pg wrote on 12/12/19 at 04:49:22:


You dwell where you choose to dwell- there is no other place to address you.  Morality, ethics, integrity are not captured, but a place to freely reside.  Blaming me for your lamentable choices won't garner unearned elevation; do the work to make yourself a better man, or not- the choice is yours alone.

You seemed to need some help with vocabulary, so I've asked Google to explain a word for you- and as luck would have it, the example is topical:

du·plic·i·ty
/d(y)o͞oˈplisədē/
noun

   deceitfulness; double-dealing.
   "the president was accused of duplicity in his dealings with Congress"
   synonyms: deceitfulness, deceit, deception, deviousness, two-facedness, double-dealing, underhandedness, dishonesty, falseness, falsity, fraud, fraudulence, sharp practice, swindling, cheating, chicanery, trickery, craft, guile, artifice, subterfuge, skulduggery, treachery, unfairness, unjustness, perfidy, improbity, crookedness, shadiness, foxiness, dirty tricks, shenanigans, monkey business, funny business, hanky-panky, jiggery-pokery, monkeyshines, codology, knavery, knavishness, management

Eegore wrote on 12/12/19 at 09:44:30:


Just heard Alan Dershowitz explain this......

It was something like, on matters of privilege, its is for the court to decide, when its application is used, but called into question....

To allow the house to issue a contempt, or obstruction charge, would then in fact be granting the house, more power than it has and ignoring the separation of powers......

In other words they would be guilty of what they charge the executive branch with.

You might have heard the excuse it would take to much time, to go that route, and he needs to be removed BEFORE the election.....Nadler said as much yesterday, where he couldn't trust the people to vote properly......WHOA

However, that is where this argument resides, NOT in the house, where it serves as judge, and jury........    

Get a order from them, after arguments, and then enforce it, if granted in the house favor, or give it up.....

Mavigogun wrote on 12/12/19 at 14:05:03:




Yes I chose that word for a reason, and I feel it was very appropriate.

Best regards,

WebsterMark wrote on 12/12/19 at 14:56:18:

Can't you be honest and admit, Trump only wanted Ukraine investigation to weaken Biden?...

You seem to have 20/20 tunnel vision.

The difference is, Trump broke the law,.. Dem's are enforcing it.

Can't you be honest and admit, Trump only wanted Ukraine investigation to weaken Biden?...

Just solely for the purpose? No, I wouldn’t  agree with that. I think he did it for two reasons.

Number one is his long-standing fight against Hillary‘s and the DNC‘s work that originated out of Ukraine about the fictitious Steele dossier and the overall Russian conspiracy nonsense. That was the primary purpose and that’s obvious in the transcript.

Number two was to bring to everyone’s attention what a slimeball Joe Biden and his son are. Like I said before, I’ve got no problem with that. I think in retrospect, he shouldn’t of done it but it’s not an impeachable offense. I’m not even sure it’s a violation of any reasonable interpretation of the law.
Hunter Biden was obviously hired to get influence from the vice president, his father. And in fact that’s exactly what happened. The bottom line to all of this is Joe Biden is crooked like every other politician. You can dismiss this with the wave of your hand as much as you want but you’re only doing that because it’s a way to attack Trump. The country is a better place knowing Hunter Biden is no longer in a position to influence US policy if Joe Biden had been elected president in 2020. Consider that for a moment. If Joe Biden had been elected in 2020 and his son had remained in that BS position, what shenanigans would’ve gone on?

Serowbot wrote on 12/13/19 at 07:49:11:



One more liberal talking point I seemed to have heard too much of in the limited time I have listened/read media. Trademarks are worthless at the time of the award. You can draw up something and put a word to it and if its unique enough - Lets say I make savage parts and my brand will be "savvvage of Sveeden greeeeeneee parts" and pic of a savage puffing out fluffy white clouds of pure oxygen - that can be trademarked. I think a few 100 will do it for fees. That brand is worth a lot less than the few 100 I paid the trademark office. But I build a few 1000 parts and sell em establishing a market and logo it everywhere and everyone will buy it etc etc. Then the "trademarked brand name" is worth a lot of $$$.

Cool.
Srinath.

If by some impossible miracle Michael Bloomberg got elected, don’t you think as an international multi millionaire doing business in multiple countries overseas would have similar conflicts? As we transition possibly to a world where presidents are not historical politicians, get used to this.