Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Watching Shiffy, Nadler, and the Motley Crew press conference this morning
Comments
-
Good question! What do you think?TurdBomber said:CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun control laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers?TurdBomber said:
Is your wife still your sister?CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers? Why won’t you answer the question you fucking retard?TurdBomber said:
...but never the Actual Words spoken straight from her mouth, as you swore you'd produce, but never did. Lying, Wormy Piece of Shit.GDS said:
Multiple quotes from Tulsi including posts from her website over a multi page thread months ago - or in your world baseless. hahaha. NYBEpawz said:
That's what I thought.GDS said:
It's sad that you and your alt Turd Burglar are still on tilt about inconvenient facts being posted about your dream girl Tulsi. I did find it funny today when she claimed she was bailing on the next debate even when it was clear she wasn't going to qualify anyway.pawz said:
Speaking of documented facts, tell us more about Assad using gas on his own people. Allegedly.GDS said:
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?
Also, Tulsi Gabbard.
Remember, stick to "documented facts".
Baseless accusations. -
CirrhosisDawg said:
Good question! What do you think?TurdBomber said:CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun control laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers?TurdBomber said:
Is your wife still your sister?CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers? Why won’t you answer the question you fucking retard?TurdBomber said:
...but never the Actual Words spoken straight from her mouth, as you swore you'd produce, but never did. Lying, Wormy Piece of Shit.GDS said:
Multiple quotes from Tulsi including posts from her website over a multi page thread months ago - or in your world baseless. hahaha. NYBEpawz said:
That's what I thought.GDS said:
It's sad that you and your alt Turd Burglar are still on tilt about inconvenient facts being posted about your dream girl Tulsi. I did find it funny today when she claimed she was bailing on the next debate even when it was clear she wasn't going to qualify anyway.pawz said:
Speaking of documented facts, tell us more about Assad using gas on his own people. Allegedly.GDS said:
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?
Also, Tulsi Gabbard.
Remember, stick to "documented facts".
Baseless accusations.
-
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers? Why won’t you answer the question you fucking retard?
Is your wife still your sister?
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun control laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers?CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun control laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers?TurdBomber said:
Is your wife still your sister?CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers? Why won’t you answer the question you fucking retard?TurdBomber said:
...but never the Actual Words spoken straight from her mouth, as you swore you'd produce, but never did. Lying, Wormy Piece of Shit.GDS said:
Multiple quotes from Tulsi including posts from her website over a multi page thread months ago - or in your world baseless. hahaha. NYBEpawz said:
That's what I thought.GDS said:
It's sad that you and your alt Turd Burglar are still on tilt about inconvenient facts being posted about your dream girl Tulsi. I did find it funny today when she claimed she was bailing on the next debate even when it was clear she wasn't going to qualify anyway.pawz said:
Speaking of documented facts, tell us more about Assad using gas on his own people. Allegedly.GDS said:
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?
Also, Tulsi Gabbard.
Remember, stick to "documented facts".
Baseless accusations. -
Is your wife still your sister?RaceBannon said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers? Why won’t you answer the question you fucking retard?
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun control laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers?CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun control laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers?TurdBomber said:
Is your wife still your sister?CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers? Why won’t you answer the question you fucking retard?TurdBomber said:
...but never the Actual Words spoken straight from her mouth, as you swore you'd produce, but never did. Lying, Wormy Piece of Shit.GDS said:
Multiple quotes from Tulsi including posts from her website over a multi page thread months ago - or in your world baseless. hahaha. NYBEpawz said:
That's what I thought.GDS said:
It's sad that you and your alt Turd Burglar are still on tilt about inconvenient facts being posted about your dream girl Tulsi. I did find it funny today when she claimed she was bailing on the next debate even when it was clear she wasn't going to qualify anyway.pawz said:
Speaking of documented facts, tell us more about Assad using gas on his own people. Allegedly.GDS said:
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?
Also, Tulsi Gabbard.
Remember, stick to "documented facts".
Baseless accusations.
-
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun control laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers?RaceBannon said:
Is your wife still your sister?RaceBannon said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers? Why won’t you answer the question you fucking retard?CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun control laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers?TurdBomber said:
Is your wife still your sister?CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers? Why won’t you answer the question you fucking retard?TurdBomber said:
...but never the Actual Words spoken straight from her mouth, as you swore you'd produce, but never did. Lying, Wormy Piece of Shit.GDS said:
Multiple quotes from Tulsi including posts from her website over a multi page thread months ago - or in your world baseless. hahaha. NYBEpawz said:
That's what I thought.GDS said:
It's sad that you and your alt Turd Burglar are still on tilt about inconvenient facts being posted about your dream girl Tulsi. I did find it funny today when she claimed she was bailing on the next debate even when it was clear she wasn't going to qualify anyway.pawz said:
Speaking of documented facts, tell us more about Assad using gas on his own people. Allegedly.GDS said:
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?
Also, Tulsi Gabbard.
Remember, stick to "documented facts".
Baseless accusations.
-
Well!!!
-
Sad to see someones mental acuity decline in real time
-
Is your wife still your sister?RaceBannon said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers? Why won’t you answer the question you fucking retard?
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun control laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers?CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun control laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers?TurdBomber said:
Is your wife still your sister?CirrhosisDawg said:
Does a sheriff in Montana have to enforce federal gun laws and arrest non-compliant local gun and ammunition dealers? Why won’t you answer the question you fucking retard?TurdBomber said:
...but never the Actual Words spoken straight from her mouth, as you swore you'd produce, but never did. Lying, Wormy Piece of Shit.GDS said:
Multiple quotes from Tulsi including posts from her website over a multi page thread months ago - or in your world baseless. hahaha. NYBEpawz said:
That's what I thought.GDS said:
It's sad that you and your alt Turd Burglar are still on tilt about inconvenient facts being posted about your dream girl Tulsi. I did find it funny today when she claimed she was bailing on the next debate even when it was clear she wasn't going to qualify anyway.pawz said:
Speaking of documented facts, tell us more about Assad using gas on his own people. Allegedly.GDS said:
None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.
Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.
Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.
So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?
Also, Tulsi Gabbard.
Remember, stick to "documented facts".
Baseless accusations.
-
It wasn't far to go.Pitchfork51 said:Sad to see someones mental acuity decline in real time
-
Come watch CD struggle in every thread.
