"I was not at all upset. Unsure how you would have taken that away from my comments. I was merely stating a fact, that you stepped into the defense of towermonkey, an action you are certainly allowed to perform.
I don't remember insulting you. I remember questioning your information source, which has been subsequently proven as unreliable.
Do you not believe that, during a discussion, if a person makes an assertion, they should be able to back up that assertion with facts? Or is it that you just want us all to baselessly throw opinions at each other, rather than discuss actual facts and situations?
"jumped into the fray" certainly indicates that you delt you were in a situation that you thought should be between you and towermonkey. Thank you for allowing me the privilege of posting.
You didn't insult me, perhaps you should re-read you post.
I do not consider "anonymous sources" as factual. Perhaps you do. Again re-read you sources and note whether the statements are attributed to someone named.
From SC's post in which she references lawfare.com article on Andrew McCarthy:
"McCarthy is no mere columnist and no mere attorney. He is a former federal prosecutor with a wealth of experience working inside the Department of Justice, including as head of the team that prosecuted the blind sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and a subsequent planned terror rampage."
ramage wrote: insults "shall I call you chicken little or
Cassandra".....are they reasonable commentary
As I recall you were quite taken by the post and you chose Cassandra.
[/b]
Let me explain... YOU will not bait me.....so I took the high road...CASSANDRA was
a classic example of NOT BEING HEARD AS A WOMAN.......I thought it appropriate to appeal to your sarcasm in a simple,yet direct way.......since ASTROLOGY is a hobby of mine......I have been REASONABLE ACCURATE with my predictions Q3 FINALE WAS A FIASCO....Q4 will
be head spinning and have dire consequences.......2020 is the test of this nation's ability to
adhere to it;s principles and the purpose of the constitution......jmo
Now that Nancy Pelosi has announced an official impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s July 25 phone call in which he invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do Trump the “favor” of investigating his political opponents, people are wondering: What will an impeachment process actually look like?
To answer this question, there are two places to look for guidance: the U.S. Constitution and the historical precedent of prior impeachment proceedings.
Andrew McCarthy has demonstrated partisan bias in applying the law.
Screenshots from this Twitter thread by Ari Fleishman, click to open up the attachments in a larger window if you wish to read the text more clearly: Ari Fleishman on Andrew McCarthy's partisan-based flip-flopped positions
BB, had everyone read the Special Counsel's report, including several Congress critters who admitted publicly that they hadn't bothered (isn't that their job?), perhaps we would have been further along in this process. It's a shame that the Republicans in Congress have sacrificed their principals and integrity, and are silent in fear of being retaliated against publicly, to continue to support a bully who degrades everything that conservatives and patriots stand for - he is not worthy of your support, you are a far more decent man than he could ever hope to be. It's also a larger shame that too few Americans are bothering to inform themselves of what's going on (about this and any issue or candidate that impacts them), participate in our political processes, or even muster the effort to vote.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Now that Nancy Pelosi has announced an official impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s July 25 phone call in which he invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do Trump the “favor” of investigating his political opponents,
I quit reading that garbage right there. It’s a lie. The favor asked for in the phone call was dealing with Crowdstrike. Biden’s corruption was brought up later in the conversation. If you start an article or post with a provable lie, it’s a waste of time to read the rest of it.
Now that Nancy Pelosi has announced an official impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s July 25 phone call in which he invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do Trump the “favor” of investigating his political opponents,
I quit reading that garbage right there. It’s a lie. The favor asked for in the phone call was dealing with Crowdstrike. Biden’s corruption was brought up later in the conversation. If you start an article or post with a provable lie, it’s a waste of time to read the rest of it.
TM, the problem is lack of information. I think it's a shame that most people cling to every word of their trusted sources and when those sources fail to give the other side (like actual journalists are supposed to do), they are left with whatever impression the faux journalist wants to plant into their brains. The truth will come out, it always does. Unfortunately, just like with the two years of false narratives in the Russia probe, the "journalists" who failed to look at the other side will never admit they were wrong. The days of honest investigative journalism are mostly dead and gone.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Pony Soldier
Now that Nancy Pelosi has announced an official impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s July 25 phone call in which he invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do Trump the “favor” of investigating his political opponents,
I quit reading that garbage right there. It’s a lie. The favor asked for in the phone call was dealing with Crowdstrike. Biden’s corruption was brought up later in the conversation. If you start an article or post with a provable lie, it’s a waste of time to read the rest of it.
That's some Grade A selective justification right there. You think Trump was asking Ukraine to only investigate CrowdStrike, and not Biden?
"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
How you can read that and say he is only talking about CrowdStrike, (the debunked conspiracy theory that the Clinton server is in Ukraine), and not see that he's asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is beyond belief. You're serious?
