What is?

[ThxOne Premium Member]

ThxOne, post: 8802284, member: 675210

See, I post my common sense opinion of a Democrat, You attack me personally. Talk about leading with your emotions.
"Nancy Pelosi is 100% using her position to gain knowledge for stock trades. Corruption pointed out."
You call that a 'common sense opinion of a democrat"? Man, when you paint yourself intoa corner, you'll say ANYHTING to try to unfvck yourself, huh?

How slow do I need to go for you?

It is MY opinion that she is 100% being unethical. She is a Democrat. You are on her side of politics. You attack me personally defending Democrats. <---- simple and to the point.


"There has been no investigation" Does this mean no laws have been broken?
No, it means no proof has been found that laws were broken. You KNOW that laws were broken and must have the evidence. Why not share it and get her and Paul convicted?
If they break the law, then they should be tried and convicted.

Who is going to investigate her? The people she gives kickbacks too or investigators that are on her side of politics? Who? Tell me.

I will ask you again since you avoided it. Do you think Nancy and Paul have done no wrong and they are 100% within the law?

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

If he cared about people, then why was he funding gain of function research in China right after it became illegal in the US?

If you would have bothered to research that accusation, then you'd know it isn't true.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

You make my diick hurt.

Does Nancy Pelosi have direct knowledge and influence on bills?

Does her husband trade stocks?

Did her husband buy shares in Nvidia ahead of the CHIP Bill?

Do you not see the conflict of interest?

Do you think there is nothing to see here, Nancy and her Husband are 100% Ethical and within the law?

I made this statement, please quote me correctly and accurately:

"Nancy Pelosi is 100% using her position to gain knowledge for stock trades. Corruption pointed out."

Did I not say that this would turn into a 10 page argument if the corruption was aimed at your side? Is this magic, sorcery, witchcraft????

Clearly a conflict of interest. 99.999% insider trading.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Clearly a conflict of interest. 99.999% insider trading.

That is my contention as well... except I am 100% head strong about it.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

That is my contention as well... except I am 100% head strong about it.

You are 100% convinced (where’d you get headstrong from?) of many things, even after you are proved wrong.
So, there’s that.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You are 100% convinced (where’d you get headstrong from?) of many things, even after you are proved wrong.
So, there’s that.

On this topic, I am confident. Is that AN issue for you? Someone being confident?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

On this topic, I am confident. Is that AN issue for you? Someone being confident?

Being confident is different from declaring something as fact.
Is that an issue for you?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Being confident is different from declaring something as fact.
Is that an issue for you?

The only "fact" I have given is my confidence. Are you going to now try to disprove my confidence with science and facts?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

The only "fact" I have given is my confidence. Are you going to now try to disprove my confidence with science and facts?

"Nancy Pelosi is 100% using her position to gain knowledge for stock trades. Corruption pointed out."

Read your own words. They are a statement of fact.
No wonder you think everyone misinterprets you. YOU don’t even know what you’re saying.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

"Nancy Pelosi is 100% using her position to gain knowledge for stock trades. Corruption pointed out."

Read your own words. They are a statement of fact.
No wonder you think everyone misinterprets you. YOU don’t even know what you’re saying.

Nope, it's my factual opinion.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

"Nancy Pelosi is 100% using her position to gain knowledge for stock trades. Corruption pointed out."

Read your own words. They are a statement of fact.
No wonder you think everyone misinterprets you. YOU don’t even know what you’re saying.

I have to ask you about your critical thinking Rob. Ask yourself, How can he know for sure? How can he have facts? YOU should be able to say he can't to both questions. You "should" then be able to determine that it is literally an opinion. Of which, I can phrase however I like. If a person as intelligent as you portray yourself to be can think critically like this, you could have a different conversation and not just AN argument.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I have to ask you about your critical thinking Rob. Ask yourself, How can he know for sure? How can he have facts? YOU should be able to say he can't to both questions. You "should" then be able to determine that it is literally an opinion. Of which, I can phrase however I like. If a person as intelligent as you portray yourself to be can think critically like this, you could have a different conversation and not just AN argument.

Hmmm, aren’t YOU the one who keeps reminding me I don’t t know what you THINK?
For all I know, you may actually THINK you know unequivocally that she is guilty, and are making the declaration of such.
For all I know, you may THINK that you are the king of Siam.

You don’t want people deciding what you THINK, yet I’m supposed to read your post and determine what you are thinking when you post it.

Fvck, you’re indecisive.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Hmmm, aren’t YOU the one who keeps reminding me I don’t t know what you THINK?
For all I know, you may actually THINK you know unequivocally that she is guilty, and are making the declaration of such.
For all I know, you may THINK that you are the king of Siam.

You don’t want people deciding what you THINK, yet I’m supposed to read your post and determine what you are thinking when you post it.

Fvck, you’re indecisive.

That's what you took away from that? That post wasn't about what I think, it was about HOW you think. What does your critical thinking have anything to do with what I think? It doesn't.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

That is my contention as well... except I am 100% head strong about it.

It's tricky because NVIDA looked like a solid investment either way. Plus it isn't like he was the only guy gambling NVIDA could shoot up based on gov't contracts.

Imho, these folks should be limited to investing in market indexed funds.

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]