Dave Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dump said: Nah he’s scared shitless of guns Probably right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: I have admitted there was no collusion found. Wtf dude, why are you having so much trouble comprehending this? Found. Do you still believe it happened though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 If the Russian lawyer did hand material damaging to Hillary, what would you call that, since it does not meet the definition of collusion? You can never answer that question. Don’t respond with but he didn’t. Or not collusion. I want to know what you’d call that IF it happened Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dump said: Found. Do you still believe it happened though? No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: If the Russian lawyer did hand material damaging to Hillary, what would you call that, since it does not meet the definition of collusion? You can never answer that question. Don’t respond with but he didn’t. Or not collusion. I want to know what you’d call that IF it happened I call that doing what Hillarys team did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: No So we were all right then and you were wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: If the Russian lawyer did hand material damaging to Hillary, what would you call that, since it does not meet the definition of collusion? You can never answer that question. Don’t respond with but he didn’t. Or not collusion. I want to know what you’d call that IF it happened I’d call it oppo research. If it didn’t mean the bar of collusion or illegal according to Mueller, it’s called business of elections. Everyone does it. Elections 101 as you loved to say when your guys were doing it... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 minute ago, STUMP said: I call that doing what Hillarys team did. Shocking, another nonanswer.l and a lane deflection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: I’d call it oppo research. If it didn’t mean the bar of collusion or illegal according to Mueller, it’s called business of elections. Everyone does it. Elections 101 as you loved to say when your guys were doing it... Thank you for an honest and mature answer. If this chick was russian gov? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: Shocking, another nonanswer.l and a lane deflection. No ones shocked you cant accept the findings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 Just now, Snoslinger said: Thank you for an honest and mature answer. If this chick was russian gov? Its the same answer i gave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 Why some of you are too pussified to answer is comical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 Just now, Snoslinger said: Why some of you are too pussified to answer is comical Youre the type of guy that wouldnt accept the answers no matter what....unless they were a liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 It would still not mean “collusion”, right xlt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 11 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: If the Russian lawyer did hand material damaging to Hillary, what would you call that, since it does not meet the definition of collusion? You can never answer that question. Don’t respond with but he didn’t. Or not collusion. I want to know what you’d call that IF it happened Hillary literally got intel from Russian agents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, STUMP said: Youre the type of guy that wouldnt accept the answers no matter what....unless they were a liberal. Go back to the nursery with sludgey. you had your chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 8 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: Go back to the nursery with sludgey. you had your chance I said the same thing as xlt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 15 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: Thank you for an honest and mature answer. If this chick was russian gov? See below. 12 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: It would still not mean “collusion”, right xlt? I’m not a lawyer or prosecutor. I’d say no soley off the fact that Mueller said it wasn’t collusion. How he got to that conclusion is not privy to me. I don’t need to know how though. Just that it wasn’t. He’s honorable enough that I can accept that without needing his synopsis of the meeting itself. He didn’t cut corners, he didn’t Comey this shit up, he did his job. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 32 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: If the Russian lawyer did hand material damaging to Hillary, what would you call that, since it does not meet the definition of collusion? You can never answer that question. Don’t respond with but he didn’t. Or not collusion. I want to know what you’d call that IF it happened If..? Really? I would call it another one of your fabricated fantasies. Your fabrications are pure bull shit. Thats what I would call it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry ginger Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 hour ago, ford_428cj said: almost all the people in closed down us plants were offered other opportunities from the time it was announced with nothing to do with trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 9 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: See below. I’m not a lawyer or prosecutor. I’d say no soley off the fact that Mueller said it wasn’t collusion. How he got to that conclusion is not privy to me. I don’t need to know how though. Just that it wasn’t. He’s honorable enough that I can accept that without needing his synopsis of the meeting itself. He didn’t cut corners, he didn’t Comey this shit up, he did his job. i pretty much agree. there was not enough evidence of collusion there to make a collusion charge. but where is the "cut-off" for a charge? imo, taking opponent dirt, from an arm of a foreign enemy, should not be legal. it certainly shouldn't mean complete innocence. some sort of charge should be filed, if that happened. regarding evidence it did? we have proof that russians,who represented the russian gov (almost exact words in jr e-mail chain) had hillary dirt to offer, and proof that jr met to acquire it. i don't believe for a second nothing was handed over or discussed, and it was done to get trumps to the table about adoptions. i suspect, hope, you don't believe that line of crap either. but even if dirt was handed over, mueller would have to still make the claim "no collusion". these are reasons i want to see the full report. get mueller's findings and thought on what happened aty places like trump tower. some of these clowns are saying hillary did the same thing. that's complete bullshit. the hillary camp worked with a former british spy, who was an expert in russian behavior, because he worked in it for many years and trump has a bad history there. he was also not part of a hostile government towards the US who broke into the DNC server and stole e-mails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: i pretty much agree. there was not enough evidence of collusion there to make a collusion charge. but where is the "cut-off" for a charge? imo, taking opponent dirt, from an arm of a foreign enemy, should not be legal. it certainly shouldn't mean complete innocence. some sort of charge should be filed, if that happened. regarding evidence it did? we have proof that russians,who represented the russian gov (almost exact words in jr e-mail chain) had hillary dirt to offer, and proof that jr met to acquire it. i don't believe for a second nothing was handed over or discussed, and it was done to get trumps to the table about adoptions. i suspect, hope, you don't believe that line of crap either. but even if dirt was handed over, mueller would have to still make the claim "no collusion". these are reasons i want to see the full report. get mueller's findings and thought on what happened aty places like trump tower. some of these clowns are saying hillary did the same thing. that's complete bullshit. the hillary camp worked with a former british spy, who was an expert in russian behavior, because he worked in it for many years and trump has a bad history there. he was also not part of a hostile government towards the US who broke into the DNC server and stole e-mails. Wow. Your ability to fabricate the most incredible stories is uncanny. Its no surprise that no one here takes you seriously any more. Your mental breakdown is almost complete. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 11 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: i pretty much agree. there was not enough evidence of collusion there to make a collusion charge. but where is the "cut-off" for a charge? imo, taking opponent dirt, from an arm of a foreign enemy, should not be legal. it certainly shouldn't mean complete innocence. some sort of charge should be filed, if that happened. regarding evidence it did? we have proof that russians,who represented the russian gov (almost exact words in jr e-mail chain) had hillary dirt to offer, and proof that jr met to acquire it. i don't believe for a second nothing was handed over or discussed, and it was done to get trumps to the table about adoptions. i suspect, hope, you don't believe that line of crap either. but even if dirt was handed over, mueller would have to still make the claim "no collusion". these are reasons i want to see the full report. get mueller's findings and thought on what happened aty places like trump tower. some of these clowns are saying hillary did the same thing. that's complete bullshit. the hillary camp worked with a former british spy, who was an expert in russian behavior, because he worked in it for many years and trump has a bad history there. he was also not part of a hostile government towards the US who broke into the DNC server and stole e-mails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 26, 2019 Author Share Posted March 26, 2019 2 hours ago, Snoslinger said: If the Russian lawyer did hand material damaging to Hillary, what would you call that, since it does not meet the definition of collusion? You can never answer that question. Don’t respond with but he didn’t. Or not collusion. I want to know what you’d call that IF it happened I answered2 or 3 times. 1 hour ago, Snoslinger said: Thank you for an honest and mature answer. If this chick was russian gov? If she knew factually HRC broke law and proved it, I'd say thank you. 1 hour ago, Snoslinger said: Why some of you are too pussified to answer is comical Wanna know what comical? 1 hour ago, Snoslinger said: i pretty much agree. there was not enough evidence of collusion there to make a collusion charge. but where is the "cut-off" for a charge? imo, taking opponent dirt, from an arm of a foreign enemy, should not be legal. it certainly shouldn't mean complete innocence. some sort of charge should be filed, if that happened. regarding evidence it did? we have proof that russians,who represented the russian gov (almost exact words in jr e-mail chain) had hillary dirt to offer, and proof that jr met to acquire it. i don't believe for a second nothing was handed over or discussed, and it was done to get trumps to the table about adoptions. i suspect, hope, you don't believe that line of crap either. but even if dirt was handed over, mueller would have to still make the claim "no collusion". these are reasons i want to see the full report. get mueller's findings and thought on what happened aty places like trump tower. some of these clowns are saying hillary did the same thing. that's complete bullshit. the hillary camp worked with a former british spy, who was an expert in russian behavior, because he worked in it for many years and trump has a bad history there. he was also not part of a hostile government towards the US who broke into the DNC server and stole e-mails. Trump is your president. Get the fuck over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 26, 2019 Author Share Posted March 26, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.