What annoys the ***** outta you/pisses you off...

[Jimi77]

I don't live in a what if world. As much as the rest of you love to do it, it is just not for me.

You don't live in a what if world??? You certainly seem to buy into what if when it exonerates Trump. What if the FBI did plant those documents? No evidence needed, just the possibility...

 

[ThxOne]

You don't live in a what if world??? You certainly seem to buy into what if when it exonerates Trump. What if the FBI did plant those documents? No evidence needed, just the possibility...

What do I care? Break the law, pay the penalty, no matter who you are. I am no relation to Trump so I don't care about Trump. I care about people not being hypocrites and everyone being treated equally.

 

[Jimi77]

What do I care? Break the law, pay the penalty, no matter who you are. I am no relation to Trump so I don't care about Trump. I care about people not being hypocrites and everyone being treated equally.

Seemed like you cared when you were defending Trump. You went thru the whole cycle of defenses: alleged, planted, Trump declassified them, Deep State...

Personally, I always thought it was pretty obvious Trump was lying. Reminds me of the "Excuses" scene from The Blues Brothers.

 

[ThxOne]

Seemed like you cared when you were defending Trump. You went thru the whole cycle of defenses: alleged, planted, Trump declassified them, Deep State...

Personally, I always thought it was pretty obvious Trump was lying. Reminds me of the "Excuses" scene from The Blues Brothers.

What do you care? What do you care what I care or don't care about? If he gets off he gets off. If Biden gets off he gets off. Who gives a ****. You people don't seem to care about the law unless it's needed against someone you don't like. Or there is some woman pouring out crocodile tears. Or to help your own asss out. The same people crying about Trump have no problem doing 80 in a 60 or turning into the outside lane. Or claim that someone telling people to be peaceful is somehow code for "take over the government." Truth be told I hope Trump gets away with it just to stick it to all you hypocritical haters.

 

[Jimi77]

What do you care? What do you care what I care or don't care about? If he gets off he gets off. If Biden gets off he gets off. Who gives a ****. You people don't seem to care about the law unless it's needed against someone you don't like. Or there is some woman pouring out crocodile tears. Or to help your own asss out. The same people crying about Trump have no problem doing 80 in a 60 or turning into the outside lane. Or claim that someone telling people to be peaceful is somehow code for "take over the government." Truth be told I hope Trump gets away with it just to stick it to all you hypocritical haters.

I sure as phuck care about the law. I care about how classified materials are handled. When have I ever said or implied I don't care about the law? When have I ever held Trump to a different standard than whoever?

So the reason you were defending Trump months ago on this matter was to stick to the hypocrites? I guess you don't see the hypocrisy in that.

 

[ThxOne]

So the reason you were defending Trump months ago on this matter was to stick to the hypocrites? I guess you don't see the hypocrisy in that.

You tell me. I explained why I defend a person... ANY PERSON. You tell me if it was to stick it to the haters or if you are just choosing to ignore what people say like RobGMN does. Perhaps you see the irony in that?

 

[Jimi77]

You tell me. I explained why I defend a person... ANY PERSON. You tell me if it was to stick it to the haters or if you are just choosing to ignore what people say like RobGMN does. Perhaps you see the irony in that?

People do things for multiple reasons all the time.

There are inconsistencies in what you say that begs the question. You offered up another potential reason you defend Trump, so I naturally thought maybe you could have multiple reasons for jumping to his defense. When I've defended Trump, it's usually for multiple reasons, why would it be any different with you?

First we went thru the cycle of defenses for Trump - the docs were only alleged, they were planted, they were declassified because Trump thought them declassified. But if Trump didn't have the docs or they were planted, why did he need to "think declassify them?" And of course if the docs were only alleged, then the couldn't also be planted. And then when Trump's legal team finally admitted to their existence in writing, you continued to allege the docs were alleged. Looks to me like an Orangutan throwing shyt against the wall to see what sticks. See the inconsistencies? OTOH, if you were just trying to stick to the liberals of the world that would explain you would be willing to engage in defenses of Trump that are logically opposed to each other.

Then you said you'd defend "ANY PERSON" suggesting that you take people at their word until proven otherwise. And generally, I like to take people at their word, but if I see inconsistencies, then it begs the question. It looks like what you really meant is you'd defend "SOME PEOPLE" or maybe "ANYBODY BUT JOE" or maybe "ANY CONSERVATIVE." This is a case of actions speak louder than words. Joe & Co have denied stealing elections, yet you never defended him - quiet the opposite. I've posted numerous times about Hobbs stealing Lake's election, yet you've never jumped to Hobbs defense. Reminds me of a situation at work were one of our employees had to apologize to another and she did indeed say "I'm sorry," but I'm not buying that she's really sorry; it's going to take some convincing, some evidence or action on her part.

You said you'd defend "ANY PERSON," but I don't see any evidence to support that. For example, lets go back to Trump's possession of classified docs. There were the stories about Trump & classified docs preceding his exit from the WH, FBI corroboration, Trump's legal team's corroboration and photographs of the docs, previous incidents with classified docs, etc. So there is a mountain of evidence that indeed Trump had classified docs at Mar-A-Lago. Is there any evidence that you'll defend "ANY PERSON?" As a matter of fact my participation in this thread indicates you'll defend TRUMP, Rittenhouse and I can't think of another person.

Lastly, you posted you hope Trump gets away with it, but you've never to my knowledge acknowledged Trump's possession of classified docs. How can Trump get away with something he hasn't done (there's that logical opposition again) So when it comes to what you say (and alot of other people for that matter) if I see inconsistency, I ask questions. Unfortunately, you rarely take the opportunity to answer those questions, why is that? <<---- rhetorical not that you would have answered anyway.

 

[Popwarhomie]

Wrong thread. Get that political ******** out of here....

 

[ThxOne]

People do things for multiple reasons all the time.

There are inconsistencies in what you say that begs the question. You offered up another potential reason you defend Trump, so I naturally thought maybe you could have multiple reasons for jumping to his defense. When I've defended Trump, it's usually for multiple reasons, why would it be any different with you?

First we went thru the cycle of defenses for Trump - the docs were only alleged, they were planted, they were declassified because Trump thought them declassified. But if Trump didn't have the docs or they were planted, why did he need to "think declassify them?" And of course if the docs were only alleged, then the couldn't also be planted. And then when Trump's legal team finally admitted to their existence in writing, you continued to allege the docs were alleged. Looks to me like an Orangutan throwing shyt against the wall to see what sticks. See the inconsistencies? OTOH, if you were just trying to stick to the liberals of the world that would explain you would be willing to engage in defenses of Trump that are logically opposed to each other.

Then you said you'd defend "ANY PERSON" suggesting that you take people at their word until proven otherwise. And generally, I like to take people at their word, but if I see inconsistencies, then it begs the question. It looks like what you really meant is you'd defend "SOME PEOPLE" or maybe "ANYBODY BUT JOE" or maybe "ANY CONSERVATIVE." This is a case of actions speak louder than words. Joe & Co have denied stealing elections, yet you never defended him - quiet the opposite. I've posted numerous times about Hobbs stealing Lake's election, yet you've never jumped to Hobbs defense. Reminds me of a situation at work were one of our employees had to apologize to another and she did indeed say "I'm sorry," but I'm not buying that she's really sorry; it's going to take some convincing, some evidence or action on her part.

You said you'd defend "ANY PERSON," but I don't see any evidence to support that. For example, lets go back to Trump's possession of classified docs. There were the stories about Trump & classified docs preceding his exit from the WH, FBI corroboration, Trump's legal team's corroboration and photographs of the docs, previous incidents with classified docs, etc. So there is a mountain of evidence that indeed Trump had classified docs at Mar-A-Lago. Is there any evidence that you'll defend "ANY PERSON?" As a matter of fact my participation in this thread indicates you'll defend TRUMP, Rittenhouse and I can't think of another person.

Lastly, you posted you hope Trump gets away with it, but you've never to my knowledge acknowledged Trump's possession of classified docs. How can Trump get away with something he hasn't done (there's that logical opposition again) So when it comes to what you say (and alot of other people for that matter) if I see inconsistency, I ask questions. Unfortunately, you rarely take the opportunity to answer those questions, why is that? <<---- rhetorical not that you would have answered anyway.

That was too much to read however I did read it.

I will speak in short.

I believe all people are innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All people. Meaning you can't just accuse people of something and them be guilty by default.

I don't continuously follow all news all the time. I have a 40 hour a week job and other things I like to do. I do not know who Hobbs is.

If I continue to "deny, defend, or whatever" after proof has been provided it's 99% to stick it to Rob specifically to get under his old loose skin.

Lastly if someone ask me a laced question they will get as much ******** as I can spit back at them. Why does it matter who I defend? If I defend the right do I have to defend the left by default? No. I would if I think it is warranted though. I don't see the need though if they are attacking people after they are caught doing wrong.

 

[ThxOne]

My co-workers discovered I sharpen pocket knives... I have sharpened 5 in 2 days.

 

[ThxOne]

Reading peoples reviews of products after I read the product descriptions. How do you cry that something is smaller than expected when the listing gives exact dimensions? Or how do you give a 2 out of 5 stars because the color of the product you bought doesn't match the color of an item you own??? People really do live in a Bobby world.

 

[Jimi77]

That was too much to read however I did read it.

I will speak in short.

I believe all people are innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All people. Meaning you can't just accuse people of something and them be guilty by default.

I don't continuously follow all news all the time. I have a 40 hour a week job and other things I like to do. I do not know who Hobbs is.

If I continue to "deny, defend, or whatever" after proof has been provided it's 99% to stick it to Rob specifically to get under his old loose skin.

Lastly if someone ask me a laced question they will get as much ******** as I can spit back at them. Why does it matter who I defend? If I defend the right do I have to defend the left by default? No. I would if I think it is warranted though. I don't see the need though if they are attacking people after they are caught doing wrong.

That's kinda what I thought. Who you do or don't defend is your call. Why does it matter who you do or don't defend. Well, when you make a principled stand stating "I'll defend anybody," but that doesn't appear to accurate, people are going to question it. If I posted on here "I'll never criticize a former President," I'd expect to be called on that or to explain it.

 

[El Wapo]

What really pisses me off is all the hypocrisy of the left. Can you even begin to imagine how fast President Trump would have been hung by the lib media? All this crap about brandon turning over the documents. That was all after his attorney went thru them....remind you or another worthless piece of liberal ****? I'll give you a hint.... people that know them end up suiciding themselves ...

 

[ThxOne]

That's kinda what I thought. Who you do or don't defend is your call. Why does it matter who you do or don't defend. Well, when you make a principled stand stating "I'll defend anybody," but that doesn't appear to accurate, people are going to question it. If I posted on here "I'll never criticize a former President," I'd expect to be called on that or to explain it.

If I defend someone it's because I think they are being shafted. It is not to choose a side or be put on a side.

 

[Jimi77]

If I defend someone it's because I think they are being shafted. It is not to choose a side or be put on a side.

So you believe the FBI planted those docs?