Leftards lie and love to be lied to

CirrhosisDawg said:

WestlinnDuck said:

Os course, being a leftard dem law professor from Harvard is all that you need to convince other leftards of the legitimacy of their strong feelings. While it seems like a lot of attorneys lie, it generally is localized to leftards. Turley is a dem, but has some residual honesty. Give him time.
WATCH: LAW PROF. DESTROYS DEMOCRAT CLAIM THAT TRUMP’S UKRAINE CALL WAS ‘BRIBERY.’
Related: George Washington University Law School Prof. Jonathan Turley “flips the Dem argument on impeachment on its head: ‘If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing the president of doing.’”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
HARVARD LAW PROF TELLS A BIG FAT ONE: House Judiciary Committee Democrats led their hearing this morning with Harvard’s Noah Feldman. Later in the day under intense questioning by Rep. Matthew Gaetz (R-Flor.), Feldman claimed he “was an impeachment skeptic before July 25.”
That’s a flat-out misrepresentation by Feldman of his views because he was among the early advocates of impeachment, beginning March 7, 2017, barely six weeks after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. See three more examples in 2017 and 2018 of Feldman clearly pushing impeachment of Trump: here, here and here.

This post epitomizes the tug.

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

WestlinnDuck said:

Os course, being a leftard dem law professor from Harvard is all that you need to convince other leftards of the legitimacy of their strong feelings. While it seems like a lot of attorneys lie, it generally is localized to leftards. Turley is a dem, but has some residual honesty. Give him time.
WATCH: LAW PROF. DESTROYS DEMOCRAT CLAIM THAT TRUMP’S UKRAINE CALL WAS ‘BRIBERY.’
Related: George Washington University Law School Prof. Jonathan Turley “flips the Dem argument on impeachment on its head: ‘If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing the president of doing.’”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
HARVARD LAW PROF TELLS A BIG FAT ONE: House Judiciary Committee Democrats led their hearing this morning with Harvard’s Noah Feldman. Later in the day under intense questioning by Rep. Matthew Gaetz (R-Flor.), Feldman claimed he “was an impeachment skeptic before July 25.”
That’s a flat-out misrepresentation by Feldman of his views because he was among the early advocates of impeachment, beginning March 7, 2017, barely six weeks after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. See three more examples in 2017 and 2018 of Feldman clearly pushing impeachment of Trump: here, here and here.

This post epitomizes the tug.

You epitomize the left.

RaceBannon said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

WestlinnDuck said:

Os course, being a leftard dem law professor from Harvard is all that you need to convince other leftards of the legitimacy of their strong feelings. While it seems like a lot of attorneys lie, it generally is localized to leftards. Turley is a dem, but has some residual honesty. Give him time.
WATCH: LAW PROF. DESTROYS DEMOCRAT CLAIM THAT TRUMP’S UKRAINE CALL WAS ‘BRIBERY.’
Related: George Washington University Law School Prof. Jonathan Turley “flips the Dem argument on impeachment on its head: ‘If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing the president of doing.’”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
HARVARD LAW PROF TELLS A BIG FAT ONE: House Judiciary Committee Democrats led their hearing this morning with Harvard’s Noah Feldman. Later in the day under intense questioning by Rep. Matthew Gaetz (R-Flor.), Feldman claimed he “was an impeachment skeptic before July 25.”
That’s a flat-out misrepresentation by Feldman of his views because he was among the early advocates of impeachment, beginning March 7, 2017, barely six weeks after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. See three more examples in 2017 and 2018 of Feldman clearly pushing impeachment of Trump: here, here and here.

This post epitomizes the tug.

You epitomize the left.

Interesting. How, specifically?

Fat and stupid

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

WestlinnDuck said:

Os course, being a leftard dem law professor from Harvard is all that you need to convince other leftards of the legitimacy of their strong feelings. While it seems like a lot of attorneys lie, it generally is localized to leftards. Turley is a dem, but has some residual honesty. Give him time.
WATCH: LAW PROF. DESTROYS DEMOCRAT CLAIM THAT TRUMP’S UKRAINE CALL WAS ‘BRIBERY.’
Related: George Washington University Law School Prof. Jonathan Turley “flips the Dem argument on impeachment on its head: ‘If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing the president of doing.’”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
HARVARD LAW PROF TELLS A BIG FAT ONE: House Judiciary Committee Democrats led their hearing this morning with Harvard’s Noah Feldman. Later in the day under intense questioning by Rep. Matthew Gaetz (R-Flor.), Feldman claimed he “was an impeachment skeptic before July 25.”
That’s a flat-out misrepresentation by Feldman of his views because he was among the early advocates of impeachment, beginning March 7, 2017, barely six weeks after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. See three more examples in 2017 and 2018 of Feldman clearly pushing impeachment of Trump: here, here and here.

This post epitomizes the tug.

You epitomize the left.

Interesting. How, specifically?

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

WestlinnDuck said:

Os course, being a leftard dem law professor from Harvard is all that you need to convince other leftards of the legitimacy of their strong feelings. While it seems like a lot of attorneys lie, it generally is localized to leftards. Turley is a dem, but has some residual honesty. Give him time.
WATCH: LAW PROF. DESTROYS DEMOCRAT CLAIM THAT TRUMP’S UKRAINE CALL WAS ‘BRIBERY.’
Related: George Washington University Law School Prof. Jonathan Turley “flips the Dem argument on impeachment on its head: ‘If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing the president of doing.’”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
HARVARD LAW PROF TELLS A BIG FAT ONE: House Judiciary Committee Democrats led their hearing this morning with Harvard’s Noah Feldman. Later in the day under intense questioning by Rep. Matthew Gaetz (R-Flor.), Feldman claimed he “was an impeachment skeptic before July 25.”
That’s a flat-out misrepresentation by Feldman of his views because he was among the early advocates of impeachment, beginning March 7, 2017, barely six weeks after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. See three more examples in 2017 and 2018 of Feldman clearly pushing impeachment of Trump: here, here and here.

This post epitomizes the tug.

You epitomize the left.

Interesting. How, specifically?

Not very intelligent. Sensitive.

Resorts to repeating things with no factual backing like "enjoy the impeachment"

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

WestlinnDuck said:

Os course, being a leftard dem law professor from Harvard is all that you need to convince other leftards of the legitimacy of their strong feelings. While it seems like a lot of attorneys lie, it generally is localized to leftards. Turley is a dem, but has some residual honesty. Give him time.
WATCH: LAW PROF. DESTROYS DEMOCRAT CLAIM THAT TRUMP’S UKRAINE CALL WAS ‘BRIBERY.’
Related: George Washington University Law School Prof. Jonathan Turley “flips the Dem argument on impeachment on its head: ‘If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing the president of doing.’”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
HARVARD LAW PROF TELLS A BIG FAT ONE: House Judiciary Committee Democrats led their hearing this morning with Harvard’s Noah Feldman. Later in the day under intense questioning by Rep. Matthew Gaetz (R-Flor.), Feldman claimed he “was an impeachment skeptic before July 25.”
That’s a flat-out misrepresentation by Feldman of his views because he was among the early advocates of impeachment, beginning March 7, 2017, barely six weeks after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. See three more examples in 2017 and 2018 of Feldman clearly pushing impeachment of Trump: here, here and here.

This post epitomizes the tug.

You epitomize the left.

Interesting. How, specifically?

Not very intelligent. Sensitive.

Resorts to repeating things with no factual backing like "enjoy the impeachment"

Trump’s getting impeached is a factual statement. You’re not enjoying it? I was expecting an intelligent reply. Let’s start here:

Are tariffs taxes on US consumers?

Greater addition to US GDP growth and prosperity: technology, entertainment & finance, or manufacturing?

Can trumpism impede the flow of money, labor, goods and services to their highest and best use?

No, technology, no

There, I played your dumb little game

These hearings =/= impeachment

Kill yourself

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

WestlinnDuck said:

Os course, being a leftard dem law professor from Harvard is all that you need to convince other leftards of the legitimacy of their strong feelings. While it seems like a lot of attorneys lie, it generally is localized to leftards. Turley is a dem, but has some residual honesty. Give him time.
WATCH: LAW PROF. DESTROYS DEMOCRAT CLAIM THAT TRUMP’S UKRAINE CALL WAS ‘BRIBERY.’
Related: George Washington University Law School Prof. Jonathan Turley “flips the Dem argument on impeachment on its head: ‘If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing the president of doing.’”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
HARVARD LAW PROF TELLS A BIG FAT ONE: House Judiciary Committee Democrats led their hearing this morning with Harvard’s Noah Feldman. Later in the day under intense questioning by Rep. Matthew Gaetz (R-Flor.), Feldman claimed he “was an impeachment skeptic before July 25.”
That’s a flat-out misrepresentation by Feldman of his views because he was among the early advocates of impeachment, beginning March 7, 2017, barely six weeks after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. See three more examples in 2017 and 2018 of Feldman clearly pushing impeachment of Trump: here, here and here.

This post epitomizes the tug.

You epitomize the left.

Interesting. How, specifically?

Not very intelligent. Sensitive.

Resorts to repeating things with no factual backing like "enjoy the impeachment"

Trump’s getting impeached is a factual statement. You’re not enjoying it? I was expecting an intelligent reply. Let’s start here:

Are tariffs taxes on US consumers?

Greater addition to US GDP growth and prosperity: technology, entertainment & finance, or manufacturing?

Can trumpism impede the flow of money, labor, goods and services to their highest and best use?

No, technology, no

There, I played your dumb little game

These hearings =/= impeachment

Kill yourself

Don’t run away all frustrated and mad.

So you think tariffs are not taxes on US consumers. Who pays them then?

Country's being tariffed pay tariffs.

Let me guess, youre anti-tariff? Interesting.

Fucking Chinese communist

CirrhosisDawg said:

PGOS believed Husky Stadium was going to be a pea patch.

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PGOS believed Husky Stadium was going to be a pea patch.

Nah, just that the remodel wouldn't go through

Great libtard pivot as always

Not a pivot. You were an imbecile 10 years ago. You’re a retard today. There’s no difference between the pea patch and trump’s tariffs. They are both things stupid people believe.

Great non argument as always.

You really are a fucking retarded piece of shit.

Deep down you know that.

MikeDamone said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PGOS believed Husky Stadium was going to be a pea patch.

Nah, just that the remodel wouldn't go through

Great libtard pivot as always

Not a pivot. You were an imbecile 10 years ago. You’re a retard today. There’s no difference between the pea patch and trump’s tariffs. They are both things stupid people believe.

Great non argument as always.

You really are a fucking retarded piece of shit.

Deep down you know that.

No one’s stopping you from making an argument. Fundamental and elementary micro economic theory posits that tariffs are taxes on consumers. You state without any factual basis that the tariffed country pays the tax. Back it up you’re the same pea patch retard you’ve always been.

The importers remit the tax. The cost is paid by the manufacturer who may or may not pass it along. I work with companies subject to tariffs. So add it as a surcharge, some are eating it. What happens when the good gets to the end user/customer I don't know. But a "country" doesn't pay it.

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PGOS believed Husky Stadium was going to be a pea patch.

Nah, just that the remodel wouldn't go through

Great libtard pivot as always

Not a pivot. You were an imbecile 10 years ago. You’re a retard today. There’s no difference between the pea patch and trump’s tariffs. They are both things stupid people believe.

Great non argument as always.

You really are a fucking retarded piece of shit.

Deep down you know that.

No one’s stopping you from making an argument. Fundamental and elementary micro economic theory posits that tariffs are taxes on consumers. You state without any factual basis that the tariffed country pays the tax. Back it up you’re the same pea patch retard you’ve always been.

Tariffs can increase consumer costs. Blanket labeling them as "taxes on the consumers" is about as elementary as it gets.

What do you think the purpose of a tariff is, professor?

Same as all taxes. To interject government dictates into consumer pricing decisions that favor inefficient and obsolete but politically favored industries.

Holy fucking shit you are wrong. And dumb.

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PGOS believed Husky Stadium was going to be a pea patch.

Nah, just that the remodel wouldn't go through

Great libtard pivot as always

Not a pivot. You were an imbecile 10 years ago. You’re a retard today. There’s no difference between the pea patch and trump’s tariffs. They are both things stupid people believe.

Great non argument as always.

You really are a fucking retarded piece of shit.

Deep down you know that.

No one’s stopping you from making an argument. Fundamental and elementary micro economic theory posits that tariffs are taxes on consumers. You state without any factual basis that the tariffed country pays the tax. Back it up you’re the same pea patch retard you’ve always been.

Tariffs can increase consumer costs. Blanket labeling them as "taxes on the consumers" is about as elementary as it gets.

What do you think the purpose of a tariff is, professor?

Same as all taxes. To interject government dictates into consumer pricing decisions that favor inefficient and obsolete but politically favored industries.

Holy fucking shit you are wrong. And dumb.

You haven’t made one single argument in your dozen-post meltdown PeaPatch.

Neither have you.

Why did Trump tariff China? Lets hear it. This will be good.