Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

“Much more evidence” Lol!

The only criminal charge resulting from a $70,000,000 investigation was because Clinton lied about a BJ.

If you think that's it was about, and not about the person holding the highest position in the world using his influence on an intern, then I really can't help you.

[Unregistered]

The Flynn news yesterday - selling country out with texts during inauguration , gives a hint at what Mueller has.

Royal flush.

Tee hee
Bwa ha ha

Yawn

Silly TMan. Since the beginning of his campaign Trump made his intention to reverse as much of Obama's bad policies pretty well known. In this case we are talking about sanctions put in place literally days before Trump's inauguration. Pretty obvious Obama was trying to hogtie the new administration. What is also obvious is that Trump and company felt the sanctions against Russia were an impediment to better relations with the country that could improve the situation in the Middle East. No story there as hard as you libs try to make one.

For someone who thinks he's so smaht, you sure are stupid TMan.

BTW just read this article in the liberal journal The Week written by the liberal Edward Luce, Washington Bureau Chief at the Financial Time, a graduate of Oxford with a degree in Politics and Economics and a former speech writer for US treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers during the Clinton administration.

But what does he know, right TMan?

Liberal America’s unhealthy fixation on Russia

(Today’s Russia) offers no ideological challenge to democracy — and its economy is smaller than Italy’s. Yet liberal America has worked itself up into a moral panic. If it were not for Vladimir Putin, we are asked to believe, western democracy would be in reasonable shape. Without Russia, there would be no Donald Trump. At best, such claims are an exaggeration. At worst, they are a red herring.


Mr Biden is a good barometer of Democratic thinking. In a co-authored article for Foreign Affairs, Mr Biden calls for the creation of a 9/11-style commission “to examine Russia’s assault on American democracy”. The body would identify tools to fight the Russian menace. “Americans need a thorough, detailed inquest into how Russia’s strike on their democratic institutions was carried out and how another one might be prevented,” he writes. In sum, Mr Biden is calling for a new Cold War. But his reasons had little to do with foreign policy. The aim is to explain how Hillary Clinton could have lost to Mr Trump.


"Today, the Russian government is brazenly assaulting the foundations of western democracy around the world,” Mr Biden concludes.

There are three problems with this line. The first is that it absolves Democrats of their own mistakes. Mr Putin did indeed throw all the bots and trolls he could muster against Mrs Clinton’s campaign. Moscow also helped hack and leak the email accounts of key figures in Mrs Clinton’s orbit. But to conclude that Russia threw the election is a stretch.


Mr Putin is an opportunist who wishes to tarnish the west. But America was already doing that by itself. He was only throwing paraffin on to the fire. The market for fake news predated Mr Putin.


I like this part particularly. Democrats = hypocrites.

The second problem is that it looks nakedly partisan. Last year, Democrats accused the FBI of being a damaged outfit. Today they hold the agency up as the epitome of public virtue. In 2012, Democrats attacked Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, for saying Russia was America’s “number one geopolitical foe”. Today that is the Democratic position.



Which leads on to the third problem. Democrats want to see Mr Trump impeached.... it is unwise for Democrats to will that outcome by judicial means. Mr Trump was elected at the ballot box. He must also be ejected there.

Most Americans are clearly bored with the details of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Perhaps they will take notice if Robert Mueller unearths something dramatic. Until then, the Democratic obsession with Russia looks rash.

It is also a boost to Mr Putin’s ego. The idea that a struggling petro-state thousands of miles away could manipulate the world’s greatest democracy is beyond flattering. It is empowering. As The New York Times reported, blaming Mr Trump’s victory on Moscow has tightened Mr Putin’s domestic grip. There is no need for staged pictures of a bare-chested Mr Putin on horseback. Just sit back and listen to the Democratic party.

BTW TMan, how'd that impeachment vote go yesterday?

[Unregistered]

Cons had no problem with the Ken Starr investigation into Whitewater meandering all over the place. Anything it turned up was fair game. Rule of Law!

Whataboutism


Or water under the bridge.

[Unregistered]

If you think that's it was about, and not about the person holding the highest position in the world using his influence on an intern, then I really can't help you.

So we have a National Security Advisor lied about the number and nature of his contacts with the Russians, but pales when compared to holding the highest position in the world using his influence on an intern. You are so confused.

Bolded it for you to give it the dramatic impact you intended. Lol.

[Unregistered]

Whataboutism


Or water under the bridge.

Rule of Law!!

[Unregistered]

And it cost the taxpayers $70,000,000 to find out Clinton lied about a BJ. But Rule of Law!!

Maybe Clinton shouldn't have lied and instead said, "I did have sexual relations with that woman." But then maybe he would have been more strongly questioned in regards to the other women he had sexual relations with, some apparently forced.

Oh well, Clinton just paved the way for Judge Moore to be elected.

[Unregistered]

Rule of Law!!

When it comes to Rule of Law it sure seems that Dems like to ignore it whenever possible.

[Unregistered]

Yawn

Silly TMan. Since the beginning of his campaign Trump made his intention to reverse as much of Obama's bad policies pretty well known. In this case we are talking about sanctions put in place literally days before Trump's inauguration. Pretty obvious Obama was trying to hogtie the new administration. What is also obvious is that Trump and company felt the sanctions against Russia were an impediment to better relations with the country that could improve the situation in the Middle East. No story there as hard as you libs try to make one.

For someone who thinks he's so smaht, you sure are stupid TMan.

BTW just read this article in the liberal journal The Week written by the liberal Edward Luce, Washington Bureau Chief at the Financial Time, a graduate of Oxford with a degree in Politics and Economics and a former speech writer for US treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers during the Clinton administration.

But what does he know, right TMan?

Liberal America’s unhealthy fixation on Russia

(Today’s Russia) offers no ideological challenge to democracy — and its economy is smaller than Italy’s. Yet liberal America has worked itself up into a moral panic. If it were not for Vladimir Putin, we are asked to believe, western democracy would be in reasonable shape. Without Russia, there would be no Donald Trump. At best, such claims are an exaggeration. At worst, they are a red herring.


Mr Biden is a good barometer of Democratic thinking. In a co-authored article for Foreign Affairs, Mr Biden calls for the creation of a 9/11-style commission “to examine Russia’s assault on American democracy”. The body would identify tools to fight the Russian menace. “Americans need a thorough, detailed inquest into how Russia’s strike on their democratic institutions was carried out and how another one might be prevented,” he writes. In sum, Mr Biden is calling for a new Cold War. But his reasons had little to do with foreign policy. The aim is to explain how Hillary Clinton could have lost to Mr Trump.


"Today, the Russian government is brazenly assaulting the foundations of western democracy around the world,” Mr Biden concludes.

There are three problems with this line. The first is that it absolves Democrats of their own mistakes. Mr Putin did indeed throw all the bots and trolls he could muster against Mrs Clinton’s campaign. Moscow also helped hack and leak the email accounts of key figures in Mrs Clinton’s orbit. But to conclude that Russia threw the election is a stretch.


Mr Putin is an opportunist who wishes to tarnish the west. But America was already doing that by itself. He was only throwing paraffin on to the fire. The market for fake news predated Mr Putin.


I like this part particularly. Democrats = hypocrites.

The second problem is that it looks nakedly partisan. Last year, Democrats accused the FBI of being a damaged outfit. Today they hold the agency up as the epitome of public virtue. In 2012, Democrats attacked Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, for saying Russia was America’s “number one geopolitical foe”. Today that is the Democratic position.



Which leads on to the third problem. Democrats want to see Mr Trump impeached.... it is unwise for Democrats to will that outcome by judicial means. Mr Trump was elected at the ballot box. He must also be ejected there.

Most Americans are clearly bored with the details of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Perhaps they will take notice if Robert Mueller unearths something dramatic. Until then, the Democratic obsession with Russia looks rash.

It is also a boost to Mr Putin’s ego. The idea that a struggling petro-state thousands of miles away could manipulate the world’s greatest democracy is beyond flattering. It is empowering. As The New York Times reported, blaming Mr Trump’s victory on Moscow has tightened Mr Putin’s domestic grip. There is no need for staged pictures of a bare-chested Mr Putin on horseback. Just sit back and listen to the Democratic party.

BTW TMan, how'd that impeachment vote go yesterday?

TMan, no comment?

[Unregistered]

Yawn

Silly TMan. Since the beginning of his campaign Trump made his intention to reverse as much of Obama's bad policies pretty well known. In this case we are talking about sanctions put in place literally days before Trump's inauguration. Pretty obvious Obama was trying to hogtie the new administration. What is also obvious is that Trump and company felt the sanctions against Russia were an impediment to better relations with the country that could improve the situation in the Middle East. No story there as hard as you libs try to make one.

For someone who thinks he's so smaht, you sure are stupid TMan.

BTW just read this article in the liberal journal The Week written by the liberal Edward Luce, Washington Bureau Chief at the Financial Time, a graduate of Oxford with a degree in Politics and Economics and a former speech writer for US treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers during the Clinton administration.

But what does he know, right TMan?

Liberal America’s unhealthy fixation on Russia

(Today’s Russia) offers no ideological challenge to democracy — and its economy is smaller than Italy’s. Yet liberal America has worked itself up into a moral panic. If it were not for Vladimir Putin, we are asked to believe, western democracy would be in reasonable shape. Without Russia, there would be no Donald Trump. At best, such claims are an exaggeration. At worst, they are a red herring.


Mr Biden is a good barometer of Democratic thinking. In a co-authored article for Foreign Affairs, Mr Biden calls for the creation of a 9/11-style commission “to examine Russia’s assault on American democracy”. The body would identify tools to fight the Russian menace. “Americans need a thorough, detailed inquest into how Russia’s strike on their democratic institutions was carried out and how another one might be prevented,” he writes. In sum, Mr Biden is calling for a new Cold War. But his reasons had little to do with foreign policy. The aim is to explain how Hillary Clinton could have lost to Mr Trump.


"Today, the Russian government is brazenly assaulting the foundations of western democracy around the world,” Mr Biden concludes.

There are three problems with this line. The first is that it absolves Democrats of their own mistakes. Mr Putin did indeed throw all the bots and trolls he could muster against Mrs Clinton’s campaign. Moscow also helped hack and leak the email accounts of key figures in Mrs Clinton’s orbit. But to conclude that Russia threw the election is a stretch.


Mr Putin is an opportunist who wishes to tarnish the west. But America was already doing that by itself. He was only throwing paraffin on to the fire. The market for fake news predated Mr Putin.


I like this part particularly. Democrats = hypocrites.

The second problem is that it looks nakedly partisan. Last year, Democrats accused the FBI of being a damaged outfit. Today they hold the agency up as the epitome of public virtue. In 2012, Democrats attacked Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, for saying Russia was America’s “number one geopolitical foe”. Today that is the Democratic position.



Which leads on to the third problem. Democrats want to see Mr Trump impeached.... it is unwise for Democrats to will that outcome by judicial means. Mr Trump was elected at the ballot box. He must also be ejected there.

Most Americans are clearly bored with the details of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Perhaps they will take notice if Robert Mueller unearths something dramatic. Until then, the Democratic obsession with Russia looks rash.

It is also a boost to Mr Putin’s ego. The idea that a struggling petro-state thousands of miles away could manipulate the world’s greatest democracy is beyond flattering. It is empowering. As The New York Times reported, blaming Mr Trump’s victory on Moscow has tightened Mr Putin’s domestic grip. There is no need for staged pictures of a bare-chested Mr Putin on horseback. Just sit back and listen to the Democratic party.

BTW TMan, how'd that impeachment vote go yesterday?

The U.S. intelligence community determined conclusively that Russia interfered in the election with the intent of helping Trump win, but according to the Cons nothing to see here. And sanctions aren’t an appropriate response.

Seriously, W.T.F.?!

[Unregistered]

So we have a National Security Advisor lied about the number and nature of his contacts with the Russians, but pales when compared to holding the highest position in the world using his influence on an intern. You are so confused.

Bolded it for you to give it the dramatic impact you intended. Lol.

I was responding to the BJ comment. Keep up.

[Unregistered]

I was responding to the BJ comment. Keep up.

And I was talking about the Mueller investigation compared to the Starr investigation. But concern yourself with the BJ if you wish.

[Unregistered]

What's with The Week this week? They are actually criticizing both parties?

Somehow, the hysterical Democratic response to the GOP's tax-reform bill has managed to be worse than the fumbling Republican disunity that created this legislation. Rather than giving voters a sense that Democrats could govern effectively and realistically, liberals have just matched Republican incompetence with their own ridiculous hyperbole and panic.



Even on the narrow merits of Pelosi's criteria, her claims are ludicrous. The CBO projected that the Senate version of the tax bill would add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. The two budgets passed under full Democratic control by Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama (FY2010 and FY2011) had combined deficit spending of close to $2.6 trillion in just those two years. That doesn't count the $1.4 trillion deficit in the FY2009 budget passed by Pelosi and Reid with signoffs by both George W. Bush and Obama, which was an increase in deficit spending of nearly $1 trillion over FY2008. Granted, these budgets were passed during and in the immediate aftermath of the Great Recession. But still, Pelosi's sudden interest in deficit control is at least as remarkable as the sudden disinterest evinced by her opponents across the aisle.

Far from raiding the Treasury, the Senate tax bill reduces revenue over 10 years by $1 trillion. That's not an insignificant number, of course, but it represents a drop from a projected $46 trillion to $45 trillion over that period, a reduction of about 2.17 percent overall, although much of the reduction comes in the first five years. The purpose of that is to provide an economic stimulus, which would make it just a little more expensive over 10 years than the impotent Pelosi-Reid-Obama stimulus package of early 2009, which cost $800 billion in a single year and proved only that shovel-ready jobs really didn't exist.

[Unregistered]

And I was talking about the Mueller investigation compared to the Starr investigation. But concern yourself with the BJ if you wish.

Again, I was responding to the BJ comment, which one of your brethren brought up. Please, try to follow along.

And it cost the taxpayers $70,000,000 to find out Clinton lied about a BJ. But Rule of Law!!

[Unregistered]

The U.S. intelligence community determined conclusively that Russia interfered in the election with the intent of helping Trump win, but according to the Cons nothing to see here. And sanctions aren’t an appropriate response.

Seriously, W.T.F.?!

Were any ballots changed?
Were any voters forced to vote for Trump?

HRC lost, and the Dems want to say she lost to the Russians, not Trump.

There is absolutely no evidence that any votes were changed, compromised , or any election results were tampered with.

Zero.

[Unregistered]

Again, I was responding to the BJ comment, which one of your brethren brought up. Please, try to follow along.

<Sigh>
Continue with your fixation on the BJ aspect if that’s all you can manage. The bigger picture is Mueller vs. Starr and the relative importance/merits of each.