Reply With Quote
It's time for Skeletor to retire.
It's time for Skeletor to retire.
trump president, not pelosi
Democrats still parading this cadaver
"Pelosi’s answer to the question today was clearly about private, one-on-one meetings, which she has never had with Ambassador Kislyak," Hammill said. "The Ambassador was incidental to the 2010 meeting between then-Russian President Medvedev and then-Speaker Pelosi. Clearly, one needs to remind Politico that Attorney General Sessions lied under oath about a secret meeting amidst Russia’s hacking of our election, which he also didn’t disclose in a written questionnaire.”
Sad worthless mud slinging
Pelosi lied not Sessions
Fail of a thread.
This is just like the Schumer one where Trump got nuked over.
The sheeple thinking Sessions got ousted when all that happened was he escaped responsibility for any outcome of the campaign investigation. Some of you need to learn how to play chess.
Sounds like you're implying the outcome of the investigation will be punitive. If not, why the need to "escape responsibility"? I hardly see how any punitive outcome would be beneficial for the administration, which includes AG Sessions.
Well you're not very bright so it doesn't surprise me you don't see the obvious.
It doesn't need to be punitive. Just being tied up with an investigation as an AG could put Sessions against the POTUS, but if you think the DOJ won't have any say in anything, lol... and Sessions is still the AG.
I see this is your new schtick. It's cute, but you and I both know you've lost every argument we've ever engaged in. Let me know if you want me to go into details.
Provide a historical example of the point you're trying to convey.
As for "hold my hand". You figure it out. Let me know when that little dimly lit LED in your head goes into conduction so I'll know you get the "save my own ass" angle.
Don't try to play in the big leagues yet, boy. You're just a wee lad.
not true. since you started playing around in the political forum as an election year tourist you've unsuccessfully argued:
for a national policy of no forced wealth transfer
that CHL is uncons utional
that the profit motive is an effective driver of innovation in the current pharmacutical industry
Those are just with me off the top of my head. I frequently see you fail to effectively argue positions on merit with others too.
i understand your argument. I don't think that it carries any weight, specifically if the investigation leads to nothing punitive. This being the case, I've asked you to provide a historical example of an AG at odds with a president over an investigation that amounted to nothing. Otherwise, it's hypothetical bull .
You overestimate your ability. While you're quick to argue, you usually stake out an untenable position and your arguments devolve into pedantic nit picking while fighting for meaningless points of fact when it's clear you've surrendered your initial position.
Prove it
Wrong. I pointed out that using CHL for open carry is uncons utional since it infringes upon a right to bear arms. You're a gun and gun law ignorant liberal so it's not surprising that you ignore the difference.that CHL is uncons utional
Since it's a private industry with publicly traded stocks, meaning they have to have a profit/loss statements, I maintain that claim.that the profit motive is an effective driver of innovation in the current pharmacutical industry
No you don't.Those are just with me off the top of my head. I frequently see you fail to effectively argue positions on merit with others too.
You think everything must have historical precedent else it cannot happen. That's because you lack capacity for abstract thought. It's why you don't see the long game, you only do scripted outcomes.i understand your argument. I don't think that it carries any weight, specifically if the investigation leads to nothing punitive. This being the case, I've asked you to provide a historical example of an AG at odds with a president over an investigation that amounted to nothing. Otherwise, it's hypothetical bull .
Once I make my point I don't feel the need to watch you finger paint in your own as you try to deflect or just quit the discussion. When I encounter someone who has a salient point I will generally reach an agreement and might learn something. You have a long history here of being basically a ty alt of another got who tries too hard to make people think he's more than he is.You overestimate your ability. While you're quick to argue, you usually stake out an untenable position and your arguments devolve into pedantic nit picking while fighting for meaningless points of fact when it's clear you've surrendered your initial position.
You argued for a welfare free state, condemning all forced transfer of wealth. This is an example of you staking out an extreme position that's basically indefensible. I asked you to provide empirical data to support your claim. You couldn't. I asked you to make your argument without empirical data. You stopped responding.
Your initial claim was that CHL is uncons utional. It then evolved into - CHL is not uncons utional but the the unique way Texas has chosen to implement CHL is. In any event, SCOTUS has relegated the regulation of concealed carry to the states and they have allowed states la ude to implement as they please. Your argument wouldn't hold up in court and you aren't willing to take it to court despite the fact that you have standing.
Because pharmaceutical companies have to make a profit that means the profit motive is an effective driver of innovation? That's not even an argument. It's lazy garbage. As I explained, the profit motive is actually a deterrent to innovation as companies are incentivized to evergreen existing patented drugs whereas new ideas are risky and expensive to get approved.
Sure I do. Here's an example of ElNono making quick work of your naive healthcare argument: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264577
It has nothing to do with a lack of capacity for abstract thought. That's an appeal to ridicule. I simply don't buy the argument that Sessions recused himself as a strategic move so as not to put him in a position at odds with the president. It's quite frankly a stupid argument and, if true, would be a dereliction duty by the Attorney General.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 03-04-2017 at 09:04 PM.
Proof by assertion?
I knew the facts when the question was asked, you didn't. So the answer was the same, you just had to be hand held.Your initial claim was that CHL is uncons utional. It then evolved into - CHL is not uncons utional but the the unique way Texas has chosen to implement CHL is. In any event, SCOTUS has relegated the regulation of concealed carry to the states and they have allowed states la ude to implement as they please. Your argument wouldn't hold up in court and you aren't willing to take it to court despite the fact that you have standing.
More proof by assertion. Pharma doesn't make money by not doing anything. Regardless how long they make money off of product X, at some point product X was created. The subsequent profits are not coincidental.Because pharmaceutical companies have to make a profit that means the profit motive is an effective driver of innovation? That's not even an argument. It's lazy garbage. As I explained, the profit motive is actually a deterrent to innovation as companies are incentivized to evergreen existing patented drugs whereas new ideas are risky and expensive to get approved.
No it's notSure I do. Here's an example of ElNono making quick work of your naive healthcare argument: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264577
You see what you want to see, but you're ignorant so it's normal that you don't see the truth.
You don't need to buy it. According to you everything must have a precedent or it cannot happen, ergo nothing happens for the 1st time, or you expect me to hand hold you again through the maze of strategies.It has nothing to do with a lack of capacity for abstract thought. That's an appeal to ridicule. I simply don't buy the argument that Sessions recused himself as a strategic move so as not to put him in a position at odds with the president. It's quite frankly a stupid argument and, if true, would be a dereliction duty by the Attorney General.
You even had to edit that stupid, half assed response.
Not at all. You made a claim, your burden of proof which you failed meet.
. It took you three pages of back and forth to establish the CHL you believed uncons utional was the method Texas chose to implement. There was no hand holding, you just don't know how to effectively craft an argument.
this is a poor argument for the profit motive being an effective driver of innovation.
No it's not
You see what you want to see, but you're ignorant so it's normal that you don't see the truth.
You took a stupid position as was made evident by the reports today that Donald was furious with Sessions recusing himself.
Don't concern yourself with what I choose to edit.You even had to edit that stupid, half assed response.
v
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 03-05-2017 at 12:14 AM.
^ Sloppy Floyd
Of course Donald took issue with it, dumbass. Sessions did it to save himself, not to help Donald.
I hated Pelosi when she was majority leader, tbh... it's part of the cadre of politicos that need to move on... maybe sponsor some guy, but move on...
So by recusing himself, he put himself at odds with the president, the thing he was trying to avoid by recusing himself in the first place? You call me sloppy, that logic is bordering on re ation.
Your capitulation on the other points is duly noted.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
