Jump to content

The Senate Impeachment Trial of DJT


Recommended Posts

 

11 hours ago, Sean said:

Just saw that. Nothing matters anymore it seems. Should be a slam dunk conviction, but it won’t. We’re fucked. 
 

Excerpt -

In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did. 

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy. 
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off. 
Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.

If the Dems had been smarter they would have charged him with something having to do with this. They decided to go for incitement and the defense utterly demolished that charge yesterday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh well, the USA once again chooses to further diminish it's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.  So be it.

I don't know where to start.  People are dying each day because Trump fucked up.  He refused to face the reality of Covid.  Worst President ever, full stop.  I know I will never spend a nickel at any

Indeed it won't. There are a lot of voices (many people are saying) calling for criminal prosecution after the Republican Senate bows down to Mad King Donald. https://www.thedailybeast.com/forg

Posted Images

43 minutes ago, Dog said:

If the Dems had been smarter they would have charged him with something having to do with this. They decided to go for incitement and the defense utterly demolished that charge yesterday.

I must have missed that, can you elaborate please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

I watched the proceedings Dog. Nothing truthful approaching demolition of incitement charges was presented. That's why I'm asking. 

If it was a boxing match they would have had to stop it.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we’d be at the “Did you order the Code Red” scene of impeachment if The Loser was a psychopathic, narcissistic hero-syndrome figure like Jessep instead of being a psychopathic, narcissistic fucking coward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where to start.  People are dying each day because Trump fucked up.  He refused to face the reality of Covid.  Worst President ever, full stop.  I know I will never spend a nickel at any of his properties and will take great delight with each of his forthcoming bankruptcies.  I don't think I'm alone in characterizing the last four years as the darkest of our history in peacetime.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I don't know where to start.  People are dying each day because Trump fucked up.  He refused to face the reality of Covid.  Worst President ever, full stop.  I know I will never spend a nickel at any of his properties and will take great delight with each of his forthcoming bankruptcies.  I don't think I'm alone in characterizing the last four years as the darkest of our history in peacetime.

And if he had faced the reality of Covid he would probably still be president.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dog said:

If it was a boxing match they would have had to stop it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/us/politics/donald-trump-lawyers-fact-check.html

WHAT WAS SAID

“Far from promoting insurrection of the United States, the president’s remarks explicitly encouraged those in attendance to exercise their rights peacefully and patriotically.” — Mr. van der Veen

 

This is exaggerated. Mr. Trump used the phrase “peacefully and patriotically” once in his speech, compared with 20 uses of the word “fight.”

WHAT WAS SAID

“As everyone knows, the president had spoken at hundreds of large rallies across the country over the past five years. There had never been any moblike or riotous behaviors.” — Mr. van der Veen

This is misleading. While no other Trump rally has led to a siege of the Capitol, there have been episodes of violence, sometimes encouraged by the president. Less than two months before the riot on Jan. 6, Mr. Trump waved to supporters who had gathered in Washington to protest his election loss and who later violently clashed with counterprotesters. Previously, other supporters had attacked counterprotesters, and in one case a BBC cameraman, at several Trump rallies. Mr. Trump called one victim “disgusting” and offered to pay the legal fees of a supporter who had punched a protester.

 

And on and on

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

If it was a boxing match they would have had to stop it.

Yes because the defense team was punching themselves in the face. Trump will be acquitted because the majority of Republicans are too cowardly to face the anger of the lunatic fringe that they have come to rely upon to get elected, not because of Trump's laughably inept defense team.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Remodel said:

Yes because the defense team was punching themselves in the face. Trump will be acquitted because the majority of Republicans are too cowardly to face the anger of the lunatic fringe that they have come to rely upon to get elected, not because of Trump's laughably inept defense team.

That nearly all GOP Senators made clear they would vote to acquit BEFORE the trial does not indicate the defense was convincing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Remodel said:

Yes because the defense team was punching themselves in the face. Trump will be acquitted because the majority of Republicans are too cowardly to face the anger of the lunatic fringe that they have come to rely upon to get elected, not because of Trump's laughably inept defense team.

The size of the lunatic (not so) fringe and the influence they have is what concerns me more than anything.  A majority of republicans still believe the election was stolen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bridhb said:

The size of the lunatic (not so) fringe and the influence they have is what concerns me more than anything.  A majority of republicans still believe the election was stolen.

Yes it is frightening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

Are the witnesses here testifying under oath?

The ones being subpoenaed for Zoom depositions will be. If the defense had stuck with just the party affiliation it would be done.. They had to go full gaslight to keep the bullshitters happy, so the only response is to have sworn testimony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The root of the problem:

Quote

Renee Romano, an Oberlin College professor who specializes in the field of historical memory, says the impeachment outcome raises the question: "Can America ever truly be a multiracial democracy?'"

  • She sees it as the result of tension between two opposing historical narratives — one saying the election was stolen and violence is justified to take it back, the other saying Joe Biden won legitimately because more people support the Democrats and they were able to assemble a multiracial coalition.
  • "I think a lot of this is about race, and entitlement ... and now, we’re at a stage where you basically have to use violence to overthrow the results of a democratic election to protect white minority power."
  • "In any society where you have such a divide over how you see reality, that’s an unstable country," Romano said. "I’m not hopeful for the future of the country."

https://www.axios.com/trump-acquittal-history-presidents-day-257791a9-f48a-41d0-92b3-f42303bf79b3.html

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to know what the defeated ex-President knew and when he knew it, you should call as witnesses the Secret Service detail.

And, before anyone claims some sort of privilege - that exact thing happened in the investigation which led to President Clinton's Impeachment.

Secret Service agents ordered to testify in Lewinsky scandal, May 22, 1998

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Witnesses won’t change the outcome. The Dems are trying to make acquittal as painful as possible for their R colleagues to cast their vote. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean said:

Witnesses won’t change the outcome. The Dems are trying to make acquittal as painful as possible for their R colleagues to cast their vote. 
 

Absolutely. The Republicans are looking for anything to use as cover. Some may be as stupid as Dog and think that the defense destroyed the impeachment argument, but most are either scared shitless of Trump's goon squads or complicit in an attempted coup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Absolutely. The Republicans are looking for anything to use as cover. Some may be as stupid as Dog and think that the defense destroyed the impeachment argument, but most are either scared shitless of Trump's goon squads or complicit in an attempted coup.

Something tells me it is not going to be painful at all.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

If you want to know what the defeated ex-President knew and when he knew it, you should call as witnesses the Secret Service detail.

And, before anyone claims some sort of privilege - that exact thing happened in the investigation which led to President Clinton's Impeachment.

Secret Service agents ordered to testify in Lewinsky scandal, May 22, 1998

How is that relevant?  Is he being impeached for not acting quickly enough to address the Capitol riots?  What about his knowledge is relevant to the incitement charge?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sailed for 50+ years, mostly on the Great Lakes.  I've literally been upside down having to swim out from the cabin of an F-27.  In all my time sailing, death was not part of the equation.  I trusted my Brothers in Arms.  I  get why congresspeople felt their lives were in danger, they were.  How many votes did Trump get?  A lower bound on the number of idiots in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

How is that relevant?  Is he being impeached for not acting quickly enough to address the Capitol riots?  What about his knowledge is relevant to the incitement charge?

intent

D

PS wot about the money trail

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The peanut gallery joins in:

Quote

Claims by former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that his conduct around the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is shielded by the First Amendment are “legally frivolous” and should do nothing to stop the Senate from convicting him, 144 leading First Amendment lawyers and constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum wrote in a new letter circulated on Friday.

Taking aim at one of the key planks of Mr. Trump’s impeachment defense, the lawyers argued that the constitutional protections do not apply to an impeachment proceeding, were never meant to protect conduct like Mr. Trump’s anyway and would likely fail to shield him even in a criminal court.

“Although we differ from one another in our politics, disagree on many questions of constitutional law, and take different approaches to understanding the Constitution’s text, history, and context, we all agree that any First Amendment defense raised by President Trump’s attorneys would be legally frivolous,” the group wrote. “In other words, we all agree that the First Amendment does not prevent the Senate from convicting President Trump and disqualifying him from holding future office.”

 

Among the 144 lawyers, scholars and litigants who signed the letter, a copy of which was shared with The New York Times, were Floyd Abrams, who has fought marquee First Amendment cases in court; Steven G. Calabresi, a founder of the conservative Federalist Society; Charles Fried, a solicitor general under Ronald Reagan; and pre-eminent constitutional law scholars like Laurence Tribe, Richard Primus and Martha L. Minow.

 

The public retort came after Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, indicated this week that they planned to use the First Amendment as part of their defense when the trial opens on Tuesday. They argued in a written filing on Tuesday that the House’s “incitement of insurrection” charge “violates the 45th president’s right to free speech and thought” and that the First Amendment specifically protects Mr. Trump from being punished for his baseless claims about widespread election fraud.

The House impeachment managers have argued that Mr. Trump’s false statements claiming to have been the true winner of the election, and his exhortations to his followers to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” to reverse the outcome helped incite the attack.

In their letter, the constitutional law scholars laid out three counterarguments to the president’s free-speech defense that the Democrats prosecuting the case are expected to embrace at trial.

First, they asserted that the First Amendment, which is meant to protect citizens from the government limiting their free speech and other rights, has no real place in an impeachment trial. Senators are not determining whether Mr. Trump’s conduct was criminal, but whether it sufficiently violated his oath of office to warrant conviction and potential disqualification from holding future office.

 

“As a result, asking whether President Trump was engaged in lawful First Amendment activity misses the point entirely,” they write. “Regardless of whether President Trump’s conduct on and around January 6 was lawful, he may be constitutionally convicted in an impeachment trial if the Senate determines that his behavior was a sufficiently egregious violation of his oath of office to constitute a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ under the Constitution.”

What is more, they argued, even if the First Amendment did apply to an impeachment trial, it would do nothing to bar conviction, which has to do with whether Mr. Trump violated his oath, not whether he should be allowed to say what he said.

“No reasonable scholar or jurist could conclude that President Trump had a First Amendment right to incite a violent attack on the seat of the legislative branch, or then to sit back and watch on television as Congress was terrorized and the Capitol sacked,” they wrote.

Finally, they contended that there is an “extraordinarily strong argument” that the defense would even fail in a criminal trial, because the evidence against Mr. Trump is most likely strong enough to meet the Supreme Court’s high bar for punishing someone for inciting others to engage in unlawful conduct.

Many of the signatories to Friday’s letter had signed onto a previous one pushing back on another key argument in Mr. Trump’s defense: the assertion that the Senate does not have jurisdiction to try a former president because the Constitution does not explicitly grant it that power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/trump-defense-first-amendment.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

How is that relevant?  Is he being impeached for not acting quickly enough to address the Capitol riots?  What about his knowledge is relevant to the incitement charge?

It sure might convince a few Senators that the President was happy their lives were in danger.  I can't imagine that would sit well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

 

It's not just the lawyers that are shit, so are all those slimy motherfuckers on the R side of the Senate. Ted Cruz is easy to hate, but Graham needs to be shat upon repeatedly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Certainly a way to block the most productive years of a new president.

Didn't the dems vote for the witness subpoenas?

7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Did anyone on this forum participate in the GOP Shit-Smearing Meeting at the Capitol on 1/6/21?

Where were you that day? 

BTW...  you change your handle to Triple B...  Beef, Breast, and Bullshitters.... you are doing gods over on GA..

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Didn't the dems vote for the witness subpoenas?

Where were you that day? 

BTW...  you change your handle to Triple B...  Beef, Breast, and Bullshitters.... you are doing gods over on GA..

Watching a coup on TV, you? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the breaking news is that they are going to skip witnesses.  The gang that can’t shoot straight

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get the shitshow over with, already. Replacing Biden's agenda Lindsey Graham deposing Nancy Pelosi about what she knew and when she knew it is a poor trade. If the Senate could force Trump to appear, that would be relevant, but failing that, nothing is going to convince members of this jury that they are fatally biased and need to rethink their support for the orange menace.

Get them on the record and move on. The truth will out, and we've COVID to fight, an economy to rebuild and natural lands to protect.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

the following was done by dictation. Sound it out 
 

 

The house managers could do better my presentation would go something like this Donald Trump is well known as a fantastic rebel rouser he can work a crowd into a frenzy as well as anyone in the world lock her up lock her up build that wall build that wall and of course most recently stop the steel are the fact is people went to the capital capital and trash the place and hurt some people and you can say that Donald Trump really can’t be held accountable because all he did was exercise his right to free speech and OK that’s fine but the question has to be what point does Donald Trump cross that line when does he cross the line that says he shall not ever be allowed to be a president again and I believe that line was crossed when he sat on his handsAnd didn’t do a damn thing while our capital was being attacked he should have been on the phone to the Pentagon within seconds screaming get down there save the capital around those people up take him to jail he did no such thing he let it go on for hours and even when he did say something he wasn’t forcefully saying by God that’s the capital of the United States of America and you better never pull such a start again he didn’t do that at all so the question all the senators is did Donald Trump cross the lineIs it OK for a president to sit on his hands while the capital is attack do we say oh it was just first amendment speech and a little attack at the capital no big deal or do we say he want them up and send them to the capital and then when he found out that oops I overdid it and I had them attack the capital he didn’t immediately do something about it he didn’t defend our country he didn’t offend you senator sitting around the room it’s that simple either cross the line or he didn’t and the question is are you willing to face the voters next time around and tell themIt’s OK if the president doesn’t defend the country maybe one of you wants to run for president sometime do you really wanna vote on your record that says it’s OK if the president doesn’t defend the country to talk about the constitution that’s his job defend the country this isn’t a republican democrat thing this is a do we have presidents to defend the country or Dont we 

They are making all those points but they are trying not to scold the Rs, it seems to me the strategery is to lead them gently towards a realization this is the best shot they are going to have to be rid of Trump.

It's Machiavelli's world and we are all just living in it. 

What I mean is these Princes serve their own interests. Purely. They need to be convinced that having Trump as their candidate in 2024 is bad for them, individually and collectively. They fear the mob, so if they can be led at all to move against The King who rules it at all , they must convince themselves it is imperative they re-take control of their own fates. What the House managers are doing appears to me to be a preview of what the campaign against Trump in the next rodeo is going to look like. 

  They are abstaining from scolding because right now the Rs are self-enthralled. People in that position are prone to defensive knee-jerks. The House managers are IMO doing and excellent job attempting to avoid certain spots with their hammer.   They seek to focus the Rs on a need to fear Trump's mob, as Trump has shown a willingness to use it on Pence. If he will turn it on Pence he will turn it on any of them. Let Trump rule and they are nothing but his bitches.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

yet you are broke and keep shooting yourselves in the foot.......

 Having depts isn't broke, and this bank prints the money. The world's economy is still based on the US-Saudi petro dollar.  Feet? We don't have any feet. We don't need no stinkin' feet! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

A few I could understand, even half of them, but 44 of them? 

Trumps got to have a dirt file on many of the Republicans, especially any that ever seemed not 100% Trump., does anyone really believe he wouldn't have a dirt file?

Nope, they're just snivelling pukes who know that The Base currently hold their political futures in their hands.

The lunatics are running the GOP asylum and so these cowardly weasels will cater to them at any cost to keep their snouts in the trough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why all of the republicans who have aspirations of running for president in 4 years would want the asswipe aquitted. Sure, if they vote to convict him they will lose the possible vote of the deplorables but if they don't the have got to know that he is not going to go away and he will still be around to disrupt the election in some form and and they won't get the deplorable vote anyway. It seems to me that it would be better for them if he were to be barred from ever running again. I don't get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

Nope, they're just snivelling pukes who know that The Base currently hold their political futures in their hands.

The lunatics are running the GOP asylum and so these cowardly weasels will cater to them at any cost to keep their snouts in the trough.

The base is loud, deplorable and obnoxious, but I find it hard to believe a largely voiceless ex-President can rile them up enough for the next two years to make a big difference in Senate elections.  Especially since we will see Karens, Proud Boys, white supremacists, et al. going to jail, lose their jobs and be ostracized over the next year or so.  There will obviously be the true believers, but I see that gang getting smaller with the head cut off the snake.  Or I could be completely wrong, as I often am with this fucking lunatic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Look at what's happening in Arizona.

I was there all last week.  Hoo boy, the further away from Phoenix you get there is a LOT of maga/no mask shit on display.  But I haven't heard anything more than them censuring one of Repubs or something.  What did I miss?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Steve, I agree with rtb on this one. These pols have finely tuned survival sense, and very few Republican Senators from battleground states are up for re-election in two years. Several who are (including mine) have announced they are not running again.

Letting Trump continue to blather is of less risk than sticking their necks out.

McConnell has played this pretty well, appearing impartial and pissed off, listening carefully and then rendering a judgement which provides plenty of cover for fellow Senators to acquit their party of any responsibility for the insurrection.

Deciding not to delay the inevitable is good for everyone, and the country. Anyone who has paid attention knows that Trump can’t be trusted with public office, and mouth breathers don’t write history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, roundthebuoys said:

I was there all last week.  Hoo boy, the further away from Phoenix you get there is a LOT of maga/no mask shit on display.  But I haven't heard anything more than them censuring one of Repubs or something.  What did I miss?

The lunatics have taken over the party asylum and they are censuring the sane ones, trying to kick them out, promoting voter disenfranchisement - all the looniest of loony, fascist GOP desires.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

The base is loud, deplorable and obnoxious, but I find it hard to believe a largely voiceless ex-President can rile them up enough for the next two years to make a big difference in Senate elections.  Especially since we will see Karens, Proud Boys, white supremacists, et al. going to jail, lose their jobs and be ostracized over the next year or so.  There will obviously be the true believers, but I see that gang getting smaller with the head cut off the snake.  Or I could be completely wrong, as I often am with this fucking lunatic.

The problem with that logic is that EPWSNBN was never the head of the snake.  He was more like what the snake shat out after eating a rat.  He was a symptom of the problem, never the cause.  Yes he gave voice to the deplorables to come out of hiding, but he didn't create them.  There are many heads to cut off and there are many many voices spewing lies and BS that need to be silenced.  It's going to be playing whack-a-mole for a while until we address the real issues and the real forces behind what the GOP has become.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

@Stevemouth breathers don’t write history.

The past 4 years would not support that idea.

Periodically the mouth breathers get control in various places and it always ends badly.

Italy

Germany

NORK

Iran

Chile

Venezuela

Brazil

Shall I go on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

The problem with that logic is that EPWSNBN was never the head of the snake.  He was more like what the snake shat out after eating a rat.  He was a symptom of the problem, never the cause.  Yes he gave voice to the deplorables to come out of hiding, but he didn't create them.  There are many heads to cut off and there are many many voices spewing lies and BS that need to be silenced.  It's going to be playing whack-a-mole for a while until we address the real issues and the real forces behind what the GOP has become.  

Well he was certainly the voice of the snake and unfortunately a two-bit con man B-list celebrity which the deplorables love.  I agree with the whack-a-mole though, it's going to be a mess with that segment of the populace.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

The problem with that logic is that EPWSNBN was never the head of the snake.  He was more like what the snake shat out after eating a rat.  He was a symptom of the problem, never the cause.  Yes he gave voice to the deplorables to come out of hiding, but he didn't create them.  There are many heads to cut off and there are many many voices spewing lies and BS that need to be silenced.  It's going to be playing whack-a-mole for a while until we address the real issues and the real forces behind what the GOP has become.  

True. Word is nearly everyone in the crowd was carrying a cell, so they are all IDed. WaPo reports that a whopping 60% of that crowd has had financial trouble, bankruptcy, bad depts, credit scores so low Capital One won't send them junk mail...serious shit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
31 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

@Stevemouth breathers don’t write history.

The past 4 years would not support that idea.

Periodically the mouth breathers get control in various places and it always ends badly

Oh, troglodytes certainly _make_ history, but mostly nerds and thoughtful types record it.

When mouth breathers put pen to paper, it’s more in the form and substance of a manifesto or the 1776 Project. Poorly researched, heavily biased but usually way more revealing about the author(s) than insightful on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

When the division threatens the billionaires they will stop using their media machines to feed divisive bullshit to the cult members. 

As Eva Dent.  See: Dominion lawsuits (And something about their ancient IP, I guess)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

When the division threatens the billionaires they will stop using their media machines to feed divisive bullshit to the cult members. 

Not if their profits are coming from clicks. Controversy creates traffic, flashing ads is lucrative. 

Cutting off Trumps Twitter feed has improved air quality drastically, but we shall see if this bulwark can be sustained. He is far too valuable a natural resource to lose relevance immediately.

He’d be sought after for reprehensible quotes from prison, having created a veritable golden goose for modern “reporters.” Faithful writers and readers beg and scrum to dissect and debate his every effluent. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Remodel said:

Yes because the defense team was punching themselves in the face. Trump will be acquitted because the majority of Republicans are too cowardly to face the anger of the lunatic fringe that they have come to rely upon to get elected, not because of Trump's laughably inept defense team.

That was pretty much a given from day one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

I don't seem to remember a single Kamala hat or flag on any of the looters.  

But could you imagine if there had been?  IMAGINE it! Turrible. Just turrible, if such a thing happened....and it could have. What stopping it from happening? Imagine it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

 

The suture sites are now bright blue.

Wanna picture? Honestly apart from the raspberry top and the almost blackberry bottom, it's really quite appealing.

Stop discussing my poor abused right tit.

Congrats on the poo test.BTW. what colour is your ring?

I have absolutely no idea, never seen it.  Maybe you could help me out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dylan winter said:

he sacked the rational ones

Still, to be so incoherent, bend the truth so broadly, while speaking in dog whistles to the base all, while at the same time faking some sense dignity, clearly, is not easily done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Elegua said:

Still, to be so incoherent, bend the truth so broadly, while speaking in dog whistles to the base all, while at the same time faking some sense dignity, clearly, is not easily done. 

He's a fucking ambulance chaser! (Sorry, personal injury lawyer) He's been practicing for years! He knows how to blow smoke up people's asses and make them feel like they just ate lobster and caviar.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mark K said:

1. We are the world's bank

2. and have 9 carrier task groups.

2. Still by far the biggest, baddest mfers in the Valley. 

 

There is the problem right there.

  1. Check the debt of the cuntry before making that statement.
  2. Carriers are only scary to people that live in mud huts, for advanced countries they are just the first targets of the hyper-sonic missiles.
  3. For this I have a HST quote that says it best.

"“We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world—a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us. . . . No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we’ll kill you."

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites