• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Dog

Members
  • Content count

    24,839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-18 Douchebag

About Dog

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

11,843 profile views
  1. Drip Drip Drip

    First, I didn't say it was not corruption, I said I have refrained from calling it corruption. Secondly, you don't appear to understand that evidence does not have to be conclusive. Finally, if this is the beginning of another tedious decent into the pedantic, I'm good with whatever you decide.
  2. Drip Drip Drip

    Forget Russia, those are exactly the kinds of charges that Trump could be vulnerable to. Hitting a bit close to home I think.
  3. Drip Drip Drip

    If it's not an investigation then candidate Hillary was not under investigation while running for president. Given what we know about how it was conducted it was probably accurate to call it something other than an investigation.
  4. Drip Drip Drip

    I don't think so, but I really don't know or care. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of my business.
  5. Drip Drip Drip

    I don't know exactly, but I do know that Lynch subsequently decreed that the Hillary investigation would be referred to as a "matter". That the script was flipped such that the prosecutors deferred to the investigator on the question of prosecution. That a memo was written months before the conclusion of the investigation matter exonerating Hillary for acts for which you and I would never have been given a pass. And yet I have refrained from calling it corruption suggesting only that it be investigated. Clearly not the same standard you apply to Don Jr.
  6. Drip Drip Drip

    I would suggest that defending the rights of a private citizen to engage in the freedoms this country stands for is hardly sacrificing its best traditions. Family members of the president should not be expected to relinquish those rights in a country founded on government by the people and the citizen politician. You can argue bad judgment and the potential for corruption and I might agree. You however argue actual corruption even before the event occurs.
  7. Drip Drip Drip

    Bla...bla...bla
  8. Drip Drip Drip

    You wonder about my allegiance because I don't condemn a private citizen for exercising the freedoms the country guarantees... fuck off. Get back to me with some actual corruption and we'll talk about that.
  9. How's your city's liberal government doing BD? I understand Baltimore has just achieved a new national leadership status.
  10. Drip Drip Drip

    I agree the optics are bad, he probably should have declined the speaking thing, bad judgment on his part.
  11. Drip Drip Drip

    He's not representing the United States and btw we have no idea what he is going to say and neither does the State Dept. He's a businessman advancing his business interests which is perfectly legitimate and expressing his own views at a conference, also legitimate. Saying it's corruption doesn't make it so but I get that it's all you've got.
  12. Drip Drip Drip

    That some suspect corruption is not a good enough reason to expect a citizen to relinquish his rights.
  13. Drip Drip Drip

    Where's the corruption in Don Jr conducting business in India and expressing his opinion at a conference?
  14. Drip Drip Drip

    There is no prohibition on family members of a president operating a business in which name recognition is important, nor should there be. There is there a prohibition on them expressing their opinions, nor should there be. The voters knew his circumstances when they elected him.
  15. Drip Drip Drip

    I think family members of presidents should be allowed to conduct their businesses unimpeded. I don't know of it ever being a problem in the past. That said, I would hope that he's not there representing the government of the United States.