Keith Olbermann nails Trump on his Texas Trip

[Pavlov]

It's not like I made a thread about it. I made an off-handed comment about him. You and Chump are the ones wanting to make it into a federal case. Yet, I doubt either of you are really interested in his corruption because you perceive he is serving your side right now.

I'm quite interested in Mueller's corruption -- if he is indeed corrupt.

Honestly I never heard one Republican say anything bad about him until his appointment as special counsel. I mean, did you think Mueller was corrupt all his time serving the Bush administration?

Or did you just start accusing him of corruption because someone on the internets said so after his appointment as special counsel?

[Pavlov]

See, you can't even give me a dossier of Mueller's shady dealings for starters, yet it's so important for you to have a discussion on this.

It's

your

claim.

[Spurminator]

Just take the L and move on.

You called Mueller corrupt because you're scared of Trump being investigated. You're setting expectations already because you think something's going to happen. You're emotionally attached to the worst president of all time and you're hoping to take other people down with you.

[Spurtacular]

You felt the need to bring him up in a completely unrelated thread.


If the prosecutor in charge of investigating the president was corrupt and had a political agenda, shouldn't that be made into a federal case? If not, then whatever corruption you speak of is apparently not a very big deal.


I haven't seen any corruption to be interested in.

* Go back and look and you'll see it was an off handed comment. Not "a need to bring him up." So, stop talking out of your ass on that one.

* And Mueller is a Clinton appointee. That in itself is a conflict of interest. He has no business being a "special prosecutor."

* Yea, I agree that you're not interested in his corruption whatsoever.

[Spurtacular]

It's

your

claim.

It's your prevailing interest. If you can't even meet me halfway, then that's your problem.

[Spurtacular]

I'm quite interested in Mueller's corruption -- if he is indeed corrupt.

Honestly I never heard one Republican say anything bad about him until his appointment as special counsel. I mean, did you think Mueller was corrupt all his time serving the Bush administration?

Or did you just start accusing him of corruption because someone on the internets said so after his appointment as special counsel?

Republicans are hardly the standard bearers for truth and honor.

[Pavlov]

* And Mueller is a Clinton appointee. That in itself is a conflict of interest. He has no business being a "special prosecutor."

He's a Reagan/Bush/Clinton/W appointee. Explain how being appointed US attorney for North Carolina in 20 years ago by Bill Clinton makes him ineligible for this job.

[Pavlov]

Republicans are hardly the standard bearers for truth and honor.

Neither are you, seeing as you completely dodged the question.

Where is your truth and honor?

[Spurtacular]

He's a Reagan/Bush/Clinton/W appointee. Explain how being appointed US attorney for North Carolina in 20 years ago by Bill Clinton makes him ineligible for this job.

Explain how it doesn't.

[Pavlov]

Explain how it doesn't.

Or the ol' "prove a negative" challenge.

Well you show me your evidence he isn't corrupt!

[Will Hunting]

* Go back and look and you'll see it was an off handed comment. Not "a need to bring him up." So, stop talking out of your ass on that one.

* And Mueller is a Clinton appointee. That in itself is a conflict of interest. He has no business being a "special prosecutor."

* Yea, I agree that you're not interested in his corruption whatsoever.

You decided to make a comment about Mueller being in Fuzzy's avatar when the discussion had nothing to do with Mueller. That's you going out of your way to bring him up.

You have yet to provide hard evidence of any corruption for me to be interested in. No different than my interest level in the triple homicide you may or may not have committed.

[monosylab1k]

At this point, Spurtacular has to have some weird fetish where he can only get hard when he's getting his pushed in on sports forums. I've never seen someone so desperate to be savagely upon.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Logic is an academic science, dumb .

And Mueller has been accused of plenty. And that's a fallacy what you just did, anyhow.

Logic is not limited to academics, dim.

Please show some evidence of his corruption. I won't hold my breath.

[Will Hunting]

too easy

[Spurtacular]

You decided to make a comment about Mueller being in Fuzzy's avatar when the discussion had nothing to do with Mueller. That's you going out of your way to bring him up.

You have yet to provide hard evidence of any corruption for me to be interested in. No different than my interest level in the triple homicide you may or may not have committed.

I made a salient point during natural discussion. It hardly qualifies as "a need to bring him up."

And I said at the outset that it's not my intention to "provide hard evidence." Try to catch up.

[Will Hunting]

I made a salient point during natural discussion. It hardly qualifies as "a need to bring him up."

And I said at the outset that it's not my intention to "provide hard evidence." Try to catch up.

It's not your intention because you don't have any. I'm keeping up just fine.

[Spurtacular]

At this point, Spurtacular has to have some weird fetish where he can only get hard when he's getting his pushed in on sports forums. I've never seen someone so desperate to be savagely upon.

Save this for your 4chan forum, tbh. They get off on the millennial gimp speak.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I made a salient point during natural discussion. It hardly qualifies as "a need to bring him up."

And I said at the outset that it's not my intention to "provide hard evidence." Try to catch up.

It's more like you got tired of looking stupid regarding the OP so you decided the bait and switch to a different subject and using the same stupidity to justify it.

I do like that my avi triggered you though.

[Pavlov]

I made a salient point during natural discussion. It hardly qualifies as "a need to bring him up."

Were it salient you could prove it.

And I said at the outset that it's not my intention to "provide hard evidence." Try to catch up.

It never has been and never will be your intention. Your intention is to post then whine about it when you are called for posting.

[Spurtacular]

It's not your intention because you don't have any. I'm keeping up just fine.

I've do ented my reasoning; but if you want to believe something else, then that's par for the course.

[monosylab1k]

Save this for your 4chan forum, tbh. They get off on the millennial gimp speak.

[Spurtacular]

I do like that my avi triggered you though.

Hardly. In fact, I encourage you to keep that avi til the end of time.

[Spurtacular]

You need a new meme, bro.

[Will Hunting]

I've do ented my reasoning; but if you want to believe something else, then that's par for the course.

You've also admitted that "reasoning" wouldn't have a prayer at working in a court room

[Spurtacular]

Were it salient you could prove it.

Indeed I could. But I won't.