I think MANY would.



The unprovoked personal shots you've taken at me today are justified because you think I might respond in kind?

After today I think you should drop the "I only take shots at people when they come after me" card from your deck.

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

Seeing that you have taken shots at me on numerous occasions it is difficult for you to assert that you don't fit the criteria.

I'm certain in your incessant need to engage in legalese that it won't be difficult for you to find wiggle room.

In addition whenever one attempts to presume what others on here might be thinking it only further serves to demonstrate the weakness in the point that they are attempting to make.

I should stop posting yet Neo Nazis have a right to speak. Interesting. Very interesting.

_________________

Too much discourse.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Things sure are weird lately.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Any comments on the obstruction or Wynn there Mikey?

Must be the weather and being inside too long.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Nope but I’m enjoying some Sierra Nevada Torpedo. You?

_________________
Elections have consequences.

So, once again, the guy that portrays his ad hominem attacks as strictly retaliatory is arguing that his unprovoked personal barbs today are in fact retaliation for a separate incident.

I don't think that's how it works.



In a thread which we have derailed into a referendum on whether you use implications of racism with varying degrees of subtlety as an argumentative tactic when things don't go your way, it's probably not a wise choice to make a not-so-subtle implication of racism against your sparring partner in the same thread in which you have defended your assertions that you don't make use of such a tactic regularly.

Yes: There has been no obstruction.

This is possibly the dumbest statement you have made on the board. Did Chas give you some of the good drugs or something?

Which elements of obstruction has Trump satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, given present evidence? This is bearing in mind, of course, that he is the head of the federal law enforcement agencies and charging the chief executive with obstruction for exercising his due authority has never ever been tested in court, as Nixon and Clinton were impeached on other obstruction elements (encouraging perjury).

_________________

I can just reuse my response to JORR. "Mr. President. Did you order my firing?" Yes is obstruction. No is perjury. It's cute how you need to distract.