[The Urban Sombrero]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you relativism in its pure form.

Dearest TRT: if there proves substance in a many-tentacled relationship between President Trump, his associates, his campaign and Russia, my guess is that you will claim "no substance" and blame the monolithic left. Thus, substance (or lack thereof) lies in the eye of the beholder.

[TheRealThing]

Dearest TRT: if there proves substance in a many-tentacled relationship between President Trump, his associates, his campaign and Russia, my guess is that you will claim "no substance" and blame the monolithic left. Thus, substance (or lack thereof) lies in the eye of the beholder.

It has already been proven there is no indications of collusion. It's a lie, fostered by you and the losers from which you take your cues. But yeah, substance is always in the eye of the beholder if you're a flaming lib. The rest of us rely on the truth, and prefer to leave the relativism and the monkey puke to you all.

[The Urban Sombrero]

It has already been proven there is no indications of collusion. It's a lie, fostered by you and the losers from which you take your cues. But yeah, substance is always in the eye of the beholder if you're a flaming lib. The rest of us rely on the truth, and prefer to leave the relativism and the monkey puke to you all.

When a finding is made by the special counsel, we'll see. "It is already proven" only demonstrates and reinforces that what you call "truth" in this case is simply subjective desire. Your politics wags your faith, TRT. Period.

[TheRealThing]

When a finding is made by the special counsel, we'll see. "It is already proven" only demonstrates and reinforces that what you call "truth" in this case is simply subjective desire. Your politics wags your faith, TRT. Period.

Matthew 7:1 (KJV)
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Please feel free to make things just as hard on yourself as you see fit.

But no quintessential projectionist, it demonstrates as I and hundreds of others have said, if there were any basis whatever to raise suspicion, somebody would have come out with it already. But after lo these 9 plus months of investigations and leaks, there is NOTHING at all to point to and you've got the nerve to talk about subjective desire? And still, you expect anybody with a glimmer to buy into the idea that despite sworn testimony over and over again by the heads of the 17 federal intelligence agencies under Barack, that some puke swilling lib could keep his mouth shut if there were any evidence out there? :please: At this point they've leaked everything from White House phone calls to Ivanka's dress size. :hilarious:

[The Urban Sombrero]

Matthew 7:1 (KJV)
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Please feel free to make things just as hard on yourself as you see fit.

But no quintessential projectionist, it demonstrates as I and hundreds of others have said, if there were any basis whatever to raise suspicion, somebody would have come out with it already. But after lo these 9 plus months of investigations and leaks, there is NOTHING at all to point to and you've got the nerve to talk about subjective desire? And still, you expect anybody with a glimmer to buy into the idea that despite sworn testimony over and over again by the heads of the 17 federal intelligence agencies under Barack, that some puke swilling lib could keep his mouth shut if there were any evidence out there? :please: At this point they've leaked everything from White House phone calls to Ivanka's dress size. :hilarious:

I will accept the finding of the Special Counsel, no matter the result, and no matter where it leads or doesn't. If it is your belief that it is my desire to see a duly elected President, no matter party or philosophy, impeached, you are mistaken. Given the FACT that Trump fired Comey, that he spoke to Comey about Flynn, that Sessions, in my view, transgressed his recusal, there was a need for a Special Counsel to protect the integrity of the process. I suspect that you will NOT accept the finding of the Special Counsel unless the result accords with your beliefs and needs.

[TheRealThing]

I will accept the finding of the Special Counsel, no matter the result, and no matter where it leads or doesn't. If it is your belief that it is my desire to see a duly elected President, no matter party or philosophy, impeached, you are mistaken. Given the FACT that Trump fired Comey, that he spoke to Comey about Flynn, that Sessions, in my view, transgressed his recusal, there was a need for a Special Counsel to protect the integrity of the process. I suspect that you will NOT accept the finding of the Special Counsel unless the result accords with your beliefs and needs.

You've done nothing but stick up for Obama and Hillary on here, while you have seized upon nothing (as there is not a scintilla of evidence) in support of your endless assaults on DJT. I know one thing, your continual equivocations regarding the mountains of evidence released in the media about Hillary on everything from Benghazi, to Russia paying Billy boy 500 thousand for a 1 hour speech in MOSCOW, no less, have certainly not subsided. And not that you've ever been out of Whitesburg all that much, but according to you, you'll go wherever the evidence leads on the Trump investigation. Of course, you sure aren't biting to that end where Bill, Hill and Barack are concerned, now are you? In their cases it's just run-of-the-mill DC routine, right?


You just know everybody on here is buying right into that ruse.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You've done nothing but stick up for Obama and Hillary on here, while you have seized upon nothing (as there is not a scintilla of evidence) in support of your endless assaults on DJT. I know one thing, your continual equivocations regarding the mountains of evidence released in the media about Hillary on everything from Benghazi, to Russia paying Billy boy 500 thousand for a 1 hour speech in MOSCOW, no less, have certainly not subsided. And not that you've ever been out of Whitesburg all that much, but according to you, you'll go wherever the evidence leads on the Trump investigation. Of course, you sure aren't biting to that end where Bill, Hill and Barack are concerned, now are you? In their cases it's just run-of-the-mill DC routine, right?


You just know everybody on here is buying right into that ruse.

Again, I don't count raised hands. That's your gig. In my view, Bill and Hillary both often acted as if rules did not apply to them. Bill Clinton acted foolishly and irresponsibly (and immorally) in the Monica Lewinsky affair, and disrespected the office of the Presidency. I do not doubt nor deny that democrats are taking far more seriously the Russia collusion and deep Trump ties to Russia, just as Republicans stirred the Benghazi pot, while Dems downplayed it. Plain and simple, we are describing politics. It's a rough and tumble, dirty business. However, Hillary was Secretary of State. Donald Trump is POTUS. There is a sizeable difference there. Again, "she may be a liar, bur she's our liar," and "he may be a turd and a liar, but he's our turd and liar" describe how folks do their political beliefs. We've all seen it our entire lives, around dinner tables, in state houses, at the national level. It's one of the things that makes politics so fascinating. Come to think of it, party politics is full of cognitive dissonance, as we fail to acknowlege, or even see, obvious flaws and foibles in the politicians who seem to share our worldview.

[TheRealThing]

You've done nothing but stick up for Obama and Hillary on here, while you have seized upon nothing (as there is not a scintilla of evidence) in support of your endless assaults on DJT. I know one thing, your continual equivocations regarding the mountains of evidence released in the media about Hillary on everything from Benghazi, to Russia paying Billy boy 500 thousand for a 1 hour speech in MOSCOW, no less, have certainly not subsided. And not that you've ever been out of Whitesburg all that much, but according to you, you'll go wherever the evidence leads on the Trump investigation. Of course, you sure aren't biting to that end where Bill, Hill and Barack are concerned, now are you? In their cases it's just run-of-the-mill DC routine, right?

You just know everybody on here is buying right into that ruse.

Again, I don't count raised hands. That's your gig. In my view, Bill and Hillary both often acted as if rules did not apply to them. Bill Clinton acted foolishly and irresponsibly (and immorally) in the Monica Lewinsky affair, and disrespected the office of the Presidency. I do not doubt nor deny that democrats are taking far more seriously the Russia collusion and deep Trump ties to Russia, just as Republicans stirred the Benghazi pot, while Dems downplayed it. Plain and simple, we are describing politics. It's a rough and tumble, dirty business. However, Hillary was Secretary of State. Donald Trump is POTUS. There is a sizeable difference there. Again, "she may be a liar, bur she's our liar," and "he may be a turd and a liar, but he's our turd and liar" describe how folks do their political beliefs. We've all seen it our entire lives, around dinner tables, in state houses, at the national level. It's one of the things that makes politics so fascinating. Come to think of it, party politics is full of cognitive dissonance, as we fail to acknowlege, or even see, obvious flaws and foibles in the politicians who seem to share our worldview.

Unbelievable, you just did it again, (see bolded) thusly proving you aren't even smart enough to know when you're lighting the end of your own rope.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Unbelievable, you just did it again, (see bolded) thusly proving you aren't even smart enough to know when you're lighting the end of your own rope.

So you say. But, then again, being Forum Boy, you prance about the ring with arms thrust upward A LOT. Many times, many times, I have separated policies from the politicians and the parties. The tactics, the wrangling, the "dice'em up and count'em." My point was not that Hillary was squeaky clean while Trump was a lout. In fact, the opposite. Same with Bill. However, flawed politicians are tied to policies. A poll just taken in Wisconsin of a sample of voters in the Presidential election found that 30% of folks said they voted AGAINST Clinton not FOR Trump. You, a Bible-quoting, self-righteous poster, champion a man of multiple marriages, multiple bankruptcies, multiple and sundry moral failures. Why? Because he touts policies that you hold dear. You suggest that the G.O.P. is somehow above rough and tumble, dice'em up and count'em by whatever means necessary politics. I make no such claim for the DNC. So, bold up and bold up and bold up. You're a Patti Partisan, so it proves zero, nada, nothing.

[TheRealThing]

So you say. But, then again, being Forum Boy, you prance about the ring with arms thrust upward A LOT. Many times, many times, I have separated policies from the politicians and the parties. The tactics, the wrangling, the "dice'em up and count'em." My point was not that Hillary was squeaky clean while Trump was a lout. In fact, the opposite. Same with Bill. However, flawed politicians are tied to policies. A poll just taken in Wisconsin of a sample of voters in the Presidential election found that 30% of folks said they voted AGAINST Clinton not FOR Trump. You, a Bible-quoting, self-righteous poster, champion a man of multiple marriages, multiple bankruptcies, multiple and sundry moral failures. Why? Because he touts policies that you hold dear. You suggest that the G.O.P. is somehow above rough and tumble, dice'em up and count'em by whatever means necessary politics. I make no such claim for the DNC. So, bold up and bold up and bold up. You're a Patti Partisan, so it proves zero, nada, nothing.

James 2:10 (KJV)
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

No doubt you exceed this high standard, even though you cannot seem to break the cycle of copying or otherwise plagiarizing my writing style.


However, for the rest of us reality still holds it's sway. And though most American voters realize one cannot expect to hold politicians to the same moral standards the Lord holds His Church to, they still have the right and the duty where governance is concerned, to exercise good judgment in whom they select to represent their interests on Capital Hill. Therefore, over the course of the past 8 years (in addition to the Clintons) they kicked a thousand or so Dems out of office for among other things, lying to them all the time.

Those same voters know there is a big difference between DJT, and the members of your league of injustice. The fact that they broke the law is demonstrable, while all you have to go on to that end with the President, are the lies coming from your kindred left-wing nut jobs. There is no evidence that Trump broke any law, and despite the media double dog double down on their lying, I guarantee you those who voted for him are anything but fooled by it. When 2018 rolls around more Democrat heads will roll.

[The Urban Sombrero]

James 2:10 (KJV)
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

No doubt you exceed this high standard, even though you cannot seem to break the cycle of copying or otherwise plagiarizing my writing style.


However, for the rest of us reality still holds it's sway. And though most American voters realize one cannot expect to hold politicians to the same moral standards the Lord holds His Church to, they still have the right and the duty where governance is concerned, to exercise good judgment in whom they select to represent their interests on Capital Hill. Therefore, over the coarse of the past 8 years (in addition to the Clintons) they kicked a thousand or so Dems out of office for among other things, lying to them all the time.

Those same voters know there is a big difference between DJT, and the members of your league of injustice. The fact that they broke the law is demonstrable, while all you have to go on to that end with the President, are the lies coming from your kindred left-wing nut jobs. There is no evidence that Trump broke any law, and despite the media double dog double down on their lying, I guarantee you those who voted for him are anything but fooled by it. When 2018 rolls around more Democrat heads will roll.

Ah, you quote the Book of James, lifting a text, in common prooftexter's fashion, from its context. Favoritism, the rich over the poor (ironic, eh?) and how this violates the Royal Law of Scripture, namely loving neighbor as one loves one's self. Thus, in context, to commit adultery but not murder is to be a lawbreaker. Quite a caution against spiritual arrogance, if one thinks about the context of favoring the rich over the poor. I am content to leave it to the Special Counsel. The RNC hated that Obama was President. The DNC hates that Trump is President. All manner of rough and tumble derogatory smacking around is not the province of one or the other. They both do it. Both RNC and DNC find a flea and seek to grow it into a giant hissing cockroach to sicken the majority of voters. The Special Counsel will take testimony, review intelligence, subpoena documents, etc. and issue a finding. As to 2018, we'll see. As to copying your style, you write competently, but you flatter yourself, per usual.

[TheRealThing]

Ah, you quote the Book of James, lifting a text, in common prooftexter's fashion, from its context. Favoritism, the rich over the poor (ironic, eh?) and how this violates the Royal Law of Scripture, namely loving neighbor as one loves one's self. Thus, in context, to commit adultery but not murder is to be a lawbreaker. Quite a caution against spiritual arrogance, if one thinks about the context of favoring the rich over the poor. I am content to leave it to the Special Counsel. The RNC hated that Obama was President. The DNC hates that Trump is President. All manner of rough and tumble derogatory smacking around is not the province of one or the other. They both do it. Both RNC and DNC find a flea and seek to grow it into a giant hissing cockroach to sicken the majority of voters. The Special Counsel will take testimony, review intelligence, subpoena documents, etc. and issue a finding. As to 2018, we'll see. As to copying your style, you write competently, but you flatter yourself, per usual.

LOL, like I said, if you want to judge me feel free to make things just as hard on yourself as you see fit.

^^Funny thing about that, reading my own work at the hand of another feels more like getting ripped off than flattered, and you're as guilty as a dog.

[The Urban Sombrero]

LOL, like I said, if you want to judge me feel free to make things just as hard on yourself as you see fit.

^^Funny thing about that, reading my own work at the hand of another feels more like getting ripped off than flattered, and you're as guilty as a dog.

Right up to this moment, this very moment, I thought this whole "you steal my style" routine was a ruse, a little game you were playing. Now, I believe you are serious. And that's hilarious.

[TheRealThing]

Right up to this moment, this very moment, I thought this whole "you steal my style" routine was a ruse, a little game you were playing. Now, I believe you are serious. And that's hilarious.

Not as hilarious as your having supposedly just had a lucid moment.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Not as hilarious as your having supposedly just had a lucid moment.

That's a good one.

[TheRealThing]

That's a good one.

And that's unusually gracious of you to admit as much.