It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Walk of Shame

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: HalWesten


If you don't think it was an actual coup attempt, you're sorely mistaken.


If you think it is, you're sorely misinformed. And ignorant.


I know, but we can't all stomach watching CNN 24/7 like you can.

edit on 15-1-2020 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: HalWesten


If you don't think it was an actual coup attempt, you're sorely mistaken.


If you think it is, you're sorely misinformed. And ignorant.


And true to form, you start using insults. Good job! You need to revisit how our government works and what a coup is. The proof is in the past three years of false accusations, fabricated evidence and scores of blatant liars.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: HalWesten


If you don't think it was an actual coup attempt, you're sorely mistaken.


If you think it is, you're sorely misinformed. And ignorant.


I know, but we can't all stomach watching CNN 24/7 like you can.


I mean, if you want to try to be clever, cool.

But I don't watch CNN.

Nice try.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: HalWesten


If you don't think it was an actual coup attempt, you're sorely mistaken.


If you think it is, you're sorely misinformed. And ignorant.

You need to revisit how our government works and what a coup is.


Exactly, which is what I and others have been saying: it's not a coup. It is literally IN the US Constitution. If you care to read it.

I suggest you revisit the same, because you are sorely misinformed.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I mean if everyone just wanted to be polite and agreeable with each other the mudpit wouldn't exist and we would merely make observation commentary while waiting to see what happens.

I think there are a few here who take themselves a little too seriously, and really think they're doing God's work in berating each other with their opinions.

I see some members here who believe their viewpoints are factual, but really stem from a preconceived bias or conditioning. I see some members here who are using a little more critical thinking, and referencing what's been going on in recent history.

One group wants to be right and victorious, and one side wants the truth to prevail.

How you read this is dependent entirely on where you stand.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Perhaps you should look up 67?

This is farce.


No, it is people using the wrong word because they heard someone else misuse the word.

It seems to happen a fair bit.

Dictionaries aren't too hard to use.

No
The dems need 67 votes in the senate to oust trump

Sorry you STILL do not understand that.

So yes you should STILL look up 67 as you have no understanding.


The impeachment trial is a court case, not a popularity contest.


No it's not, it's a political process. The only reason Roberts is there is because if Trump were removed, Pence would be president so he can't preside.


Actually, it is a Constitutional stipulation that the Chief Justice preside over a Presidential impeachment trial (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6).

Also, the President can't preside < -- there's a bit of screwed up etymology for ya. LOL.

edit on 15/1/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: chr0naut

It doesn't have to fit a definition. It's a magic word-meme that literally means, "watch the democrats lose most of what's left of their party."

This isn't a political race. The president doesn't have an opponent and the only person left on stage who can draw a crowd is Bernie Sanders.

This is bait. The dems will try to bite back on "coup" and swallow the hook.


The President clearly has half of the Government as his opposition.

That is a result of having a predominantly two party system. One party is in Government, the other is in opposition. The Republican party is currently in government. The Democratic party is in opposition.

Currently, in both the Congress and the Senate combined, there are 250 Republican Party members and 278 Democratic Party members.

Trump is behind the eight ball if it were simply a numeric case of opponents vs adherents.

But it isn't about popularity at all.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: HalWesten


If you don't think it was an actual coup attempt, you're sorely mistaken.


If you think it is, you're sorely misinformed. And ignorant.

You need to revisit how our government works and what a coup is.


Exactly, which is what I and others have been saying: it's not a coup. It is literally IN the US Constitution. If you care to read it.

I suggest you revisit the same, because you are sorely misinformed.


You don't understand, the impeachment was a result of the coup attempt. You need to separate the two because they are two different things. If you honestly don't get that I can't help you and no one else can either.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Perhaps you should look up 67?

This is farce.


No, it is people using the wrong word because they heard someone else misuse the word.

It seems to happen a fair bit.

Dictionaries aren't too hard to use.

No
The dems need 67 votes in the senate to oust trump

Sorry you STILL do not understand that.

So yes you should STILL look up 67 as you have no understanding.


The impeachment trial is a court case, not a popularity contest.


No it's not, it's a political process. The only reason Roberts is there is because if Trump were removed, Pence would be president so he can't preside.


Actually, it is a Constitutional stipulation that the Chief Justice preside over a Presidential impeachment trial (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6).

Also, the President can't preside < -- there's a bit of screwed up etymology for ya. LOL.


You're correct, I was remembering part of a conversation I heard earlier where in normal situations, Pence would preside as the chair in case of a tie vote. It's late, I'm tired, my apologies for mixing up the two things.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: HalWesten


If you don't think it was an actual coup attempt, you're sorely mistaken.


If you think it is, you're sorely misinformed. And ignorant.

You need to revisit how our government works and what a coup is.


Exactly, which is what I and others have been saying: it's not a coup. It is literally IN the US Constitution. If you care to read it.

I suggest you revisit the same, because you are sorely misinformed.


You don't understand, the impeachment was a result of the coup attempt. You need to separate the two because they are two different things. If you honestly don't get that I can't help you and no one else can either.



You don't understand: There is no coup.

If you honestly don't get that because of the BS you've been fed and digest, I can't help you.

Read the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: HalWesten


If you don't think it was an actual coup attempt, you're sorely mistaken.


If you think it is, you're sorely misinformed. And ignorant.

You need to revisit how our government works and what a coup is.


Exactly, which is what I and others have been saying: it's not a coup. It is literally IN the US Constitution. If you care to read it.

I suggest you revisit the same, because you are sorely misinformed.


You don't understand, the impeachment was a result of the coup attempt. You need to separate the two because they are two different things. If you honestly don't get that I can't help you and no one else can either.



You don't understand: There is no coup.

If you honestly don't get that because of the BS you've been fed and digest, I can't help you.

Read the Constitution.


Again, I can use Constitutional rules to prosecute you for being a goat molester.

If you've never molested a goat, if I have no proof that you molested a goat, but still use the legal system and my Constitutional authority to prosecute you for molesting a goat, then the best you can hope for is being acquitted for goat molesting.

Because I want that to stain you, I want you gone, I want you injured, I want to disabled. And it really doesn't matter if you've never, ever molested a goat in your life! I want to influence the next election and really, who'd want to vote for a friggin' goat molester?

Because for the rest of your life, you'll be the one guy accused of molesting goats.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: ketsuko

I couldn't think of a way to describe how she appeared while signing it. I thought it was almost child-like when a child gets their way and is all gimme gimme. Like when you give them their favorite food or a big bowl of ice cream.

But stark raving mad really fits too.


I've got to agree with this - and that little 'impish' look on her face at times like a little girl in the spotlight.

It was nauseating.

But at least we didn't have to hear her talk much while trying to figure out what pen to use.

Traitorous hag.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Perhaps you should look up 67?

This is farce.


No, it is people using the wrong word because they heard someone else misuse the word.

It seems to happen a fair bit.

Dictionaries aren't too hard to use.

No
The dems need 67 votes in the senate to oust trump

Sorry you STILL do not understand that.

So yes you should STILL look up 67 as you have no understanding.


The impeachment trial is a court case, not a popularity contest.

Hahaha
No
It is not
Not even in new zealand
Incorrect political analysis as usual
You know little


Well, I present as my argument, the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law
.

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the terminology used to describe, specifically, aspects of judicial court trials. It's clearly a type of court case.

There's a judge - the Chief Justice, prosecutors - the House selected Managers, defense counsel - the Senators and a jury - the Senators.

Witnesses are called, evidence examined, testimony given and argument presented for each case (defense and prosecution).

It isn't a criminal trial, more a civil case, but there is option for a other trials to be held subsequent to impeachment conviction according to law.

edit on 15/1/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

And if I do it right, you get convicted for something I fabricated but you are innocent of merely for being my inconvenient political opponent. But hey, I used the legal system and rules put in place to do it, so it's all good right? You're now a goat molester even though you never actually looked at a goat cross-eyed or sniffed one inappropriately like Joe Biden did.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Perhaps you should look up 67?

This is farce.


No, it is people using the wrong word because they heard someone else misuse the word.

It seems to happen a fair bit.

Dictionaries aren't too hard to use.

No
The dems need 67 votes in the senate to oust trump

Sorry you STILL do not understand that.

So yes you should STILL look up 67 as you have no understanding.


The impeachment trial is a court case, not a popularity contest.

Hahaha
No
It is not
Not even in new zealand
Incorrect political analysis as usual
You know little


Well, I present as my argument, the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law
.

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the terminology used to describe, specifically, aspects of judicial court trials. It's clearly a type of court case.

There's a judge - the Chief Justice, prosecutors - the House selected Managers, defense counsel - the Senators and a jury - the Senators.

Witnesses are called, evidence examined, testimony given and argument presented for each case (defense and prosecution).

It isn't a criminal trial, more a civil case, but there is option for a other trials to be held subsequent to impeachment conviction according to law.


Boom....there it is...very same constitutional amendment that I studied

S&F FOR YOU



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Again, I can use Constitutional rules to prosecute you for being a goat molester.


No you can't.

Your argument about molesting a goat is absurd, has no basis in reality (or the Constitution) and you know it.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



And if I do it right, you get convicted for something I fabricated


Except it's not fabricated. It's pretty real.

That what you all do not get.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: DBCowboy




Again, I can use Constitutional rules to prosecute you for being a goat molester.


No you can't.

Your argument about molesting a goat is absurd, has no basis in reality (or the Constitution) and you know it.


You molesting goats has as much veracity as the democrats impeachment accusations.

Actually, there is no transcript of you NOT molesting goats, so really, I think I'd have a better case than the democrats do.




posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Hunter is a big cog. What did he do to warrant that much income. What were his daily activities working for the company. If he's so amazing and deserves that much income then why is he unemployed. Why can't he find a job. He said himself, he is currently unemployed and down on his luck.

As for Biden not knowing. The Obama team had concerns about it so therefore he did know about it. Hunter also stated he did in fact discuss it with Daddy so right there, Biden is lying. He knew all about it 100%.

All they have to do is call in these two then call in the prosecutor that was fired for looking into the company.

Pelosi just opened up Pandora's box because her son is also engaged in it. Trump baited all of them. Maybe it's an ego thing, thinking they can out maneuver him (haven't yet in almost 4 years) but like sharks attracted to blood, can't resist it no matter what.

Wasn't Podesta's brother and Kerry's relatives involved in all this too?



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well, be fair, they did get academic experts to explain what goat molesting technically actually is and why it's impeachable so ...



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join