Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
That_Guy

Secret Files Show How Trump Moscow Talks Unfolded While Trump Praised

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Shaky McSelfie

Grim’s question is a transparent attempt to ignore/dismiss the inculpatory evidence presented - and as irrelevant as your contributions in most_threads.

 

"You actually think you're *the* Buzz Lightyear?"

 

"Oh, all this time I thought it was an act! Hey, guys, look! It's the REAL Buzz Lightyear!"

 

TG: "You're mocking me, aren't you?"

 

"Oh no, no no no, no-BUZZ, LOOK! AN ALIEN!"

 

TG: "Where?!"

 

"BAH-ha-ha-ha-ha..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

Grim’s question is a transparent attempt to ignore/dismiss the inculpatory evidence presented - and as irrelevant as your contributions in most_threads.

Oh, lookie! Hamilton found a thesaurus!

 

Push harder, Hamilton, you're covering your shoes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Honest about something that never came up?

 

If it “never came up,” how do you explain Trump’s signature on a Letter of Intent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Oh, lookie! Hamilton found a thesaurus!

 

Push harder, Hamilton, you're covering your shoes....

He reminds me of Otto ("Don't call me stupid!") from "A Fish Called Wanda."

 

Wanda: Calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.

(snip)

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

 

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

He reminds me of Otto ("Don't call me stupid!") from "A Fish Called Wanda."

 

Wanda: Calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.

(snip)

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

 

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.

 

Great movie - John Cleese was never better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaky McSelfie

If it “never came up,” how do you explain Trump’s signature on a Letter of Intent?

Why do I have to explain that? Did that come up in the primary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Did that come up in the primary?

 

No, because Trump continually lied about it.

 

Do you think the party would have nominated someone else if Trump had been honest during the primaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaky McSelfie

No, because Trump continually lied about it.

 

Do you think the party would have nominated someone else if Trump had been honest during the primaries?

How did he lie about something that did not come up?

 

And who <censored>ing cares?

 

Get over it. Trump is your president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Grim’s question is a transparent attempt to ignore/dismiss...

 

:woot:

 

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

Pots & kettles spring immediately to mind.

 

And here's a question for you: Would there have been any need for Wikileaks/Assange/Russians/etc if not for Hillary's LONG list of crimes in the first place?

 

I mean, what would "Wiki" have to "leak" if Hillary wasn't a traitorous criminal?

 

:tap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MTP Reggie

:woot:

 

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

Pots & kettles spring immediately to mind.

 

And here's a question for you: Would there have been any need for Wikileaks/Assange/Russians/etc if not for Hillary's LONG list of crimes in the first place?

 

I mean, what would "Wiki" have to "leak" if Hillary wasn't a traitorous criminal?

 

:tap:

 

Is 'pathetisad' a word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaky McSelfie

Is 'pathetisad' a word?

It is now. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

What do you think it is?

 

And more importantly, does the Trump campaign reaching out to Julian Assange to get stolen information (to be released in the future) meet that definition?

 

Why or why not?

 

 

Cut/Paste

 

You've been using "soliciting" ad nauseam for a few pages now, and suddenly the definition of a word you keep repeating is "irrelevant".

 

Boggles the mind.

 

So what's the "statutory definition"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, I can do this all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Grim’s question is a transparent attempt to ignore/dismiss the inculpatory evidence presented - and as irrelevant as your contributions in most_threads.

 

I addressed every fevered conspiracy you clumsily lobbed. In return, I asked for a simple definition. Since (again) you have a history of reinventing definitions for words that already have definitions.

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE TO THE REST OF THE CLASS: If you think I’m joking, I assure you I’m not. It’s happened a few times, actually. It was his way of escaping a losing argument, and typically went like this....

 

ME: “The word you’re using doesn’t mean what you think it means.”

 

TG: “I’m using a special definition I just invented out of thin air, therefore I win”.

 

 

 

Really, I’m not kidding. He actually did that. And we’re supposed to trust his brilliant deduction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Is 'pathetisad' a word?

It is now. ;)

 

Yup, it's a word now! And a good one too; very descriptive. Well done, Reggie.

 

 

I addressed every fevered conspiracy you clumsily lobbed. In return, I asked for a simple definition. Since (again) you have a history of reinventing definitions for words that already have definitions.

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE TO THE REST OF THE CLASS: If you think I’m joking, I assure you I’m not. It’s happened a few times, actually. It was his way of escaping a losing argument, and typically went like this....

 

ME: “The word you’re using doesn’t mean what you think it means.”

 

TG: “I’m using a special definition I just invented out of thin air, therefore I win”.

 

 

 

Really, I’m not kidding. He actually did that. And we’re supposed to trust his brilliant deduction?

 

Yup, he's a real peach, LOL.

 

And of course, once you corner him on something like that he responds with "I'm not the subject of the thread", LOL. In other words, basically saying "I can be as dishonest/disingenuous/hypocritical/childish/whatever as I please, because you're not allowed to point out how dishonest/disingenuous/hypocritical/childish/whatever I'm being."

 

:lol3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

Grim’s question is a transparent attempt to ignore/dismiss the inculpatory evidence presented - and as irrelevant as your contributions in most_threads.

Irony at 11:00.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

I know the Office of the Special Counsel wouldn't make allegations they didn't believe could be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

If this is true, why do we bother with trials?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

I find it hilarious that our resident leftards had been churning out endless 'smoking gun' articles that are laughable at best but tout them as dogma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...