I've done well since his return, wasn't going to get into it about anything with him anymore, but holy [bleep].
Jeffo MO
Run with a rumor as truth Demand proof that it isn't true Make up pages of BS while stoned Make bets, changing rules along the way Declare victory after everyone points out what a liberal biased idiot he is
I'll bet anybody on here (besides Jeff0) $10.00 that Jeff0 is the dumbest SOB on the "24hr", Who's takin'?
I'm not taking the bet, but sadly that position garners some stiff competition. I've got about two dozen of him and his ilk on ignore as when they express their thoughts they have 0 value.
OK, Jello. You are right and the rest of the world is wrong because you've perfected Google. Have you figured out Alinsky" yet?
Like a couple of others, I'm still wondering why you flogged on the bet that could require you to banish yourself here? Beyond that, I don't enter into a binding relationship such as betting with someone I don't trust. Comprende?
Because, going from memory, it wasn't an equitable bet in my view.
Look. I'll bet you a dollar that the Seahawks beat your favorite football team. You turn that down, it's arguable that you don't believe in your team.
Now, I'll offer to bet you a dollar against the title of your house that the Seahawks beat your favorite team. If you turn down that bet, is it still arguable that you don't believe in your team?
I'll bet AK with the forum death penalty as my punishment if I lose... if he offers up something that I perceive as equal value to me if I win. The death penalty for HIM has no meaning to me; I'm not looking to get rid of him or anybody else around here.
To your other point, I've done a bunch of transactions with Fire members. Ever heard a complaint? No. You have not. I lose a bet, I'm paying up.
So bet me, bitches. Simple one/one bet, box of bullets. Equitable on the face of it. What are ya... chicken?
OK, Jello. You are right and the rest of the world is wrong because you've perfected Google. Have you figured out Alinsky" yet?
Like a couple of others, I'm still wondering why you flogged on the bet that could require you to banish yourself here? Beyond that, I don't enter into a binding relationship such as betting with someone I don't trust. Comprende?
Because, going from memory, it wasn't an equitable bet in my view.
Look. I'll bet you a dollar that the Seahawks beat your favorite football team. You turn that down, it's arguable that you don't believe in your team.
Now, I'll offer to bet you a dollar against the title of your house that the Seahawks beat your favorite team. If you turn down that bet, is it still arguable that you don't believe in your team?
I'll bet AK with the forum death penalty as my punishment if I lose... if he offers up something that I perceive as equal value to me if I win. The death penalty for HIM has no meaning to me; I'm not looking to get rid of him or anybody else around here.
To your other point, I've done a bunch of transactions with Fire members. Ever heard a complaint? No. You have not. I lose a bet, I'm paying up.
So bet me, bitches. Simple one/one bet, box of bullets. Equitable on the face of it. What are ya... chicken?
And what, pray tell would that be?
He's holding out for a lifetime supply of blunts and an original copy of Saul Alinsky's book..
It's official. I missed the selfie deadline so I'm Maser's sock puppet because rene and the Polish half of the fubar twins have decided that I am.
I'll bet AK with the forum death penalty as my punishment if I lose... if he offers up something that I perceive as equal value to me if I win. The death penalty for HIM has no meaning to me; I'm not looking to get rid of him or anybody else around here.
To your other point, I've done a bunch of transactions with Fire members. Ever heard a complaint? No. You have not. I lose a bet, I'm paying up.
So bet me, bitches. Simple one/one bet, box of bullets. Equitable on the face of it. What are ya... chicken?
Irfubar- intent is THE defining characteristic of an obstruction charge. If intent to obstruct can be shown, then Trump is already [bleep]. Not saying that it'll be shown, but that's it in a nutshell.
Smokepole- a bet is a contract and should be treated as such. I didn't care for the initial offer he made, as I recall, though I don't remember why (I think it was because what he was offering up if he lost was not of interest to me) but I'm open to negotiating a bet with him that works for both of us. Furthermore, I have a STANDING OFFER to anyone who reads this to bet about this issue. No takers, except maybe Jorge, but he keeps changing the terms (in contractual terms, making a counteroffer) which negates my latest offer to him... and around and around we go. Can't seem to nail that one down, but it ain't for lack of trying on my part. But anyway, given the above, why are you singling me out when the whole assembled group of readership of this thread has the opportunity to bet me, but won't? Where's THEIR conviction in their beliefs? Where's your criticism of that?
What may be escaping some here, if you only get your info from the alt.right blogosphere and Breitbart and the like, is that this whole thing is much further along than you might think. Investigators are proceeding under court supervision at this point, they have reached the subpoena point, which means they've demonstrated a significantly high degree of probability (I.E., probable cause) that crimes were committed. It also puts them de facto beyond political reach.
Here's a decent overview.
"But the real danger for Trump, ultimately, comes from an investigation that has its own momentum. Far from being the “witch hunt” that he has decried, it is moving with cold efficiency under the leadership of newly appointed special counsel Robert Mueller. Investigators have reportedly issued subpoenas for documents and are preparing to interview key players, a sign that the FBI is making tangible progress under the oversight of the courts."
The importance of the last sentence cannot be overstated. They are about to move against a very high ranking person in the West Wing ... Not just a nut job FBI director; not just rabid partisan witch-hunters... investigators with the full power of the courts behind them, which again, means they've shown probable cause. Read the whole thing here:
The essence of our "conversation" here is dysfunction and deflection and denial and angry kill-the-messenger rhetoric. It's my contention that that is due to this phenomenon:
..... many otherwise-smart folks here THINK they are connecting dots, but they are missing a whole bunch of said dots because they've gone full-retard with the "fake news! swamp creature!" rhetoric as a defense mechanism against the cognitive dissonance that they fear experiencing if they read alternative viewpoints. This is very evident here on this thread. And second, sheer rabid partisanship has a bunch of otherwise-patriotic Americans on the cusp of actually being supportive of Trump even if he's shown to have colluded. Example, very few here will say that they WON'T support him if that's the case. That disturbs me greatly. This shouldn't even be debatable. I illustrated this very concisely with my example using Jorge's aircraft carrier CO. He pulled the classic "that's so stupid I'm not even going to answer it!" dodge, which in this case- since my logic was unassailable- was simply that: a dodge.
I believe in my dot-connecting prowess enough to bet anyone that I'm right. The rest of you, don't. If you want to prove me wrong about that then let's get some bets locked down and in the books.
