Who’s paying for

[IUCrazy2]

Have you ever noticed that when one side takes a stance, and provides links to evidence, the other side says they are being “duped”because of the biased reporting? That side then says you have to do the “research” if you want to know the truth, and then they either provide nothing in the way of guidance, or post links to sites that are at least equally dubious, if not out and out bullshit. Their sources are the real truth, and those who don’t swallow it up are dupes who are brainwashed by the msm.
Here’s a hint: just because a source supports your point of view doesn’t mean everyone else is being “duped”. In fact, it’s probably quite the opposite. I always consider any poster who uses the term “duped” to argue a point, as someone who really has no argument.

Hope you aren't talking about me with dubious links. Everything I posted was widely reported.

I also don't think anyone is being duped. Willfully ignorant, absolutely. Duped? Nah. Nobody wants to believe they voted for the bad guy so there is a bunch of excuse making and hem hawing from everyone right now because there was no good guy to vote for in 2020.

 

[IUCrazy2]

That. Garbage. Is. Not. Evidence... At. Least. Not. Yet.

And. Despite. What. You. Wrote,. You Absolutely. Do. Not. Want. A. "Real." "Investigation."

Your. Posts. Show. That. Your. Mind. Is. Made. Up. Already.

It is evidence. It may not be evidence of a crime on Joe's part (it was on Hunter's he already plead to about the weakest stuff he could have been charged with to try and make this go away) but it is enough evidence to indicate that a crime might have been committed and should be looked into.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Hope you aren't talking about me with dubious links. Everything I posted was widely reported.

I also don't think anyone is being duped. Willfully ignorant, absolutely. Duped? Nah. Nobody wants to believe they voted for the bad guy so their is a bunch of excuse making and him having from everyone right now because there was no good guy to vote for in 2020.

The strongest support I have seen here for voting for Biden is that he wasn't Trump.
The strongest defense of Biden I have seen here is "If any real evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered, he deserves to be prosecuted."
The "evidence" you post is no different than the "evidence" that is posted against Trump. Believing in only one type of "evidence" is not proof of its veracity.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Right. As I suspected, pretty harsh punishment meted out for clearly stupid behavior. I get that not every case is a slam dunk but I have a hard time believing they can't figure it out in one of the most secure and surveilled buildings on planet earth.

ETA: They said this was found in a cubby next to the situation room. Drug test everyone in the area that day. All you need is a strand of hair.

They may find the perpetrator and they may not. I still don’t get the outrage about it.

 

[IUCrazy2]

They may find the perpetrator and they may not. I still don’t get the outrage about it.

Define outrage.

I think a baggie of cocaine being found near the situation room of the White House is going to be a pretty big story no matter who is in there. It goes in so many directions. Entitlement. Poor security. Poor decision makers at the very top of government. More instances of the "betters" getting treatment that normal Americans do not and would not get. How closely related nose candy and all of its sub versions are related to this President. Take your pick.

 

[IUCrazy2]

The strongest support I have seen here for voting for Biden is that he wasn't Trump.

Yeah, I alluded to that.

The strongest defense of Biden I have seen here is "If any real evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered, he deserves to be prosecuted."

Yeah, I see that constantly and my retort is always the same. This is a non-answer answer.

"Someone stole the pie from our windowsill and there are footprints that lead from our window to Mr. Jones house. I think he took it."

"Well if there is any evidence that Mr. Jones took it, he should be prosecuted."

"Cool, can we go look at his house and see if he has the pie?"

"Well, I need to see some solid evidence that he has the pie before I would be convinced he was in the wrong."

"Yeah, totally. And the footprints leading from my pie's last location to his door aren't at least enough to go and check him out?"

"I mean if there is any evidence he took it then he should be in trouble."

"I agree, can we go investigate?"

"Well I would need to see some evidence because right now all you have is wild accusations."

"Pie stolen. Footprints to his house. Enough there to take a look right?"

"If he committed a crime he should be prosecuted."

"Oh for ****'s sake, I give up..."

The "evidence" you post is no different than the "evidence" that is posted against Trump. Believing in only one type of "evidence" is not proof of its veracity.

What Joe did or did not do has nothing to do with Donald Trump. He has his own threads of ne'er-do-well activity to chastise him in.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Yeah, I alluded to that.

Yeah, I see that constantly and my retort is always the same. This is a non-answer answer.

"Someone stole the pie from our windowsill and there are footprints that lead from our window to Mr. Jones house. I think he took it."

"Well if there is any evidence that Mr. Jones took it, he should be prosecuted."

"Cool, can we go look at his house and see if he has the pie?"

"Well, I need to see some solid evidence that he has the pie before I would be convinced he was in the wrong."

"Yeah, totally. And the footprints leading from my pie's last location to his door aren't at least enough to go and check him out?"

"I mean if there is any evidence he took it then he should be in trouble."

"I agree, can we go investigate?"

"Well I would need to see some evidence because right now all you have is wild accusations."

"Pie stolen. Footprints to his house. Enough there to take a look right?"

"If he committed a crime he should be prosecuted."

"Oh for ****'s sake, I give up..."

What Joe did or did not do has nothing to do with Donald Trump. He has his own threads of ne'er-do-well activity to chastise him in.

The thing is, that "non-answer answer" is the most important aspect of our justice system, and I hope the FoxNewsChannels of the world never wash it out of our brains.

 

[IUCrazy2]

The thing is, that "non-answer answer" is the most important aspect of our justice system, and I hope the FoxNewsChannels of the world never wash it out of our brains.

No it isn't and I laid that out for you. An investigation and even an indictment are not a presumption of guilt. You guys seem to be suggesting that you need almost overwhelming evidence of guilt before an investigation can be launched.
"Prove he did it and then I will be willing to really look at it."

And before anyone hops in and says they aren't against an investigation, I would say that many of you are pretty vociferously antagonistic to that idea whenever it is brought up. That silly scenario I posted above is exactly how this conversation is going. You don't have to have incontrovertible proof or evidence that someone is guilty before you investigate them. That isn't how the system works. The Delphi murderer would still be walking free today based on the investigating standard that you guys are throwing up to look into Biden.

I want an investigative team that has all the powers of the FBI/Police/etc. (i.e. not Congress) that is independent of the President's chain of command to follow some of the questions raised by the evidence in Hunter's wrong doings. Then if the President is guilty of crimes, he should be in trouble as you all say. If not, then he goes on his way.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

No it isn't and I laid that out for you. An investigation and even an indictment are not a presumption of guilt. You guys seem to be suggesting that you need almost overwhelming evidence of guilt before an investigation can be launched.
"Prove he did it and then I will be willing to really look at it."

And before anyone hops in and says they aren't against an investigation, I would say that many of you are pretty vociferously antagonistic to that idea whenever it is brought up. That silly scenario I posted above is exactly how this conversation is going. You don't have to have incontrovertible proof or evidence that someone is guilty before you investigate them. That isn't how the system works. The Delphi murderer would still be walking free today based on the investigating standard that you guys are throwing up to look into Biden.

I want an investigative team that has all the powers of the FBI/Police/etc. (i.e. not Congress) that is independent of the President's chain of command to follow some of the questions raised by the evidence in Hunter's wrong doings. Then if the President is guilty of crimes, he should be in trouble as you all say. If not, then he goes on his way.

But you have to have enough evidence to constitute probable cause to start an investigation. You obviously think that level has been reached...based upon the sources you read. Those sources agree with your bias, and are therefore damning at their core. The bottom line is, the public doesn't know shit.
And, remember, you can't use Trump as a yabbut...you closed that door in post #86.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Yeah, I alluded to that.

Yeah, I see that constantly and my retort is always the same. This is a non-answer answer.

"Someone stole the pie from our windowsill and there are footprints that lead from our window to Mr. Jones house. I think he took it."

"Well if there is any evidence that Mr. Jones took it, he should be prosecuted."

"Cool, can we go look at his house and see if he has the pie?"

"Well, I need to see some solid evidence that he has the pie before I would be convinced he was in the wrong."

"Yeah, totally. And the footprints leading from my pie's last location to his door aren't at least enough to go and check him out?"

"I mean if there is any evidence he took it then he should be in trouble."

"I agree, can we go investigate?"

"Well I would need to see some evidence because right now all you have is wild accusations."

"Pie stolen. Footprints to his house. Enough there to take a look right?"

"If he committed a crime he should be prosecuted."

"Oh for ****'s sake, I give up..."

What Joe did or did not do has nothing to do with Donald Trump. He has his own threads of ne'er-do-well activity to chastise him in.

Your evidence isn't nearly that good. Right now it is mostly conjecture that you are trying to paint as solid evidence.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

No it isn't and I laid that out for you. An investigation and even an indictment are not a presumption of guilt. You guys seem to be suggesting that you need almost overwhelming evidence of guilt before an investigation can be launched.
"Prove he did it and then I will be willing to really look at it."

And before anyone hops in and says they aren't against an investigation, I would say that many of you are pretty vociferously antagonistic to that idea whenever it is brought up. That silly scenario I posted above is exactly how this conversation is going. You don't have to have incontrovertible proof or evidence that someone is guilty before you investigate them. That isn't how the system works. The Delphi murderer would still be walking free today based on the investigating standard that you guys are throwing up to look into Biden.

I want an investigative team that has all the powers of the FBI/Police/etc. (i.e. not Congress) that is independent of the President's chain of command to follow some of the questions raised by the evidence in Hunter's wrong doings. Then if the President is guilty of crimes, he should be in trouble as you all say. If not, then he goes on his way.

What is the possibility that some of our enforcement agencies feel that if the American people KNOW that a president is a spy, is more dangerous to democracy than a president ACTUALLY being a spy and it not being proven?

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

What is the possibility that some of our enforcement agencies feel that if the American people KNOW that a president is a spy, is more dangerous to democracy than a president ACTUALLY being a spy and it not being proven?

Zero

 

[IUCrazy2]

But you have to have enough evidence to constitute probable cause to start an investigation. You obviously think that level has been reached...based upon the sources you read. Those sources agree with your bias, and are therefore damning at their core. The bottom line is, the public doesn't know shit.
And, remember, you can't use Trump as a yabbut...you closed that door in post #86.

Yeah, so again you guys aren't into looking at what is there. Admitted criminal who plead guilty to not paying taxes on money he did not report who is on record with the same individuals he got that money from saying his Dad is there and his business associates on video saying the Big Guy is Joe and he was getting a cut is direct sources.

There is enough there. You guys are just playing ****ing games.

 

[snarlcakes]

First, that post was about Biden, not Trump. Why is it impossible for Trumpsters to not think every issue is related to Trump?

Second, let's make a deal. You stop worshiping him, and he goes through all his criminal trials to whatever conclusion is reached, and we can stop talking about him. In the meantime, I consider him an embarrassment to the Republican party and the nation.

I know the post was about Biden, which is why my initial response didn’t mention Trump. You brought Trump into the discussion because you are obsessed with him.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Your evidence isn't nearly that good. Right now it is mostly conjecture that you are trying to paint as solid evidence.

Dumb

 

[snarlcakes]

Yeah, so again you guys aren't into looking at what is there. Admitted criminal who plead guilty to not paying taxes on money he did not report who is on record with the same individuals he got that money from saying his Dad is there and his business associates on video saying the Big Guy is Joe and he was getting a cut is direct sources.

There is enough there. You guys are just playing ****ing games.

It’s why these threads are pointless. It’s my team versus your team. Democrats are never going to admit to Biden’s wrongdoings and Republicans aren’t going to admit to Trump’s wrongdoings.

 

[mcmurtry66]

It’s why these threads are pointless. It’s my team versus your team. Democrats are never going to admit to Biden’s wrongdoing and Republicans aren’t going to admit to Trump’s wrongdoing.

It’s also why losing Cray was such a big deal. We. Cannot. Let. Them. Breathe!!! He was a workhorse. Someone suggested mohoosier but he simply doesn’t have the motor of cray.

 

[snarlcakes]

It’s also why losing Cray was such a big deal. We. Cannot. Let. Them. Breathe!!! He was a workhorse. Someone suggested mohoosier but he simply doesn’t have the motor of cray.

He’s a high energy glue guy that keeps the team together. I got them on the ropes in the cocaine thread. Cray would be proud.

 

[DANC]

For what it's worth, I think Democrats will be in line with your thinking if Biden is credibly implicated in any type of corruption. "Credibly" is the key word here. As of this typing, there has been a lot of teeth gnashing about Biden and his family being more corrupt than the Corleones or the Trumps, but to date no credible evidence has been offered to that effect.

"I am sitting here with my father"

Hunter Demanded Payment from Chinese Partner: 'Sitting Here with My Father'

Hunter Biden demanded in 2017 to be paid by his CCP-linked Chinese businessman Henry Zhao while President Joe Biden was "sitting" next to him.

www.breitbart.com

Who are you trying to fool? You wouldn't be convinced if there was a check made out to Joe himself.

 

[DANC]

It’s also why losing Cray was such a big deal. We. Cannot. Let. Them. Breathe!!! He was a workhorse. Someone suggested mohoosier but he simply doesn’t have the motor of cray.

How do you know mohoosier isn't cray?

 

[mcmurtry66]

How do you know mohoosier isn't cray?

I know. Level of volatility is very different.

 

[82hoosier]

Right. As I suspected, pretty harsh punishment meted out for clearly stupid behavior. I get that not every case is a slam dunk but I have a hard time believing they can't figure it out in one of the most secure and surveilled buildings on planet earth.

ETA: They said this was found in a cubby next to the situation room. Drug test everyone in the area that day. All you need is a strand of hair.

We have politicians calling for members of the opposite party to be tried for treason and or executed. My initial thought that this was some sophomore prank.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I know. Level of volatility is very different.

But, not intelligence.

 

[stollcpa]

But, not intelligence.

Sorry, not fair.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Sorry, not fair.

You’re right. I apologize to whichever one you think deserves it.

 

[T.M.P.]

Dumb

Violation! You are not permitted to use that word. That's our word.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Violation! You are not permitted to use that word. That's our word.

@Univee2

Can we get a ruling on this? Has PMS prankster ever officially filed copyright or is his claim grandfathered in?

 

[DANC]

We have politicians calling for members of the opposite party to be tried for treason and or executed. My initial thought that this was some sophomore prank.

Yeah, that never happened before Biden, did it?

 

[stollcpa]

You’re right. I apologize to whichever one you think deserves it.

You don’t mean that 😂

 

[IUCrazy2]

Violation! You are not permitted to use that word. That's our word.

And nobody owns it better than IUHickory.....

 

[DANC]

And nobody owns it better than IUHickory.....

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

You don’t mean that 😂

Yes, I do. You tell me whom to apologize to in your mind. I am sincere, but not sure which one I insulted. Your call.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

View embedded media

Just what was Ward's hands doing to Zeke there? I mean June.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I know the post was about Biden, which is why my initial response didn’t mention Trump. You brought Trump into the discussion because you are obsessed with him.

You brought up Trump in the post I responded to. You brought Trump into the discussion, not me.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Define outrage.

I think a baggie of cocaine being found near the situation room of the White House is going to be a pretty big story no matter who is in there. It goes in so many directions. Entitlement. Poor security. Poor decision makers at the very top of government. More instances of the "betters" getting treatment that normal Americans do not and would not get. How closely related nose candy and all of its sub versions are related to this President. Take your pick.

Sorry. So far, it's just not super interesting. They find that it belongs to a General, Admiral, Cabinet Secretary or someone like that, it'll be interesting. For now, my money is on one of the White House workers or construction workers but could be someone else and it could get interesting.

 

[IU_Hickory]

And nobody owns it better than IUHickory.....

Bad case of hds?

 

[Stuffshot]

@Univee2

Can we get a ruling on this? Has PMS prankster ever officially filed copyright or is his claim grandfathered in?

I bet Gene Simmons tried to copyright or trademark it. He's tried to claim more than 100 words, common phrases and popular icons as his own.

Gene Simmons Says He Owns The Money Bag Logo, ‘Motion Pictures’ Trademark

Gene Simmons Says He Owns The Money Bag Logo, ‘Motion Pictures’ Trademark

www.inquisitr.com

 

[Stuffshot]

The strongest support I have seen here for voting for Biden is that he wasn't Trump.
The strongest defense of Biden I have seen here is "If any real evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered, he deserves to be prosecuted."
The "evidence" you post is no different than the "evidence" that is posted against Trump. Believing in only one type of "evidence" is not proof of its veracity.

Actually, none of his claimed "evidence" against Biden is really evidence. Here is my summary from my earlier post of what he is relying on:

-- Guilty pleas in a different case
-- New York Times "verifying" anything at all
-- content of a laptop
-- hearsay from "former business partners"
-- silence from one of Hunter Biden's attorneys

In contrast, much of the evidence against Trump has been reduced to formal sworn statements now in the hands of his prosecutors.

 

[UncleMark]

Actually, none of his claimed "evidence" against Biden is really evidence.

People claiming to have evidence isn't evidence.

 

[twenty02]

So this guy is an interesting character. Be interesting to see what shakes out of this. Heard a radio interview from Brett Baier from Friday, he says they are digging into this guy, but has no opinion on it at this point.

‘Missing’ Biden corruption case witness Dr. Gal Luft details allegations against president’s family in extraordinary video

Israeli professor Dr. Gal Luft laid out his bribery allegations against President Biden’s family in an extraordinary video filmed in an undisclosed location while on the run.

nypost.com