’re trying to get to the same end result here. … It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela,"
there isn't very much wiggle room for interpretation. Sure, YOU may not prefer military intervention in lieu of international bodies overseeing a transition, but the thing is that's not how it works in real politics, especially not when we're involved. It hasn't been that way since before the United Nations (really even the League of Nations) was founded. You have to go back to the pre-WWI days where shit MAY have worked out like that, but the examples are few and far between, and nonexistent in the case of Latin America.
To repeat, even Maduro's critics in Latin America are laughing their asses off at the idea that this "aid" that we're putting out there is "humanitarian," as well they should be. We've seen this scenario play itself out so many times that it truly is insane to expect a different outcome.
Like I said earlier, this needs to be an OAS project (not the UN because the whole world doesn't need to be involved, and I'm especially referring to China and Russia), with no state taking on a larger role than anyone else. And again, as I said, one of Maduro's big concerns is that he's going to be executed if he's removed from power all exposed like that. In the interest of moving shit forward, there needs to be a settlement made where Maduro is informed "you lose the presidency, but you get to live and we will guarantee that." Those sorts of transitions have happened in the past.
Maduro has legitimate concerns that he's going to go the way of Saddam Hussein, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Muammar Gaddafi, etc. That's not at all some plea on my part for pacifism or anything like that; it's just to say that the shit that's being suggested by both Guaido and by the Trump administration is a nonstarter in terms of real politics. Do you want him out or not, and do you care if his ouster could potentially affect the population in general? Well if you do, then you need to support efforts to finesse him out and not support measures that just make you personally feel good. And hell, even after you've secured his ouster via those diplomatic means, I wouldn't shed a tear if by the very next day that UN personnel show up at his doorstep with the intent of trying him for crimes against humanity.
The OAS also needs to apply pressure on Venezuela in general to guarantee that Guaido holds elections and soon. As I said, the 30-day window has already closed since they Assembly announced he was the Interim President, and they haven't even announced a scheduled election. This already smells rotten, it's got Elliot Abrams' and John Bolton's filthy finger prints all over it, and we should all be concerned that this is just gonna be another 1954 Guatemala, 1964 Brazil, 1965 Dominican Republic, 1973 Chile, 2004 Haiti, 2009 Honduras, et al. Were you bald-headed and wearing a yellow t-shirt, I would be screaming at you "DON'T TRY KICKING THAT FOOTBALL, CHARLIE BROWN!"
I suppose you could enlighten the rest of us as to how to efficaciously remove Maduro absent a US-backed coup. And I'm not saying that to be a smartass, I really don't know what it is you have in mind that would achieve the ultimate end of a Venezuela without him.
-
28 minutes ago, elfenix said:
PDVSA has owned citgo in its entirety since 1990. PDVSA has been around since 1976.
YOU HATE AMERICA AND YOU SUPPORT MADURO!!!
-
I rest my case
-
6 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:
Don’t waste your time. You’re arguing with a guy who smugly thinks he knew more about Allende than Rimbo even though Rimbo focused an entire semester on the Pinochet coup and couldn’t counter what he was saying
Ha. I posted you an in depth history of the origins of socialism and you sat totally silent and maintained your position as if no one said anything. This is literally sticking fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and saying "LALALALALALALALALA."
-
4 minutes ago, Crusher said:
What!!!??? Your own article that you posted disagrees with you in the first paragraph.
CARACAS – CARACAS (AP) — It's President Hugo Chavez's biggest economic battle cry, and it's getting louder as Venezuela suffers a recession: "We're going to bury Venezuelan capitalism."
Edit: go ahead and neg me again you douche.
Still reading selectively, I see. Or are you one of those superficial idiots who thinks that political rhetoric is an accurate depiction of policy? Because that's exactly what the article sought to dispel from the very outset, which you've have noticed if you had continued. Hell, right after that selective copy and paste of yours reads:
"Yet creating a socialist economy is one of Chavez's most elusive goals — a stark example of the disconnect between the president's rhetoric and the reality on the ground. In fact, the private sector still controls two-thirds of Venezuela's economy — the same as when Chavez was elected in 1998, according to estimates by the Central Bank."
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:
I care about starving people. Ethiopians in the 80s and Venezuelans now. You can now wax poetic about no one understanding what socialism really is except for you.
I'm not the only one who does, not even here.
-
11 minutes ago, Crusher said:
Edit: You don't have to neg every post I make. I get it. You and I disagree. I don't do that to you or anyone else I disagree with on this site.
I don't neg you for disagreeing. I neg you for being incapable of understanding the most basic of issues and being fantastically dishonest in doing so. I've very frequently referred to Icono as being a walking, breathing example of the Dunning Kruger effect, but clearly I'm wrong about that because you're Bob Beamon'ing him here.
And you still don't get it regarding Maduro and Venezuela. They are not socialist by any means, they never have been, and even Fox News has an AP article on their website acknowledging that in rather spectacular detail and it was written quite a while back.
-
1
-
Benjamin Netanyahu Indicted for Fraud and Bribery
in Cloak Room
Posted
Seriously the idea that this is Trumped up newspaper stuff doesn’t even rise to the level of Arkansas trailer park trash.