Impeach the MotherF%@KER!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, Coreece said:

Yes, I did.

So you don't understand why the Patriots would want to get footage of a team with a new head coach and a new system?

And why are you questioning wireless transmission to coaches? This was taken the week prior to the Bengals playing the Patriots.

How do you know the footage was brief?

[wmw999 2,447]

Wasn't that a great hijack?

Wendy P. 

[yobnoc 142]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Obviously people are making a big deal out of this simply because it's the Patriots, I get it.  I just don't really see how this relatively brief video of the Bengals sideline was used to gain an advantage in this particular game.  I don't know what kind of camera they were using, but there is no indication that there was any wireless transmission to the coaching staff or anyone else.

Personally it would seem that getting away with deliberate holding or pass interference is a form of cheating that has a much higher impact on the game.  So give them a 5-15yd penalty or something, lol.

This was a third party hired by the Patriots for an ongoing series about a scout, I mean couldn't the scout or a fan or some other guy off the street easily record the sideline with their i-phone?  And if you really wanted to decode their signals you may want to get video from the front angle, not their asses.

Anyway, I don't think much will be done.  Consider Sean Peyton and his cover up of Gregg Williams and the bounty scandal where they were paying players to injury their opponents.  This is much more serious in my book, but they practically got a slap on the wrist - Williams even ended up getting promoted to a head coach before going back to defensive coordinator.

Yet Pete Rose is still banned from the MLB to this very day for personal gambling.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Pete Rose never gambled against his team, right?  Always only for his team?

[Coreece 190]

34 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Pete Rose never gambled against his team, right?  Always only for his team?

I wondered about that too a long while back.  There doesn't seem to be any evidence that he bet against the Reds and he still maintains that he never did.  Many thought the new commissioner would reinstate him, but he decided against it.  Maybe there's some stuff they don't want us to know.

And another thing, even if anyone would've taken such a bet, he probably would've been given pretty shitty odds on his money, like 10,000 to win 100.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Coreece

[RonD1120 62]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Wasn't that a great hijack?

Wendy P. 

Yes, yes indeed.

KUDOS!

[turtlespeed 220]

The question that keeps cropping up with me during these impeachment proceedings.

"If this were Obama accused of the two same exact offenses, would the democrats be impeaching him?"

Another is, "If NOT, then why not?"  If he was as guilty of the offenses as the democrats think Trump is, why wouldn't they?

 

I'm pretty sure the answers are obvious.

I'm curious to see what answers and justifications there are.

 

[normiss 800]

23 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The question that keeps cropping up with me during these impeachment proceedings.

"If this were Obama accused of the two same exact offenses, would the democrats be impeaching him?"

Another is, "If NOT, then why not?"  If he was as guilty of the offenses as the democrats think Trump is, why wouldn't they?

 

I'm pretty sure the answers are obvious.

I'm curious to see what answers and justifications there are.

 

You left out Hillary, so that's a major fail.

[turtlespeed 220]

3 minutes ago, normiss said:

You left out Hillary, so that's a major fail.

She's irrelevant - she was never President.

BUT - OK . . . Since you insist that I would be failing if she isn't included:

Amend that question to if it were Obama, or Hillary . . .

Edited December 19, 2019 by turtlespeed

[jakee 1,489]

45 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm curious to see what answers and justifications there are.

What's the point in justifying actions that don't exist outside of your head? Obama hasn't done what Trump has done, because Obama isn't Trump.

 

Here's the question that keeps cropping up with me whenever you do this. "Why does Turtlespeed have to keep using imaginary scenarios to make the point that he thinks the Democrats are shameless hypocrites? Can he simply not be bothered to find real examples, or do they not exist?"

[JoeWeber 2,720]

9 minutes ago, jakee said:

What's the point in justifying actions that don't exist outside of your head? Obama hasn't done what Trump has done, because Obama isn't Trump.

 

Here's the question that keeps cropping up with me whenever you do this. "Why does Turtlespeed have to keep using imaginary scenarios to make the point that he thinks the Democrats are shameless hypocrites? Can he simply not be bothered to find real examples, or do they not exist?"

He's just an empty chatter box. If it was the 1970's he'd be a trucker on his CB Radio spouting pointless, lame shit like who does the best biscuits and gravy as he tooled across Texas. Blogs are open to all comers so he's here like it or not. What you, and others, can do is stop engaging him until he gets serious. So really Jakee, it's not him, it's you.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

9 minutes ago, jakee said:

What's the point in justifying actions that don't exist outside of your head? Obama hasn't done what Trump has done, because Obama isn't Trump.

 

Here's the question that keeps cropping up with me whenever you do this. "Why does Turtlespeed have to keep using imaginary scenarios to make the point that he thinks the Democrats are shameless hypocrites? Can he simply not be bothered to find real examples, or do they not exist?"

Well, there are any number of 'real world' examples where the Ds didn't pull the same shit that the Rs did. 

How many times did a D controlled Senate hold confirmation hearings for a SC appointee?

The same false equivalence that Trump applied to the Nazis & KKK in Charlottesville ("there are fine people on both sides) is becoming the last refuge of the Trump supporters. 

To pretend that the Ds would embrace corruption and criminal behavior to the degree that the Rs have is to ignore the lengths & depths (depths mostly) that the Rs have gone to in recent years to obtain power. 

Purging voter rolls, Pretending there's voter fraud to justify requiring ID to vote, gerrymandering, now promoting blatant Russian propaganda.

Its truly disgusting. 
And one of the reasons that I will never vote R again in my life. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

49 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

 

Hi Joe,

Re:  ‘He's just an empty chatter box.’

And that is one reason why he is the only person on this site that I have blocked.

Re:  ‘What you, and others, can do is stop engaging him until he gets serious.’

That’s what I did.

Jerry Baumchen

[airdvr 210]

If you're holding your breath waiting for Trump to be removed from office....

[turtlespeed 220]

12 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, there are any number of 'real world' examples where the Ds didn't pull the same shit that the Rs did. 

How many times did a D controlled Senate hold confirmation hearings for a SC appointee?

The same false equivalence that Trump applied to the Nazis & KKK in Charlottesville ("there are fine people on both sides) is becoming the last refuge of the Trump supporters. 

To pretend that the Ds would embrace corruption and criminal behavior to the degree that the Rs have is to ignore the lengths & depths (depths mostly) that the Rs have gone to in recent years to obtain power. 

Purging voter rolls, Pretending there's voter fraud to justify requiring ID to vote, gerrymandering, now promoting blatant Russian propaganda.

Its truly disgusting. 
And one of the reasons that I will never vote R again in my life. 

Thank you for an honest answer.  I don't agree with it all.

Do you really believe that the Ds are not just as guilty?

There is little to no difference this this "impeachment" and Fellaciogate.  

It was stupid then and it's stupid now.

At least there was a dress with evidence on it in the latter.

[turtlespeed 220]

12 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

He's just an empty chatter box. If it was the 1970's he'd be a trucker on his CB Radio spouting pointless, lame shit like who does the best biscuits and gravy as he tooled across Texas. Blogs are open to all comers so he's here like it or not. What you, and others, can do is stop engaging him until he gets serious. So really Jakee, it's not him, it's you.

Well, one reason is - "Attack the player, not the message"  If you have no argument - go after the poster - THAT makes sense.

Next - It is really hard to come up with a real scenario when, Obviously, the alternative never made it to the white house.

 

[DJL 235]

12 hours ago, jakee said:

Here's the question that keeps cropping up with me whenever you do this. "Why does Turtlespeed have to keep using imaginary scenarios to make the point that he thinks the Democrats are shameless hypocrites? Can he simply not be bothered to find real examples, or do they not exist?"

Spot on.  I keep having conversations with my friends when they say, "Compare him to Hillary and what SHE did!"  No, you mean what she was accused of doing, was investigated for and found to have not done or was accused of doing and it was so threadbare there wasn't even anything to investigate.  In the meantime Trump ACTUALLY did that thing that you said was so horrendous of an act that it's why you said you wouldn't vote for Hillary.

[Faicon9493 141]

I love it when they screw up and tell the truth. (clicky help please)

 

https://youtu.be/wKP7Rgezqa4?t=100

[jakee 1,489]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Next - It is really hard to come up with a real scenario when, Obviously, the alternative never made it to the white house.

I guess you forgot that Obama did make it to the White House. He was there for 8 years.

 

So again, your real world examples of these misdeeds are....?

[jakee 1,489]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Thank you for an honest answer.  I don't agree with it all.

Do you really believe that the Ds are not just as guilty?

Yes. He actually gave examples. What is your counter to them?

 

When, for example, have the Dems been guilty of simply refusing to consider doing their job when a Republican was in office? Not just blocking appointments, but not even listening to the merits of any candidate no matter who it is? 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

16 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The question that keeps cropping up with me during these impeachment proceedings.

"If this were Obama accused of the two same exact offenses, would the democrats be impeaching him?"

Another is, "If NOT, then why not?"  If he was as guilty of the offenses as the democrats think Trump is, why wouldn't they?

 

I'm pretty sure the answers are obvious.

I'm curious to see what answers and justifications there are.

 

Instead of make belief, why don't we just compare to actual impeachments in history? There have been 3 now.

1. For firing an employee
2. For lying about a blowjob
3. For using tax payer money to try and blackmail a foreign government into providing personal gain.

I can indeed see how Democrats have lowered standards. /s

[turtlespeed 220]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Instead of make belief, why don't we just compare to actual impeachments in history? There have been 3 now.

1. For firing an employee
2. For lying about a blowjob
3. For using tax payer money to try and blackmail a foreign government into providing personal gain.

I can indeed see how Democrats have lowered standards. /s

The only reason the Ds are doing this is because they cannot beat him in an election.

This is their Hail Mary.

You have to see this.

[DJL 235]

21 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The only reason the Ds are doing this is because they cannot beat him in an election.

This is their Hail Mary.

You have to see this.

I disagree.  The inherent issue in this is that there's no avenue except by impeachment to investigate a President for an alleged wrongdoing.  I think you know very well that if it appeared as though Obama had done this the Republicans would investigate it via this same avenue.  That has nothing to do with whether you or I or anyone thinks or knows that he did it or should be removed from office for it.  Simply put, it had to be investigated.  We can all agree that if it appears as though a President has attempted to use foreign aid or diplomacy to get a foreign leader to make negative remarks about a political opponent we very much need to look into it.

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

The only reason the Ds are doing this is because they cannot beat him in an election.

A) There is absolutely no reason to believe that is so. Remember the predictions before the last election that Trump would lose so badly it would take a generation for a Republican to be electable again? You're making the same mistake.

 

B) No. Trump has committed serious misconduct in office. You can't defend that by questioning the Democrats motives. If it is genuine grounds for impeachment then their motives are irrelevant, since impeachment is still the right thing to do. Since you're not defending Trump's actions, I assume you don't have any reason to say they're not impeachable.

 

Quote

You have to see this.

The rest of us aren't looking at the world through right-wing coloured glasses, so we don't see what you see.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The only reason the Ds are doing this is because they cannot beat him in an election.

This is their Hail Mary.

You have to see this.

Yes, those are indeed the right wing taking points. Maybe think for yourself next time?

[turtlespeed 220]

3 hours ago, DJL said:

I disagree.  The inherent issue in this is that there's no avenue except by impeachment to investigate a President for an alleged wrongdoing.  I think you know very well that if it appeared as though Obama had done this the Republicans would investigate it via this same avenue.  That has nothing to do with whether you or I or anyone thinks or knows that he did it or should be removed from office for it.  Simply put, it had to be investigated.  We can all agree that if it appears as though a President has attempted to use foreign aid or diplomacy to get a foreign leader to make negative remarks about a political opponent we very much need to look into it.

I do NOT know that, in fact I strongly disagree.  They may have censured him, but that is as far as it would have gotten.  At least I hope it would have been.

I am willing to be able to look at it from almost an impartial point of view.  You can believe that or not.

Why I say what I do is because of things like representatives snap chatting or instagramming their little happy dance as they go in to cast a vote to impeach.  

It is the hatred that drives this.