Hunter Biden

[Slade3200]

No it doesn’t... his dad is in the middle of running for POTUS. They are going to stay as quiet about this as possible and not fan the flames and draw more attention to this silly story.

did joe tell you this?? or are you being sarcastic again??

one thing that gets me is everyone knew this guy was corrupt and being investigated from many different directions and countries, so why did joe not try and stop hunter from getting into the middle of all of it???
one reason could be he doesnt care about hunter since hes been an embarrassment,, the other could be the profit they stood to make if they got away with it,,,

As far as I know Trump still owns his hotels, golf courses and many other enterprises. If Trump got busted committing crimes as president, let’s say he embezzled money or something... would you damn the board of directs of all his businesses?

the topic is biden not trump,,,if you want to talk about him there are several threads already started abput him,,,

I’m talking about the Biden situation. I’m using an analogy to make a point. Do I need to explain how the analogy relates to Biden or can you figure it out and respond accordingly?

in otherwords you were spewing bullshit,,,

Not at all. I was make an actual analogy. They are used to give perspective towards a point. Did you not understand the analogy? Need me to explain it to you?

 

[progressive hunter]

I understand that Trumps last defense against impeachment is going to be proving that there was legit corruption with the Biden/Ukraine situation. Problem is there is no evidence of laws being broken and this is a thing of the past that was out in the open. To me it is obviously a bad PR situation that Trump was looking to exploit in next years campaign.

To those who think it’s a legit concern... what exactly is left to be discovered about Hunter Biden’s board seat at Burisma?

Can somebody explain what they are looking for? Or what questions are still unanswered?

Burisma owner MZ had fled Ukraine by the time
Hunter joined the board

If Shokin was removed because he dropped the ball
on the money enrichment charges against MZ
and London unfreezed the money and it was returned to him

Why did Joe have a problem with Shokin not doing his job
but no problem with his son working for the guy
Shokin let 'get away'....does that make sense to you

Does it make sense that the VP son is working for
a Ukraine oligarch who has a slew of
criminal corruption cases pending and has fled the country

you make it sound like Hunter was hired by MZ and they would go into the office together to shoot the shit by the water cooler.

In reality MZ owned several company’s, Burisma along with the Ukrainian gas and oil producers Aldea, Pari, Esko-Pivnich, and the First Ukrainian Petroleum Company and the investment group Brociti Investments.

Also he was a politician... the Minister of Ecology at the time he was accused of his crimes. This linkage between Hunter and MZ takes a few leaps to get there

you left out he owned the bank where 1.5 billion dollars of US tax money went missing,,,

Liar.

you forgot to show how I lied,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

did joe tell you this?? or are you being sarcastic again??

one thing that gets me is everyone knew this guy was corrupt and being investigated from many different directions and countries, so why did joe not try and stop hunter from getting into the middle of all of it???
one reason could be he doesnt care about hunter since hes been an embarrassment,, the other could be the profit they stood to make if they got away with it,,,

As far as I know Trump still owns his hotels, golf courses and many other enterprises. If Trump got busted committing crimes as president, let’s say he embezzled money or something... would you damn the board of directs of all his businesses?

the topic is biden not trump,,,if you want to talk about him there are several threads already started abput him,,,

I’m talking about the Biden situation. I’m using an analogy to make a point. Do I need to explain how the analogy relates to Biden or can you figure it out and respond accordingly?

in otherwords you were spewing bullshit,,,

Not at all. I was make an actual analogy. They are used to give perspective towards a point. Did you not understand the analogy? Need me to explain it to you?

I would suggest you study the english language a little more before you do

 

[Faun]

The Coward Returns!

Welcome back Faun of Satan.

Hunter as absolutely had business relationships with shady characters. Same goes for Trump, his kids, and most every major business player on the world stage. If Hunter committed a crime then show evidence. But showing that he knew a guy or was part of the board for a company that invested in another company who had a corrupt partner is rather absurd. Those are the lines being drawn here to try and make Hunter look bad all with the intent to make his dad look bad and bomb his campaign. It’s very obvious.

He doesn't need help in bombing his campaign. He is and has been taking care of that single handedly. Insulting and using threatening stance and language against HIS OWN fucking voting base. YCMTSU. He's lost it. Not enough brain cells left? Who knows, but he's a train wreck right now. Hard to watch.

He’s not a great campaigner but he isn’t running to be a campaigner he is running to be the president. We’ve seen him as VP for 8 years. He is a kind and compassionate guy that most people like... Despite the smears painting him as a criminal on his last leg.

his current problems are mental stability,,,not his record,,,

How about Impeached Trump's...?

You're still as crazy as ever, Stumpy.

 

[The Original Tree]

How can a man like you prove lies?

We undo your lies every day and when we undo one, you spin another, and that one is undone and so it will be until the Day of Your Judgment.

You can prove nothing to a man who has seared his conscience with a hot iron.

you make it sound like Hunter was hired by MZ and they would go into the office together to shoot the shit by the water cooler.

In reality MZ owned several company’s, Burisma along with the Ukrainian gas and oil producers Aldea, Pari, Esko-Pivnich, and the First Ukrainian Petroleum Company and the investment group Brociti Investments.

Also he was a politician... the Minister of Ecology at the time he was accused of his crimes. This linkage between Hunter and MZ takes a few leaps to get there

you left out he owned the bank where 1.5 billion dollars of US tax money went missing,,,

Sure, if you say so... whoa, I wonder if Biden had a bank account with that bank... dude, that could be the nail in the coffin!!

Better do your homework ...not to mention

Do a Google search, not only for PrivatBank
but, also for ABLV AS RIGA LATVIA
and Novatus Holding as well as SEC site

i don’t know what you think you’re proving

Agreed, which is why I stopped trying to prove things to you a while ago. There’s no mystery you’re just here to troll.

 

[The Original Tree]

The Coward Returns!

Welcome back Faun of Satan.

He doesn't need help in bombing his campaign. He is and has been taking care of that single handedly. Insulting and using threatening stance and language against HIS OWN fucking voting base. YCMTSU. He's lost it. Not enough brain cells left? Who knows, but he's a train wreck right now. Hard to watch.

He’s not a great campaigner but he isn’t running to be a campaigner he is running to be the president. We’ve seen him as VP for 8 years. He is a kind and compassionate guy that most people like... Despite the smears painting him as a criminal on his last leg.

his current problems are mental stability,,,not his record,,,

How about Impeached Trump's...?

You're still as crazy as ever, Stumpy.

In your absence while you fled this wicked place there were many Heil Schifflers said in your honor to save face.

 

[Faun]

I understand that Trumps last defense against impeachment is going to be proving that there was legit corruption with the Biden/Ukraine situation. Problem is there is no evidence of laws being broken and this is a thing of the past that was out in the open. To me it is obviously a bad PR situation that Trump was looking to exploit in next years campaign.

To those who think it’s a legit concern... what exactly is left to be discovered about Hunter Biden’s board seat at Burisma?

Can somebody explain what they are looking for? Or what questions are still unanswered?

Burisma owner MZ had fled Ukraine by the time
Hunter joined the board

If Shokin was removed because he dropped the ball
on the money enrichment charges against MZ
and London unfreezed the money and it was returned to him

Why did Joe have a problem with Shokin not doing his job
but no problem with his son working for the guy
Shokin let 'get away'....does that make sense to you

Does it make sense that the VP son is working for
a Ukraine oligarch who has a slew of
criminal corruption cases pending and has fled the country

you make it sound like Hunter was hired by MZ and they would go into the office together to shoot the shit by the water cooler.

In reality MZ owned several company’s, Burisma along with the Ukrainian gas and oil producers Aldea, Pari, Esko-Pivnich, and the First Ukrainian Petroleum Company and the investment group Brociti Investments.

Also he was a politician... the Minister of Ecology at the time he was accused of his crimes. This linkage between Hunter and MZ takes a few leaps to get there

you left out he owned the bank where 1.5 billion dollars of US tax money went missing,,,

Liar.

you forgot to show how I lied,,,

I figured it was beyond evident. But ok, here ya go...

Privatbank was owned by Ihor Kolomoisky.

Ihor Kolomoisky is not Mykola Zlochevsky.

Ukrainian tycoon's sacred cow seized by state

 

[Faun]

The Coward Returns!

Welcome back Faun of Satan.

He’s not a great campaigner but he isn’t running to be a campaigner he is running to be the president. We’ve seen him as VP for 8 years. He is a kind and compassionate guy that most people like... Despite the smears painting him as a criminal on his last leg.

his current problems are mental stability,,,not his record,,,

How about Impeached Trump's...?

You're still as crazy as ever, Stumpy.

In your absence while you fled this wicked place there were many Heil Schiffler’s said in your honor to save face.

LOL

By "absence," you mean living life. You should try it sometime, Stumpy.

 

[Slade3200]

As far as I know Trump still owns his hotels, golf courses and many other enterprises. If Trump got busted committing crimes as president, let’s say he embezzled money or something... would you damn the board of directs of all his businesses?

the topic is biden not trump,,,if you want to talk about him there are several threads already started abput him,,,

I’m talking about the Biden situation. I’m using an analogy to make a point. Do I need to explain how the analogy relates to Biden or can you figure it out and respond accordingly?

in otherwords you were spewing bullshit,,,

Not at all. I was make an actual analogy. They are used to give perspective towards a point. Did you not understand the analogy? Need me to explain it to you?

I would suggest you study the english language a little more before you do

Why? Does it not make sense to you?

 

[Slade3200]

How can a man like you prove lies?

We undo your lies every day and when we undo one, you spin another, and that one is undone and so it will be until the Day of Your Judgment.

You can prove nothing to a man who has seared his conscience with a hot iron.

you left out he owned the bank where 1.5 billion dollars of US tax money went missing,,,

Sure, if you say so... whoa, I wonder if Biden had a bank account with that bank... dude, that could be the nail in the coffin!!

Better do your homework ...not to mention

Do a Google search, not only for PrivatBank
but, also for ABLV AS RIGA LATVIA
and Novatus Holding as well as SEC site

i don’t know what you think you’re proving

Agreed, which is why I stopped trying to prove things to you a while ago. There’s no mystery you’re just here to troll.

Brilliant. How about you point out my last lie and show why it’s a lie. Give it your best shot

 

[iceberg]

Burisma owner MZ had fled Ukraine by the time
Hunter joined the board

If Shokin was removed because he dropped the ball
on the money enrichment charges against MZ
and London unfreezed the money and it was returned to him

Why did Joe have a problem with Shokin not doing his job
but no problem with his son working for the guy
Shokin let 'get away'....does that make sense to you

Does it make sense that the VP son is working for
a Ukraine oligarch who has a slew of
criminal corruption cases pending and has fled the country

you make it sound like Hunter was hired by MZ and they would go into the office together to shoot the shit by the water cooler.

In reality MZ owned several company’s, Burisma along with the Ukrainian gas and oil producers Aldea, Pari, Esko-Pivnich, and the First Ukrainian Petroleum Company and the investment group Brociti Investments.

Also he was a politician... the Minister of Ecology at the time he was accused of his crimes. This linkage between Hunter and MZ takes a few leaps to get there

odd.

that's the same thing i say about you when it comes to "forgiving" those on the left, or attacking those on the right.

you certainly don't apply evenly what you are asking for.

That’s because I’m a biased snowflake. You’re just gonna have to beat my arguments with logic and facts because if you focus on hypocrisy then your never going to get to the actual substance we are debating.

Just sain I ain't the only one who notices. Trump gets zero benefit of doubt, people you like, ll you need to give them.

I don’t support Trump. I think he is a shitty leader. I think he is an embarrassment. Of course I’m going to be more critical of him. I’d love to see him voted out of office next election. I’ve never claimed otherwise. That doesn’t mean I’m lying or being dishonest. I’ll give any topic a fair look and discussion.... but of course I’m going to be extra critical of those who I oppose. That’s human nature. I’d be shocked if you claimed you were any different.

Now we’ve had this conversation a dozen times now. You like to bring it up every time you chime into a thread I’m engaged in and it derails the conversation. Can we end this sidetrack now? I’m almost convinced you’re just trolling me but I’m giving it one last shot with this post to lay it all out and then close the door on it. Is there more you’d like to say about it?

and this becomes my point -

when you like someone, you give them every benefit of doubt. - ie our hillary discussions. it was all "it could have been private mail, you don't know!"

all well and good but ANYONE deleting requested materials or going through the motions she did to hide those is hiding something. you went with excuse #1 and didn't hold her to any standard you'd hold a stranger to.

trump says something on a phone call, WHAM. he's guilty.

the huge difference between us it would seem is i don't care if i like someone or not, i'm going to make every effort to judge by the same set of standards. you start to get mad because yes, i do bulldog and force the issue. it makes zero sense to me to look the other way on things for people you like and in essence, make up shit and take big reaches to connect the dots you have shown time and again you won't allow done to people you like.

that - in my book - is classic hypocrisy.

will i want to give people i like the benefit of doubt and refuse to do that on people i hate? you're right that it *is* human nature, but if you call *me* on it i'm going to ask, am i? am i using 2 different sets of standards? it's a given i don't like hillary but if she was accused of something i'm not going to assume it's true just because i hate her.

look around these days - how many people make shit up on a constant basis just to satisfy their emotional needs? should i believe them then? no. i don't. i wouldn't instantly believe something bad about hillary regardless of the circumstances. when they were blamed for child porn out of the pizza place (or whatever food place it was) i called bullshit til more evidence can be brought in. those are heavy charges to lob and should not be done lightly nor believed "willy nilly".

bill clinton to pedofile island - well sure. he made a lot of trips he denies and there was that painting of him in the blue dress that freaked me out but that was epstein. i doubt bill posted for it. so until we have some ladies come forward and describe williams johnson in court, i'm not going to dive into pedo-talk and accuse him because i don't like him.

but as you confess, you will be more critical and hold people you don't like to a higher standard. then go "we all do it".

no, slade. we do not. esp if called on it. when i call you on it, you dig in and i bulldog a whole lot harder and it pisses you off.

so when you see any potential future discussions of ours go off course, it's likely because you won't even try to find some middle / common ground and allow people you like to get away with things i never would.

if my brother deleted info on his hard drive cause the police said they wanted it, i'd call a party foul because the action is wrong regardless of who does it or why. you are fine with "oh she said it was personal and hey, the corrupt FBI cleared her".

but people you don't like you forgo all that and we go straight to attack. not verification.

 

[colfax_m]

if my brother deleted info on his hard drive cause the police said they wanted it, i'd call a party foul because the action is wrong regardless of who does it or why. you are fine with "oh she said it was personal and hey, the corrupt FBI cleared her".

Do you really go by one standard? Because this was investigated and Clinton was not indicted on obstruction of justice or deleting evidence.

The reasons are well documented. Do you accept them?

 

[SweetTea]

if my brother deleted info on his hard drive cause the police said they wanted it, i'd call a party foul because the action is wrong regardless of who does it or why. you are fine with "oh she said it was personal and hey, the corrupt FBI cleared her".

Do you really go by one standard? Because this was investigated and Clinton was not indicted on obstruction of justice or deleting evidence.

The reasons are well documented. Do you accept them?

Are you saying if a person is investigated and the person is found innocent, we should let it go? Novel idea.

 

[iceberg]

if my brother deleted info on his hard drive cause the police said they wanted it, i'd call a party foul because the action is wrong regardless of who does it or why. you are fine with "oh she said it was personal and hey, the corrupt FBI cleared her".

Do you really go by one standard? Because this was investigated and Clinton was not indicted on obstruction of justice or deleting evidence.

The reasons are well documented. Do you accept them?

the corruptions of those finding her innocent is well documented as well.

now - are we to go by "documentation" as a simple term or would you care to define it? given we're never going to agree on something, why bother?

i think clinton is guilty as sin. you don't play the games she played if innocent. you don't delete requested information if innocent. comey and others say they treated her different as she was projected to become president. the same people who cry out NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW - even presidents; was holding her to another standard.

"she didn't intend to".

given the context of which you asked the question however, while i feel she's guilty, i also think people need to give it up and move on. i bring up her actions to illustrate points, not to demand she pays for her "crimes". now if you want to say it's ignorant to say people covered for her, please then link me to the posts where people say barr is a trump stooge and letting him get away with shit and i want to see your even handed protest of these remarks. i mean, he's official and ergo, according to the defense of hillary, the final word.

unless they don't like the word.

 

[colfax_m]

i think clinton is guilty as sin.

That's what I thought. You think this without evidence to support it. You claim to hold people to the same standards but this demonstrates otherwise.

The reasons for her declination are well documented in Comey's FBI report on the investigation, in his testimony, in the Horowitz report on the investigation. This has been investigated so thoroughly, it's hard for me to believe someone who would consider themselves fair minded (as you try to claim) would still claim that she's guilty as sin.

 

[iceberg]

i think clinton is guilty as sin.

That's what I thought. You think this without evidence to support it. You claim to hold people to the same standards but this demonstrates otherwise.

The reasons for her declination are well documented in Comey's FBI report on the investigation, in his testimony, in the Horowitz report on the investigation. This has been investigated so thoroughly, it's hard for me to believe someone who would consider themselves fair minded (as you try to claim) would still claim that she's guilty as sin.

i have given my evidence. you don't delete requested data. you don't try to alter it. you don't lie about it. and she did lie. comey himself said she did but didn't mean to.

i have listed my reasons ad nausea. i provided a timeline and you just said "hack" as if that was the end of it.

so your counters, at best, are lacking anything more than LIAR.

trump has done nothing even close to all this yet look at y'all go off on him. when i ask what he did, i get "go read this war and peace novel, it's in there!"

as you've more or less done countless times.

so in short, you're a fuckwad joe with lopsided tits and i'm done bantering with you.

 

[colfax_m]

i have given my evidence. you don't delete requested data. you don't try to alter it. you don't lie about it. and she did lie. comey himself said she did but didn't mean to.

She never lied to the FBI. She didn’t delete requested data. The computer tech deleted the data after the subpoena was issued. Clinton didn’t.

we have far more evidence exposing Trump’s corruption than Clinton’s but you’ll claim one is guilty as sin and the other is totally innocent.

 

[Slade3200]

you make it sound like Hunter was hired by MZ and they would go into the office together to shoot the shit by the water cooler.

In reality MZ owned several company’s, Burisma along with the Ukrainian gas and oil producers Aldea, Pari, Esko-Pivnich, and the First Ukrainian Petroleum Company and the investment group Brociti Investments.

Also he was a politician... the Minister of Ecology at the time he was accused of his crimes. This linkage between Hunter and MZ takes a few leaps to get there

odd.

that's the same thing i say about you when it comes to "forgiving" those on the left, or attacking those on the right.

you certainly don't apply evenly what you are asking for.

That’s because I’m a biased snowflake. You’re just gonna have to beat my arguments with logic and facts because if you focus on hypocrisy then your never going to get to the actual substance we are debating.

Just sain I ain't the only one who notices. Trump gets zero benefit of doubt, people you like, ll you need to give them.

I don’t support Trump. I think he is a shitty leader. I think he is an embarrassment. Of course I’m going to be more critical of him. I’d love to see him voted out of office next election. I’ve never claimed otherwise. That doesn’t mean I’m lying or being dishonest. I’ll give any topic a fair look and discussion.... but of course I’m going to be extra critical of those who I oppose. That’s human nature. I’d be shocked if you claimed you were any different.

Now we’ve had this conversation a dozen times now. You like to bring it up every time you chime into a thread I’m engaged in and it derails the conversation. Can we end this sidetrack now? I’m almost convinced you’re just trolling me but I’m giving it one last shot with this post to lay it all out and then close the door on it. Is there more you’d like to say about it?

and this becomes my point -

when you like someone, you give them every benefit of doubt. - ie our hillary discussions. it was all "it could have been private mail, you don't know!"

all well and good but ANYONE deleting requested materials or going through the motions she did to hide those is hiding something. you went with excuse #1 and didn't hold her to any standard you'd hold a stranger to.

trump says something on a phone call, WHAM. he's guilty.

the huge difference between us it would seem is i don't care if i like someone or not, i'm going to make every effort to judge by the same set of standards. you start to get mad because yes, i do bulldog and force the issue. it makes zero sense to me to look the other way on things for people you like and in essence, make up shit and take big reaches to connect the dots you have shown time and again you won't allow done to people you like.

that - in my book - is classic hypocrisy.

will i want to give people i like the benefit of doubt and refuse to do that on people i hate? you're right that it *is* human nature, but if you call *me* on it i'm going to ask, am i? am i using 2 different sets of standards? it's a given i don't like hillary but if she was accused of something i'm not going to assume it's true just because i hate her.

look around these days - how many people make shit up on a constant basis just to satisfy their emotional needs? should i believe them then? no. i don't. i wouldn't instantly believe something bad about hillary regardless of the circumstances. when they were blamed for child porn out of the pizza place (or whatever food place it was) i called bullshit til more evidence can be brought in. those are heavy charges to lob and should not be done lightly nor believed "willy nilly".

bill clinton to pedofile island - well sure. he made a lot of trips he denies and there was that painting of him in the blue dress that freaked me out but that was epstein. i doubt bill posted for it. so until we have some ladies come forward and describe williams johnson in court, i'm not going to dive into pedo-talk and accuse him because i don't like him.

but as you confess, you will be more critical and hold people you don't like to a higher standard. then go "we all do it".

no, slade. we do not. esp if called on it. when i call you on it, you dig in and i bulldog a whole lot harder and it pisses you off.

so when you see any potential future discussions of ours go off course, it's likely because you won't even try to find some middle / common ground and allow people you like to get away with things i never would.

if my brother deleted info on his hard drive cause the police said they wanted it, i'd call a party foul because the action is wrong regardless of who does it or why. you are fine with "oh she said it was personal and hey, the corrupt FBI cleared her".

but people you don't like you forgo all that and we go straight to attack. not verification.

Sorry Ice but you don’t pass the purity test as you’ve just laid out. How do I know this? Easy, because it is pretty predictable which side of each issue you are going to come down on. You more often than not defend arguments supporting the Right and are more critical of the Left. And that’s fine. That’s good. Because you are also open minded and able to call things out on both sides. That’s why I used to enjoy engaging with you. I like to think I’m the same way. Yes I lean Left and am very critical of Trump who I see as a con man, but I enjoy having my positions challenged and facts brought to the table. I’ve conceded arguments to many posters and thanked them for the debate. You used to be one of these people.

The problem I’ve had with you lately is you don’t engage anymore. You take most recent conversations to the “hypocrisy” argument, which really doesn’t prove a damn thing. It simply derails the debate, distracts from the points being made, and takes things to a personal level which is unnecessary.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter how I feel, or who I give the benefit of the doubt to or if I’m a hypocrite or not. I’m either making valid points or I’m not. If I’m not then my argument can be beaten through simple debate. I can easily switch my position and argue Trumps side and go against my “personal feelings”, because how I feel really doesn’t matter.

I just want to get back to debating issues. I’m at the end of my rope with you playing the personal hypocrisy game every time there’s a debate going on. This is my last attempt to lay it all out and nip it in the bud because I once had respect for you and genuinely enjoyed our debates. You were my favorite poster on this board for a spell. Ever since the Clinton discussion you've carried a chip on your shoulder. I’ve tried making peace many times but you continue to bring it up and don’t seem able to let it go.

If you just can’t let it go then please do us both a favor and block me or don’t engage. I’d prefer to go back to our old way of debating and hope you can make the change. This is the last time I’m going off topic to discuss my personal hypocrisy. Beat my arguments on their face or share your point of view but if you need to go personal then please don’t engage. It’s old and I’m done.

 

[iceberg]

odd.

that's the same thing i say about you when it comes to "forgiving" those on the left, or attacking those on the right.

you certainly don't apply evenly what you are asking for.

That’s because I’m a biased snowflake. You’re just gonna have to beat my arguments with logic and facts because if you focus on hypocrisy then your never going to get to the actual substance we are debating.

Just sain I ain't the only one who notices. Trump gets zero benefit of doubt, people you like, ll you need to give them.

I don’t support Trump. I think he is a shitty leader. I think he is an embarrassment. Of course I’m going to be more critical of him. I’d love to see him voted out of office next election. I’ve never claimed otherwise. That doesn’t mean I’m lying or being dishonest. I’ll give any topic a fair look and discussion.... but of course I’m going to be extra critical of those who I oppose. That’s human nature. I’d be shocked if you claimed you were any different.

Now we’ve had this conversation a dozen times now. You like to bring it up every time you chime into a thread I’m engaged in and it derails the conversation. Can we end this sidetrack now? I’m almost convinced you’re just trolling me but I’m giving it one last shot with this post to lay it all out and then close the door on it. Is there more you’d like to say about it?

and this becomes my point -

when you like someone, you give them every benefit of doubt. - ie our hillary discussions. it was all "it could have been private mail, you don't know!"

all well and good but ANYONE deleting requested materials or going through the motions she did to hide those is hiding something. you went with excuse #1 and didn't hold her to any standard you'd hold a stranger to.

trump says something on a phone call, WHAM. he's guilty.

the huge difference between us it would seem is i don't care if i like someone or not, i'm going to make every effort to judge by the same set of standards. you start to get mad because yes, i do bulldog and force the issue. it makes zero sense to me to look the other way on things for people you like and in essence, make up shit and take big reaches to connect the dots you have shown time and again you won't allow done to people you like.

that - in my book - is classic hypocrisy.

will i want to give people i like the benefit of doubt and refuse to do that on people i hate? you're right that it *is* human nature, but if you call *me* on it i'm going to ask, am i? am i using 2 different sets of standards? it's a given i don't like hillary but if she was accused of something i'm not going to assume it's true just because i hate her.

look around these days - how many people make shit up on a constant basis just to satisfy their emotional needs? should i believe them then? no. i don't. i wouldn't instantly believe something bad about hillary regardless of the circumstances. when they were blamed for child porn out of the pizza place (or whatever food place it was) i called bullshit til more evidence can be brought in. those are heavy charges to lob and should not be done lightly nor believed "willy nilly".

bill clinton to pedofile island - well sure. he made a lot of trips he denies and there was that painting of him in the blue dress that freaked me out but that was epstein. i doubt bill posted for it. so until we have some ladies come forward and describe williams johnson in court, i'm not going to dive into pedo-talk and accuse him because i don't like him.

but as you confess, you will be more critical and hold people you don't like to a higher standard. then go "we all do it".

no, slade. we do not. esp if called on it. when i call you on it, you dig in and i bulldog a whole lot harder and it pisses you off.

so when you see any potential future discussions of ours go off course, it's likely because you won't even try to find some middle / common ground and allow people you like to get away with things i never would.

if my brother deleted info on his hard drive cause the police said they wanted it, i'd call a party foul because the action is wrong regardless of who does it or why. you are fine with "oh she said it was personal and hey, the corrupt FBI cleared her".

but people you don't like you forgo all that and we go straight to attack. not verification.

Sorry Ice but you don’t pass the purity test as you’ve just laid out. How do I know this? Easy, because it is pretty predictable which side of each issue you are going to come down on. You more often than not defend arguments supporting the Right and are more critical of the Left. And that’s fine. That’s good. Because you are also open minded and able to call things out on both sides. That’s why I used to enjoy engaging with you. I like to think I’m the same way. Yes I lean Left and am very critical of Trump who I see as a con man, but I enjoy having my positions challenged and facts brought to the table. I’ve conceded arguments to many posters and thanked them for the debate. You used to be one of these people.

The problem I’ve had with you lately is you don’t engage anymore. You take most recent conversations to the “hypocrisy” argument, which really doesn’t prove a damn thing. It simply derails the debate, distracts from the points being made, and takes things to a personal level which is unnecessary.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter how I feel, or who I give the benefit of the doubt to or if I’m a hypocrite or not. I’m either making valid points or I’m not. If I’m not then my argument can be beaten through simple debate. I can easily switch my position and argue Trumps side and go against my “personal feelings”, because how I feel really doesn’t matter.

I just want to get back to debating issues. I’m at the end of my rope with you playing the personal hypocrisy game every time there’s a debate going on. This is my last attempt to lay it all out and nip it in the bud because I once had respect for you and genuinely enjoyed our debates. You were my favorite poster on this board for a spell. Ever since the Clinton discussion you've carried a chip on your shoulder. I’ve tried making peace many times but you continue to bring it up and don’t seem able to let it go.

If you just can’t let it go then please do us both a favor and block me or don’t engage. I’d prefer to go back to our old way of debating and hope you can make the change. This is the last time I’m going off topic to discuss my personal hypocrisy. Beat my arguments on their face or share your point of view but if you need to go personal then please don’t engage. It’s old and I’m done.

mostly because I've found engaging with you pointless.

I try to come to a finality.
you, by your own words, enjoy the back and forth.

We are in it for different reasons. I want to come to an agreememt and you want to talk til the world ends.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s because I’m a biased snowflake. You’re just gonna have to beat my arguments with logic and facts because if you focus on hypocrisy then your never going to get to the actual substance we are debating.

Just sain I ain't the only one who notices. Trump gets zero benefit of doubt, people you like, ll you need to give them.

I don’t support Trump. I think he is a shitty leader. I think he is an embarrassment. Of course I’m going to be more critical of him. I’d love to see him voted out of office next election. I’ve never claimed otherwise. That doesn’t mean I’m lying or being dishonest. I’ll give any topic a fair look and discussion.... but of course I’m going to be extra critical of those who I oppose. That’s human nature. I’d be shocked if you claimed you were any different.

Now we’ve had this conversation a dozen times now. You like to bring it up every time you chime into a thread I’m engaged in and it derails the conversation. Can we end this sidetrack now? I’m almost convinced you’re just trolling me but I’m giving it one last shot with this post to lay it all out and then close the door on it. Is there more you’d like to say about it?

and this becomes my point -

when you like someone, you give them every benefit of doubt. - ie our hillary discussions. it was all "it could have been private mail, you don't know!"

all well and good but ANYONE deleting requested materials or going through the motions she did to hide those is hiding something. you went with excuse #1 and didn't hold her to any standard you'd hold a stranger to.

trump says something on a phone call, WHAM. he's guilty.

the huge difference between us it would seem is i don't care if i like someone or not, i'm going to make every effort to judge by the same set of standards. you start to get mad because yes, i do bulldog and force the issue. it makes zero sense to me to look the other way on things for people you like and in essence, make up shit and take big reaches to connect the dots you have shown time and again you won't allow done to people you like.

that - in my book - is classic hypocrisy.

will i want to give people i like the benefit of doubt and refuse to do that on people i hate? you're right that it *is* human nature, but if you call *me* on it i'm going to ask, am i? am i using 2 different sets of standards? it's a given i don't like hillary but if she was accused of something i'm not going to assume it's true just because i hate her.

look around these days - how many people make shit up on a constant basis just to satisfy their emotional needs? should i believe them then? no. i don't. i wouldn't instantly believe something bad about hillary regardless of the circumstances. when they were blamed for child porn out of the pizza place (or whatever food place it was) i called bullshit til more evidence can be brought in. those are heavy charges to lob and should not be done lightly nor believed "willy nilly".

bill clinton to pedofile island - well sure. he made a lot of trips he denies and there was that painting of him in the blue dress that freaked me out but that was epstein. i doubt bill posted for it. so until we have some ladies come forward and describe williams johnson in court, i'm not going to dive into pedo-talk and accuse him because i don't like him.

but as you confess, you will be more critical and hold people you don't like to a higher standard. then go "we all do it".

no, slade. we do not. esp if called on it. when i call you on it, you dig in and i bulldog a whole lot harder and it pisses you off.

so when you see any potential future discussions of ours go off course, it's likely because you won't even try to find some middle / common ground and allow people you like to get away with things i never would.

if my brother deleted info on his hard drive cause the police said they wanted it, i'd call a party foul because the action is wrong regardless of who does it or why. you are fine with "oh she said it was personal and hey, the corrupt FBI cleared her".

but people you don't like you forgo all that and we go straight to attack. not verification.

Sorry Ice but you don’t pass the purity test as you’ve just laid out. How do I know this? Easy, because it is pretty predictable which side of each issue you are going to come down on. You more often than not defend arguments supporting the Right and are more critical of the Left. And that’s fine. That’s good. Because you are also open minded and able to call things out on both sides. That’s why I used to enjoy engaging with you. I like to think I’m the same way. Yes I lean Left and am very critical of Trump who I see as a con man, but I enjoy having my positions challenged and facts brought to the table. I’ve conceded arguments to many posters and thanked them for the debate. You used to be one of these people.

The problem I’ve had with you lately is you don’t engage anymore. You take most recent conversations to the “hypocrisy” argument, which really doesn’t prove a damn thing. It simply derails the debate, distracts from the points being made, and takes things to a personal level which is unnecessary.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter how I feel, or who I give the benefit of the doubt to or if I’m a hypocrite or not. I’m either making valid points or I’m not. If I’m not then my argument can be beaten through simple debate. I can easily switch my position and argue Trumps side and go against my “personal feelings”, because how I feel really doesn’t matter.

I just want to get back to debating issues. I’m at the end of my rope with you playing the personal hypocrisy game every time there’s a debate going on. This is my last attempt to lay it all out and nip it in the bud because I once had respect for you and genuinely enjoyed our debates. You were my favorite poster on this board for a spell. Ever since the Clinton discussion you've carried a chip on your shoulder. I’ve tried making peace many times but you continue to bring it up and don’t seem able to let it go.

If you just can’t let it go then please do us both a favor and block me or don’t engage. I’d prefer to go back to our old way of debating and hope you can make the change. This is the last time I’m going off topic to discuss my personal hypocrisy. Beat my arguments on their face or share your point of view but if you need to go personal then please don’t engage. It’s old and I’m done.

mostly because I've found engaging with you pointless.

I try to come to a finality.
you, by your own words, enjoy the back and forth.

We are in it for different reasons. I want to come to an agreememt and you want to talk til the world ends.

I see it as the opposite. You keep bringing up the same “personal hypocrisy” thing over and over again while I’m trying to move on and address the topic at hand and engage the substance. This side track we are having right now showcases my case in point.

I do agree that engaging with me like this is pointless and that why I said that this is the last conversation of this sort I’m going to have with you.

if you take issue, agree with, disagree with or care to share your perspective about the discussion that we were having in this thread regarding the Biden situation then please feel free. If you don’t see the point in engaging with me about it then don’t reply. It’s pretty simple.