Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

There are photos of Joe Biden and Hunter meeting with and Playing golf with Burisma people.  Those who say that they  don't have evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong, just need to read the article over at the NY Post which has indicated that there were 10,000 emails or more on Hunter Biden's hard Drive.

These emails were from Burisma TO Hunter Biden, thanking him for arranging a meeting between them and Joe Biden himself.  Hunter referred to his father as "My Guy".  

To the Dems who couldn't give a damn and to the Repubs who don't want to hear or know the facts, the facts are this, Hunter Biden used his father's position as Vice President to sell favoratism to them through his father's office of the VP.

It sure is odd that Joe Biden says he didn't have any idea what was going on between his son and Burisma, and claimed not even to know about Burisma is a big stretch when there are photos, taken in the last few years that show him and his son Hunter playing golf with 2 Burisma executives.

Hunter was paid all Kinds of money in the millions From Burisma, in exchange for access to his father.

But hey, there was nothing nefarious there on Joe Biden's part, was there?  No not at all.  Maybe Joe just forgot who he met with.

That's why Facebook and Twitter are now CENSORING the article and the information, to protect Joe Biden.

They are as corrupt as are Joe Biden and his son.  

Can you link to the photo?  If it is the one showing Devon Archer on the left and Hunter on the right, it's no big deal.   I saw the email from Burisma TO Hunter Biden, thanking him for arranging a meeting between them and Joe Biden himself.  Is there any corroborating evidence that the meeting actually occurred?  Like I said, Hunter Biden appears to be a grifter.  It is possible however that Burisma's investment in Hunter turned out to be a very bad investment.  Meaning they got no return in the form of access to the VP.  They merely got a highly paid loser on the board for a while.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

And lastly, let me end my final conversation with you 

Promise?

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Really?  So now you're full blown leftist race baiter are you? 

How did I inject racism and how am I racist you scumbag?  

I simply talked about the economics of adding a nation that is simply dominated by crime, poverty, and political corruption, into the US so that taxpayers can be saddled with a nation in poverty, which will do NOTHING for the citizenry of My country.

You really are adopting all the sleazy innuendo and attack ploys of the left aren't you since you've lurched left?

Is that a common result when one's brain shrinks like yours obviously has?

You indicated that you see nothing wrong with the Left adding PR as a state.

I asked you to list some benefits of the US taking on poverty stricken nations and explain how that possibly benefits the US taxpayer, and like the maggot you are you little punk, your only response is to call me a racist.

Since you're impotent to do so, I'll just take your response, as a "No, I'm too damned stupid to give any positive benefits of adding PR as a state".  

And lastly, let me end my final conversation with you by telling you to take Greg's finger, shove it up your ass and rotate on it.  F' you and the horse you rode in on you POS.

Looks like I spun you up pretty good.  I wonder why?

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

How did I inject racism 

"44% of their 3.2 Million citizens live below the poverty line. 

So then by taking them on as a state, we now straddle taxpaying Americans when nearly half of their citizens might just go on the public dole and we get to subsidize them now even MORE than we already do at $22 Billion per year or so. 

Since so many of their citizens are living below the poverty line, we will now be aiding them EVEN MORE.

We certainly need that, don't we now? 

Crime is rampant there. 

So the poverty and crime rate there is through the roof.  That sounds great doesn't it?

Why don't we add Liberia as a state?  I imagine you can see no reason why we shouldn't take on Liberia?  After all, they have a long tie to us from waaaaaay back when. "

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Why don't you tell us all how you really feel, go ahead and let it all out. You'll feel better afterwards.

Oh, remind me what BB is short for? You and your nicknames...........   

Best Buddy?
Brilliant Brown? 
Boldly Beautiful?
Bilbo Baggins?  

No, it means "Bookkeeper Brown"  Not sure why that is derogatory, but I'm not sure why Rich does a lot of the things he does!   

Jim

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Not man enough to offer up your own finger?

Eeeww...  

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Thats some bullshit right there Jim.....what the hell do those *facts* have to do with racism?

Hi Greg:

The Liberia comment was a clue to his mindset, I could be wrong of course.  Because of that, I didn't actually call Rich a racist.  That is his hysterical spin.  In retrospect it was a questionable move on my part, since it conveniently gave Rich an out - you'll recall that he originally stated that adding Puerto Rico as a state was a radical leftist ploy.  He has never disavowed that, and he won't, he does not have the balls to admit his errors.  He never has.  

There are arguments for or against admitting Puerto Rico, as I acknowledged earlier.  But if Puerto Rico follows the constitutional plan to achieve statehood it is neither leftist or radical.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Racist???????? How so? If one looks at the facts and makes a logical conclusion that makes you racist? Really?

No, that is simply a leftist cop out....For someone who claims to be a conservative you sure do dip into those waters at times.....

Like I just mentioned, I don't think Rich is a racist, but his social arguments against PR statehood (not his economic arguments) are racist arguments.  I stand by that.  Do you also agree with Rich, that the mere thought of PR statehood is some sort of radical leftist plot?

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Further, he claims to be a person who is guided by the Constitution, realizes full well that PR will add Democrat votes that upset the balance in the Senate to the left, knows that this is the only reason that leftist Democrats want to engage in this blatant political move, and isn't even bright enough to think through the ramifications of Upsetting the balance of the Senate forever.  

Right there.  This is the mother of all self-owns.  I am guided by the Constitution.  If PR and the Congress can qualify PR through the Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 processes that were applied most recently to Hawaii and Alaska, then PR can become a state.  End of discussion.  I know damn well that this means we have two more D senators.  WHY DOES THAT MATTER RICH???  The Constitution and my analysis is blind to a result I might find undesirable.  For me, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 controls, whether I like the result or not.

Not so with you though.  You think the Democrats threatening to follow Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, is a "radical leftist" plot.  For you, the application of the Constitution is obviously result dependent:   "PR will add Democrat votes that upset the balance in the Senate to the left, knows that this is the only reason that leftist Democrats want to engage in this blatant political move, and isn't even bright enough to think through the ramifications of Upsetting the balance of the Senate forever."

If Scalia were alive, and you whined that PR would add D votes to the Senate, he would say, "So what?  It is not my job to worry about the results, it is my job to ensure the Constitution is followed."  

How embarrassing for you.  You have exactly the same mindset as those who would ignore the 2nd Amendment just because guns frighten them.  As I've said before, you are a conservative of convenience.  On this particular issue you would entirely disregard the Constitution because you hate the result.   I fully understand that you support each and every emanation from Trump's twitter feed.  That fact does not make you a conservative though.  Far from it.  A genuine conservative respects, honors, and implements the Constitution no matter how distasteful the result to him or her personally. 

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It's worse than a hoax; it's a Russian disinformation intelligence operation. The reason Facebook and Twitter are blocking it, and other media outlets other than Fox News are not reporting it as factual is because it is so obviously a specious story. The White House was even warned by the intelligence community that Russia targeted Guilliani to feed misinformation to Trump.

Hi James:

I skimmed an article pushing this angle in Mother Jones yesterday, but I don't find them to be particularly credible. 

Do you have a better source for the allegation that this is Russian disinformation?   I'm curious how much is supposed to be Russian disinformation.  Is the allegation that the laptop itself is bogus and that the contents are fabricated?  I have not heard the Biden camp say that yet.  Or is the allegation that Russia and Giuliani are pushing implications of Joe Biden's involvement not justified by the evidence?  Or something else?    

Jim