Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    44442
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    247

Posts posted by Brisketexan

  1. 1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    All time classic Cohen tweet from the day the Dossier went public.

     

     

    He knows that 90% of Americans are too dumb to understand the concept of the Schengen Area, so they'll go "yeah!  No Czech stamp!  So he's never been there!"

  2. 57 minutes ago, deech said:

    It blows my mind that this is all going to get blown open because Cohen has audio recordings.

    And that the dumbfuck KEPT THEM....even as he knew that a major criminal investigation into his pal was ongoing.  For months.

    "Hey, man - the cops announced that they're doing a major area-wide sweep for drugs, and they actually named our pal Donnie when the said they were going to be looking into folks that they suspect to be drug dealers!  They know we hang out together all the time, man!"

    Cohen, reclining on a bale of weed - "Bummer, man."

  3. 2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    What’s scary is I’m starting to think you believe this nonsense.

    What's even scarier is that you and the Trumpkins like you don't, even when the mountain of evidence looms right in front of you.  Full immunity to evidence-based reasoning.  It's the Trumpkin way.

     

    Goddammit, I engaged with a troll/dumbass.  Gotta find a way to neg myself.

  4. Just now, longhornmatt said:

    I think you missed the point of the football analogies.

    If you set an oven to cook for 30 minutes, and you stick your bare hand in the oven and grab the smoldering tray with it at minute 20, should you keep holding on despite the searing pain for another 10 minutes because you can’t assess the situation until the goose is already cooked?  Your answer is yes.

    And, yes, I know - being President is different from cooking with an oven, ergo I should stop this sorcery of the written word.

    He's a troll or a dumbass.  He voted for Trump, so the only question is "which one is it, or is it both?"

    Not going to waste any more of my time engaging with someone who has so thoroughly demonstrated an immunity to any and all evidence-based reasoning.

  5. 1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    Maybe to assert a privilege?

    That would be the expected basis.  After all, the holder of the privilege is the client.  And it's rather clear that 1) Trump is (at times) Cohen's client (remember, the relationship has to be one of attorney-client for the privilege to apply -- just because Cohen is an attorney doesn't mean that their relationship is always that of attorney-client), and 2) Trump is pretty much Cohen's ONLY client.

    When a client seeks leave to intervene in a proceeding asserting that he has a privilege that needs to be protected, leave is going to be granted, 100% of the time.

    I don't think he'll be able to get much relief (the separate team issue, and then the fact that privileged material will be sent to the court for in camera inspection, should provide ample protection), but let him intervene.  But he should be thoughtful and careful about what he says in his pleadings.  There's a real chance to provide information to the opposition unintentionally.

  6. 1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

    That depends, clean off your spittle strewn screen and send me your resume. 

    My resume:

    I am a known liar with a history of lies going back decades, and I lie multiple times a day about the most obviously disproven things.

    I am a known racist, with an ongoing history of racism and using racist dog whistles.

    I do not listen to any outside authority or analysis, ever.

    I treat women as trophies, sex toys, and property.  Sometimes, all three at once.

    I call all of my enemies childish names.

    I also deem anyone who is not 100% loyal to me, in all circumstances, to be my enemy.

    I have the vocabulary of a third grader (clearly, someone other than me is typing this resume).

    My decision making is erratic and mercurial, and that's on my good days.

    I make stupid promises that will never come true (the Longhorns are going to build two new football stadiums, and A&M's gonna pay for them!)

    I hire utterly unqualified people.  Many times, they're also unethical, and will use their positions for personal enrichment and benefit.

    I regularly spread unsubstantiated and unsupported conspiracy theories.

     

     

    So, it's pretty much a lock that you'll vote for me, because you voted for the last guy with that resume.

     

    • Like 1
  7. 2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

    If the "pregnancy" was in late 2017 I'm going to say there's no way it was Trump.  I don't see him capable of performing within the last year or so.

    Sure he is.  He just thinks of this, and masturbates furiously:

    giphy.gif

    ....using McDonald's french fry grease as lube....

  8. 1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

    I’m glad you left out Hitler, we can both agree that was hyperbolic nonsense. But If collusion is proven, sure, I’m all for getting his ass out of there. Until then, life is pretty damn good. 

    Got it.  So, the ONLY thing that can convince you to have a negative opinion of Trump is if....he committed what amounts to treason.

    That's a pretty low bar for your approval.

    Hey, I too have never committed treason!  You must love me!  I presume that I can count on your vote in the future?

  9. 5 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

    This presidency is crazier than anything on House of Cards. If it were a TV show, it would be mocked for how unrealistic it is and how stupid the main characters act.

    This.  Seriously.

    Ten years from now, when the miniseries (do they use the title "Downfall" again?  Because the wink wink aspect would be hilarious) telling the story of this admin, and its epic insanity, fuckuppery, and the vast swath of rubble it created, is aired....there will be people who simply cannot believe that it's a work of truth, not fiction.  Hell, I might be among them.  This administration is an exponentially larger shitshow than I even have the ability to comprehend.  Truly...it bottles the mind.

  10. 1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

    No. A football game is determined by a score and politics are far more complex. It’s a terrible analogy. 

    Says a guy who is evaluating a president who -- LITERALLY -- speaks of EVERY.  SINGLE.  ISSUE.  in terms of "winning" or "losing."  Jesus fuck, you just pointed out ANOTHER reason why your boy is utterly unqualified to even grasp the concept of the office he holds, much less successfully execute it.

  11. 1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

    Many of y’all are doing your level best to support the authors’ assertions. Bravo. 

    Because we can't believe that there are people stupid enough to still support this assclown?

    We also can't believe that there are aggies who keep thinking that they're the cool kids of the SEC, and this is the year they show those whorns who's boss.

    That's not derangement -- in fact, it would be insanity if we believed otherwise.

  12. Just now, Chrispy said:

    Stop with the football analogies, they make zero sense. In your scenario, you would pull Trump and put in Pence, which I’m sure you would love as well. But again, these weird football references are not applicable. 

    I would celebrate pulling Trump and putting in Pence.  I would be THRILLED if we had a president where I simply disagreed with him on policy issues.

    Really?  You don't think ANALOGIES are helpful to explain things?  What other performance analogy would you like?  I went with a captain of a ship.  I went with a quarterback, or a coach.  I went with a driver of a car.  Fuck, I even went with a world leader.

    How about I go with a corporate CEO?  How about this -- we hire a new CEO, sign a contract for 4 years.  One year in, he's erratically changed numerous policies, to no coherent end.  He's harassed several women in the office.  When some guys at the plant dropped N-bombs at some of their co-workers, who got pissed, he said there were "good people on both sides."  He's brought in - and fired - 30 folks in senior management.  A lot of folks don't even know who to report to because either 1) the person who had the senior position was brought in and then fired, or 2) nobody was ever hired to fill the position.  He's given numerous senior positions to old pals of his who aren't qualified for the job.  But they ARE doing a great job of taking frequent "business trips" on the company dime to fancy locations, staying at the Four Seasons, and order $1,000 bottles of champagne on the company tab.

    But you're right.  The Board of Directors should probably just sit back and wait for him to finish out his 4 year contract before making any judgments.

    Sorry to be so blunt, but you're a fucking idiot.

  13. 1 minute ago, sidis said:

    why can you make a judgment of disapproval of one aspect of his presidency now but not other specific aspects of his presidency?

    you affirmatively state you still support him (apparently blindly) with no basis for that other than to say you won't be able to ultimately decide if he was worthy of that support in January 2021.  that's not chasing anything, that's me restating what you said (as utterly moronic as it was).  then you criticized his leadership traits.

    i'm simply trying to understand what that even means...which is admittedly a fool's errand.

    Let me summarize for you his truthful answer, if he was willing to give one (he's not).

    "Yes, I realize he's really shitty.  But admitting that he's shitty beyond redemption would be to admit that I was wrong to support him, and my intellect and ego are far too fragile to do that.  Also, he is mean to people I don't like, like libtards and, ummm, you know...those people.  I like that about him.  And that's enough.  Well, that and the 'I can never admit I was wrong' thing."

    • Like 1
  14. 2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    What in God’s name are you taking about? I disapprove of his name calling; therefore, I should have my mind made up on how all of his policies will play out the rest of his term? That’s absolute nonsense, you’re chasing your tail here. 

    No.  It means that there's a list of asshattery for him a mile long.  But we get it.  See how things play out the rest of his term.

    Just answer me this -- have you ever, even once in your life, called for a quarterback to be pulled during a game, because he had demonstrated that he was just going to keep shooting himself in the dick, and it was going to cost his team the game?  Of course you have.

    But here, you advocate for holding the president to a lower standard of performance than a dude wearing shoulder pads and a jersey.  Pretty impressive mental gymnastics.

    Trump is repeatedly fumbling snaps, throwing interceptions, getting our WRs blown up, he's tipping our plays because he's so fucking clueless, and he absolutely refuses to take any coaching from the staff.  Oh, and on every shitty play, he blames his OL, or his RB, completely alienating them and pissing them off so they aren't willing to work to hard for him.  You're correct, we haven't lost the game yet.  But if you don't think we need to pull that guy immediately, you're dumber than a bag of hammers.

  15. Just now, longhornmatt said:

    I’m fascinated by this logic.  Should UT not have assessed Charlie Strong’s performance until the end of his five year contract?  Would Hitler have turned out to be a good guy if only he had been allowed to finish his term instead of everyone rushing to judgment?

    Exactly.

    By this reasoning, the number of quarterbacks benched during a game in progress would be permanently pegged at ZERO.  I mean, we have to let him finish the game before we judge his performance.  And hey, if we throws 6 picks so we lose a crucial game and miss the playoffs, so be it.  And if he's going to repeatedly throw passes in ways that put our WRs in vulnerable positions so they get blown up and put on the DL, who are we to judge until the game is over?

  16. 3 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

     

    So Nixon should have been allowed to finish his term before anyone even began to assess the situation?

    Yep.  And the captain of the Titanic should have been allowed to finish the maiden voyage before we assessed the situation.  Same for that dude who was street racing the other day, killing two kids in a car he smashed into -- shoulda waited till his journey was complete before saying anything.

    And hey, other folks in politics do name-calling, so don't claim it's only his tactic (hint: we don't.  What we see is that it's his go-to, it's unprecedented, and it's his primary means of engaging with anyone he disagrees with). Jesus H. Christ, you'll "both-sides" this shit till we're all dead, won't you?

    I mean, other folks presided over killing of ethnic minorities.  I think it's offensive that we're calling out Hitler on it.  Let's wait until he's finished conquering Europe, and then we'll evaluate his performance.  And you know, other folks have poked things with a stick; let's hold off on any criticism of Vlad the Impaler, shall we?

  17. 8 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    You’re entitled to your opinion, I just don’t share it. The notion that we’re on the Titanic and on this inevitable course to death and destruction is hyperbolic nonsense, but it’s comical. I’m going to make a bold prediction: you’re going to be just fine. 

     

    Unless and until we aren't.

    The Titanic had a 90% chance of making it to NY just fine.  A lot had to go wrong for it to have a major incident, much less sink, killing a shitload of people.  A betting man would have bet on it reaching NY.

    But a smart man would also know that we're not talking gambling odds, we're talking about the lives of thousands of people.  And when you're looking at THAT calculus, a 10% risk is an unacceptable risk.  That level of risk gets you this:

    SN56_040612_hdr.jpg

     

    The odds are very good that we survive to 2020.

    But the odds that we don't (or that we take a beating -- in any number of ways) are higher than acceptable.

    Shit, let's put it in terms that most men of a certain age can understand: in my youth, I drove drunk several times.  The odds were good that I made it home just fine.  Indeed, I did - never hurt myself or anyone else.  Even drunk drivers have a 98% chance of making it home just fine.

    But today, with wisdom and experience behind me, I don't take even that 2% risk.  Because it's unacceptably high.  I call a fucking Uber.

    This nation has a shithammered shitgibbon at the wheel.  You're telling us that there's a 98% chance he gets us home just fine.  I'm saying we should call a fucking Uber.  My position is right.  Yours is irresponsible.

  18. 18 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    Yes, I’m goin to assess his job performance after his first term. 

    As for the name calling and hysterics, it’s both unnecessary and uninteresting.

    "I'll assess the captain of Titanic's job performance after we arrive in New York [glug, glug, drowning noises]."

    I've seen plenty.  He's unfit.  In pretty much every possible way.  We could wait until the end of his term to evaluate his performance, but -- and here's a wacky notion -- maybe we'll have a better outcome if we ditch the shitty captain BEFORE we hit the iceberg and sink to our watery grave?  

    I don't care if you find the fact that you're a piece of shit interesting, or not.  I expect that you don't want to confront or acknowledge that ugly truth - I get it, shame is a powerful motivator.  But that doesn't make the truth any less true.  You know that we have the captain of the Titanic at the helm, and your response is "wait and see."  People like you are how Leonardo DiCaprio dies.  Why do you hate Leonardo?

  19. 7 minutes ago, zork said:

    Here is the first of a series of reports, reportedly, coming from the OIG:

    https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180413a-doj-oig-mccabe-report.pdf

    This one largely discusses "Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe".

     Should his lying under oath be treated differently than the others who are now famously being charged with lying under oath to the FBI?  Or others who clearly lied to the FBI but have not been charged?  Is losing his right to retire due to being fired before he was eligible to do so, again reportedly, be enough punishment?

    What is your opinion on it?

    The case is rather strong that he violated FBI policy and lied.  Any one occasion of which is a terminable offense.  Lying under oath is a criminal offense, subject to prosecution.

    I'm not sure what the full repercussions should be, but I'm certainly okay with his being terminated.  That said, the timing of his termination was asinine, and done for political purposes -- totally fucking stupid, being that there was ample independent reason to terminate him well before then.

    But a person in a position of public trust lied, has suffered consequences for it, and should perhaps suffer even more consequences for it.  I'm good with that.  I'm good with that across the board.

  20. Just now, Anastasis said:

    Surly needs a Quack's reboot to contain all this shit. The only thing that can make the CR worse is to bring religion explicitly into the fold. 

    Perhaps you missed the GOP already doing that?  You can't discuss politics in the USA today without discussing evangelicals.

    Don't blame me, I didn't invite those hypocritical fucksticks to the party.

  21. 6 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    Your entire second paragraph references “y’all” and “you”. I’m to assume you’re talking about someone else? Then next time choose more appropriate pronouns.

    I know many conservatives that are active in the GOP and, like myself, voted for Trump. Your phrasing of the current problems facing our area are incorrect, as we don’t blame mexicans for the lack of a border, we simply want it fixed. Also, many don’t even know or care who Soros is, let alone care about the protestors. We simply chuckle and get back to work, as we would most likely utilize our time off differently. 

    We knew what we were getting in Trump and also knew it could be rocky. We were willing to take that chance, time will tell if we were wrong. But pieces of shit? That’s the kind of rhetoric that allows the mania to persist. 

    Knowing what we know about Trump now, do you still support him?

    If you do, you're a piece of shit.  I'm quite comfortable with that conclusion.

    • Like 2
  22. A tidbit of information:

    "Accordingly, the nature of the USAO-SDNY's investigation and the nature of the offenses--which sound in fraud and evidence a lack of truthfulness--weighed heavily in favor of the USAO-SDNY's decision to execute search warrants."

    And this teaser is interesting as fuck:

    "Furthermore, in the course of its investigation, the USAO-SDNY has learned that [almost FIVE full lines of redacted text].  As a result, absent a search warrant, these records could have been deleted without record, and without recourse for law enforcement." 

  23. 5 minutes ago, Pods said:

    Holy fucking shit. Cohen filed to suppress the search warrant. This is the Govt response. Some bombshells in there. 

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2018_0413_cohen_vs_USA.pdf

    That is what happened here: A federal magistrate judge found that there was probable cause to believe that Cohen’s premises and devices contained evidence, fruits and instrumentalities that specified federal crimes were committed. 

    Yeah...but they use the term "filter team," not "taint team."  I like "taint team" more.

×
×
  • Create New...