You are not logged in. Please register or login.

TheMole
 Rep: 74 

Re: US Politics Thread

TheMole wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:

Manafort didn’t put any lives in danger.

Chelsea did.

You seem to support different rules for different folks.

Many, many people in jail didn't put any lives in danger, should they all get pardoned? Why would Manafort deserve a pardon, while all those other white collar criminals don't? You seem to support different rules for different folks...

You don't know my opinion on Manning, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out that ID's argument is bullshit, one should absolutely be able to support pardoning one criminal and object to pardoning another.

It's just another form of the bullshit "but what about 'x'" type argument that litters most political discourse these days... "But what about the emails", "but what about Manning", "but what about Clinton", ...

It detracts from the real discussion to be had and is intellectually dishonest.

misterID
 Rep: 456 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:
TheMole wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:

Manafort didn’t put any lives in danger.

Chelsea did.

You seem to support different rules for different folks.

Many, many people in jail didn't put any lives in danger, should they all get pardoned? Why would Manafort deserve a pardon, while all those other white collar criminals don't? You seem to support different rules for different folks...

You don't know my opinion on Manning, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out that ID's argument is bullshit, one should absolutely be able to support pardoning one criminal and object to pardoning another.

It's just another form of the bullshit "but what about 'x'" type argument that litters most political discourse these days... "But what about the emails", "but what about Manning", "but what about Clinton", ...

It detracts from the real discussion to be had and is intellectually dishonest.

It's not bullshit. One is over tax fraud. The other was a coward who wanted out of the army because he hated his fellow "redneck" troops and was planning on a way to get kicked out of the military and CHOSE treason, which he should have gotten the death penalty for. But he put on a dress and is suddenly a hero.

It's not intellectually dishonest as it's like giving someone with drug possession a pardon and pardoning a terrorist who not only celebrated the destruction they created but has shown no remorse for it. You can be fine with giving one a pardon and not the other, but context matters, and is revealing. Don't be hysterical over pardons and sentence commuting now when you were fine with it before.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:

2hczv4m.png

mitchejw
 Rep: 109 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:
TheMole wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:

Great point.

How the hell is that a great point? It's perfectly acceptable to support one pardon while condemning another. Can I not dislike one type of ice cream, but really, really like another? As far as arguments go, it's about as dumb and meaningless as they get...

Manafort didn’t put any lives in danger.

Chelsea did.

You seem to support different rules for different folks.

Speaking of different rules for different people...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/melanias- … es&via=rss

Seems like you're always crickets SG when it involves white people and immigration.

mitchejw
 Rep: 109 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
TheMole wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:

Manafort didn’t put any lives in danger.

Chelsea did.

You seem to support different rules for different folks.

Many, many people in jail didn't put any lives in danger, should they all get pardoned? Why would Manafort deserve a pardon, while all those other white collar criminals don't? You seem to support different rules for different folks...

You don't know my opinion on Manning, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out that ID's argument is bullshit, one should absolutely be able to support pardoning one criminal and object to pardoning another.

It's just another form of the bullshit "but what about 'x'" type argument that litters most political discourse these days... "But what about the emails", "but what about Manning", "but what about Clinton", ...

It detracts from the real discussion to be had and is intellectually dishonest.

It's not bullshit. One is over tax fraud. The other was a coward who wanted out of the army because he hated his fellow "redneck" troops and was planning on a way to get kicked out of the military and CHOSE treason, which he should have gotten the death penalty for. But he put on a dress and is suddenly a hero.

It's not intellectually dishonest as it's like giving someone with drug possession a pardon and pardoning a terrorist who not only celebrated the destruction they created but has shown no remorse for it. You can be fine with giving one a pardon and not the other, but context matters, and is revealing. Don't be hysterical over pardons and sentence commuting now when you were fine with it before.

Uh...no....false

might as well just bring up Hillary again...you wanna talk about intellectually dishonest? Straddling the fence for years because you think some how calling it all down the middle like some sort of referee makes you some sort of intellectual.

Go ahead and bring up something from 8 years ago and then call yourself intelligent if it makes you feel good.

mitchejw
 Rep: 109 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:

I think I read this morning that all 3 former US presidents have been asked to eulogize him at his funeral. Guess who's not invited? Fatty Dotard....that's right...fatty Dotard will not be invited.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:

^^ Yeah, banned from 2 prominent GOP funerals within a year!  Astonishing feat.

(Barbara Bush & John McCain)

misterID
 Rep: 456 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
TheMole wrote:

Many, many people in jail didn't put any lives in danger, should they all get pardoned? Why would Manafort deserve a pardon, while all those other white collar criminals don't? You seem to support different rules for different folks...

You don't know my opinion on Manning, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out that ID's argument is bullshit, one should absolutely be able to support pardoning one criminal and object to pardoning another.

It's just another form of the bullshit "but what about 'x'" type argument that litters most political discourse these days... "But what about the emails", "but what about Manning", "but what about Clinton", ...

It detracts from the real discussion to be had and is intellectually dishonest.

It's not bullshit. One is over tax fraud. The other was a coward who wanted out of the army because he hated his fellow "redneck" troops and was planning on a way to get kicked out of the military and CHOSE treason, which he should have gotten the death penalty for. But he put on a dress and is suddenly a hero.

It's not intellectually dishonest as it's like giving someone with drug possession a pardon and pardoning a terrorist who not only celebrated the destruction they created but has shown no remorse for it. You can be fine with giving one a pardon and not the other, but context matters, and is revealing. Don't be hysterical over pardons and sentence commuting now when you were fine with it before.

Uh...no....false

might as well just bring up Hillary again...you wanna talk about intellectually dishonest? Straddling the fence for years because you think some how calling it all down the middle like some sort of referee makes you some sort of intellectual.

Go ahead and bring up something from 8 years ago and then call yourself intelligent if it makes you feel good.

Straddling the fence? 14

You mean not being a partisan little cunt? That's what you're accusing me of? An intellectual? Well, compared to you... This was not a response to my post or an argument, just more verbal diarrhea.

mitchejw
 Rep: 109 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

It's not bullshit. One is over tax fraud. The other was a coward who wanted out of the army because he hated his fellow "redneck" troops and was planning on a way to get kicked out of the military and CHOSE treason, which he should have gotten the death penalty for. But he put on a dress and is suddenly a hero.

It's not intellectually dishonest as it's like giving someone with drug possession a pardon and pardoning a terrorist who not only celebrated the destruction they created but has shown no remorse for it. You can be fine with giving one a pardon and not the other, but context matters, and is revealing. Don't be hysterical over pardons and sentence commuting now when you were fine with it before.

Uh...no....false

might as well just bring up Hillary again...you wanna talk about intellectually dishonest? Straddling the fence for years because you think some how calling it all down the middle like some sort of referee makes you some sort of intellectual.

Go ahead and bring up something from 8 years ago and then call yourself intelligent if it makes you feel good.

Straddling the fence? 14

You mean not being a partisan little cunt? That's what you're accusing me of? An intellectual? Well, compared to you... This was not a response to my post or an argument, just more verbal diarrhea.

Here’s some more verbal diarrhea for you then...

You bring up something from 8 years ago...you might as well bring up the Buh-Buh-Benghazi investigation.

You chose to pick something lesser known but were basically making the same Clinton argument that comes up every week or so in this thread.

Not so clever, genius.

misterID
 Rep: 456 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

No, I brought up something relevant and in the current national debate about pardons and commuting sentences, and countered the current "outrage" of the prospect of pardoning/commuting Manofort, when the same people had no problem when it was given to someone who was FAR worse; selective #outrage, you fucking dumb ass.

You're the one bringing up Hillary and Benghazi because you have absolutely nothing of value to add except throwing a fit for attention and acting like a cunt. And only one person supports Trump on this site, genius.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB