Barr fakery

#227
#227
MontyPython said:
Heh. It would seem you can't see the forest through the trees. I mean, if you're really denying that Trump said he has the right to influence court cases concerning his cronies, there's not much to discuss. Given Barr's boot-licking and adherence to the principle that Presidents wield king-like power, we're f*cked.
Click to expand...

Sure there is; address the post you replied to. When the four filed their sentencing Monday evening, no more than 14-18 hours passed until DOJ met and drafted another filing, Trump tweets, DoJ files, the jackals quit. Then Barr accepts Democrats request to testify in March.

Become a thinking, objective person for a moment - or just borrow me; DOJ has made a public statement regarding the time of the decision and that DOJ leadership, not just Barr, made this decision prior to Trump. That's out there, no pulling that back into the bottle. Rational people would have waited for the congressional testimony. Now, they'll be made to look like idiots by that testimony.

Discretion.

Further, I plainly - more than once - stated that presidents have the DUTY to see laws are faithfully executed, that HE DOES have the power to make requests of DOJ. That includes asking a person or persons be investigated, or not be investigated, so it sure as hell means he can comment on zealotous sentencing. How are you confused about that at this point?

Maybe you're fk'ed because, as John Wayne said, "Life is tough. It's tougher when you're stupid." Not saying you're stupid, but we're running low on options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#231
#231
NCFisher said:
Sure there is; address the post you replied to. When the four filed their sentencing Monday evening, no more than 14-18 hours passed until DOJ met and drafted another filing, Trump tweets, DoJ files, the jackals quit. Then Barr accepts Democrats request to testify in March.

Become a thinking, objective person for a moment - or just borrow me; DOJ has made a public statement regarding the time of the decision and that DOJ leadership, not just Barr, made this decision prior to Trump. That's out there, no pulling that back into the bottle. Rational people would have waited for the congressional testimony. Now, they'll be made to look like idiots by that testimony.

Discretion.

Further, I plainly - more than once - stated that presidents have the DUTY to see laws are faithfully executed, that HE DOES have the power to make requests of DOJ. That includes asking a person or persons be investigated, or not be investigated, so it sure as hell means he can comment on zealotous sentencing. How are you confused about that at this point?

Maybe you're fk'ed because, as John Wayne said, "Life is tough. It's tougher when you're stupid." Not saying you're stupid, but we're running low on options.
Click to expand...

Cute. I'm guessing you missed this (see below). No, wait. It's fake news. No, no, no. I mean it's a partisan, liberal hack. Oh, crap. Bill Barr said it.

I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse to forgive your master.

"...Donald Trump has ignored a plea from his attorney general, William Barr, to not tweet about ongoing legal cases, by using his Twitter account to say he has a “legal right” to do so.

Barr delivered a remarkable public rebuke of the president just hours earlier, saying that Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job” and that he would not be “bullied or influenced” over justice department decisions."
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#232
#232
NCFisher said:
Sure there is; address the post you replied to. When the four filed their sentencing Monday evening, no more than 14-18 hours passed until DOJ met and drafted another filing, Trump tweets, DoJ files, the jackals quit. Then Barr accepts Democrats request to testify in March.

Become a thinking, objective person for a moment - or just borrow me; DOJ has made a public statement regarding the time of the decision and that DOJ leadership, not just Barr, made this decision prior to Trump. That's out there, no pulling that back into the bottle. Rational people would have waited for the congressional testimony. Now, they'll be made to look like idiots by that testimony.

Discretion.

Further, I plainly - more than once - stated that presidents have the DUTY to see laws are faithfully executed, that HE DOES have the power to make requests of DOJ. That includes asking a person or persons be investigated, or not be investigated, so it sure as hell means he can comment on zealotous sentencing. How are you confused about that at this point?

Maybe you're fk'ed because, as John Wayne said, "Life is tough. It's tougher when you're stupid." Not saying you're stupid, but we're running low on options.
Click to expand...
Pretty clear why they are meeting..........
will meet Tuesday to "address growing concerns" about the recent intervention of President Donald Trump and the Justice Department in "politically sensitive cases,"
 
#233
#233
luthervol said:
Pretty clear why they are meeting..........
will meet Tuesday to "address growing concerns" about the recent intervention of President Donald Trump and the Justice Department in "politically sensitive cases,"
Click to expand...

They can meet all they want. Maybe their meeting to discuss politically targeting suspects, politically bias verdicts, and politically biased sentencing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#238
#238
NorthDallas40 said:
Interesting reply. I point out that both sides are going to continue the activist argument and you either infer or just deflect to an unrelated safe space statement. Do better.
Click to expand...

There are more than two sides hoss. Think bigger.
 
#241
#241
Septic said:
You must still be triggered from that thrashing you swallowed the other day.
Click to expand...
LOL.

I almost feel bad for picking on you.

But I have no idea what you are referencing. Did we exchange words recently? I guess if we did it must have really left an impression on you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#242
#242
MontyPython said:
Cute. I'm guessing you missed this (see below). No, wait. It's fake news. No, no, no. I mean it's a partisan, liberal hack. Oh, crap. Bill Barr said it.

I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse to forgive your master.

"...Donald Trump has ignored a plea from his attorney general, William Barr, to not tweet about ongoing legal cases, by using his Twitter account to say he has a “legal right” to do so.

Barr delivered a remarkable public rebuke of the president just hours earlier, saying that Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job” and that he would not be “bullied or influenced” over justice department decisions."
Click to expand...


Uhm, yeah, we all read that when it happened. In fact, I commented elsewhere that Trump ought to not do any tweeting that creates a distraction for Barr's investigations. And remarked to you that the president absolutely has the duty and power to intervene, but that doesn't mean he should, or shouldn't, depending upon circumstance. I'm glad Barr did it, he needed to remind Trump there are bigger fish in the fryer.

Now don't you look silly.

You don't actually think Barr is affirming you, and saying Trump doesn't have the duty and power to do so, or is bullying him? That would make you pathetic.
 
#243
#243
Septic said:
There are more than two sides hoss. Think bigger.
Click to expand...
No in this case with regards to calling out activist judges it really boils down to basically two parties. And neither are going to stop. And it has nothing to do with any silly ass safe space.
 
#244
#244
Septic said:
You and nd40 can carpool to the safe space.
Click to expand...

It shouldn’t matter who nominated a federal judge or what their political leanings are. A federal judge should do one thing and they all should do it in about the same fashion, apply the constitution to laws passed by congress.

Anything outside of that is activism and should be called out at every instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NorthDallas40, volfanhill and 2 others
#245
#245
luthervol said:
Pretty clear why they are meeting..........
will meet Tuesday to "address growing concerns" about the recent intervention of President Donald Trump and the Justice Department in "politically sensitive cases,"
Click to expand...

Yes, they're meeting about a non-existent concern over an intervention that didn't happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, W.TN.Orange Blood and hog88
#249
#249
NCFisher said:
The German economy was nothing like the U.S. economy. Private ownership of German business primarily existed in name, but in substance government controlled. How many people think "I'll start a business, invest my capital, take daunting risks and work 90 hours a week. And for the general good of the country, government will dictate what I produce, quantity, production schedule, distribution, product pricing and wages to be paid, and who I'll sell to."

"Being a business owner is going to be awesome!"

Tell my Ukrainian and Russian circle of friends about all the rights they had under socialism. Let Venezuelan and Cuban workers fill their children's bellies tonight with their rights. National socialism, fascism, was better socialism (acknowledging socialism sucks generally, is always subjugative and depriving).

There's no such thing as democratic socialism. It's a PR term to sell the same old socialism of "Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them." What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
But that's just the tip. I'd urge anyone who wants to understand what is being said when they hear 'democratic' socialism, to read this: Toward Freedom: Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Patriotism and nationalism both express a love of and loyalty to a country/nation. That Nazis were nationalist is no reflection on nationalism.
Click to expand...

I think you must be high to conflate so many things and make strawman arguments.. No one ever claimed that citizens of Eastern European communist countries enjoyed any kinds of rights. However, in socialist Great Britain and France, citizens still enjoyed full civil rights. See the difference between the two?

In Nazi Germany, private ownership and control of companies remained intact. Krupp was never under government control; neither was BMW, Diamler, Siemans or AG Farber. The only major manufacturing corporation seized by the Nazis was Thyssen, which was because Fritz Thyssen pissed off the wrong people. Fascists do not push for government ownership of corporations - only Socialists do.

Patriotism and nationalism, when taken to an extreme, are indeed dangerous.
 
#250
#250
NCFisher said:
Uhm, yeah, we all read that when it happened. In fact, I commented elsewhere that Trump ought to not do any tweeting that creates a distraction for Barr's investigations. And remarked to you that the president absolutely has the duty and power to intervene, but that doesn't mean he should, or shouldn't, depending upon circumstance. I'm glad Barr did it, he needed to remind Trump there are bigger fish in the fryer.

Now don't you look silly.

You don't actually think Barr is affirming you, and saying Trump doesn't have the duty and power to do so, or is bullying him? That would make you pathetic.
Click to expand...
It seems as if Barr is saying that Trump's actions make it impossible for him to do his job.
That sounds like it may be a problem.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top