It is nothing personal e, But an opinion on something you haven’t seen doesn’t have much value.
21 Beloved Movies, Reviewed By People Who Haven't Seen Them
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
WHY, somebody please tell me, WHY is Hunter Biden a matter for Congress?
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
21 Beloved Movies, Reviewed By People Who Haven't Seen Them
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Well, that certainly was a lot of words to say "No, I did not watch the Jan 6 hearings and therefore, I am uninformed on them."
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
One is an informed opinion, while the other isn't.
If you're cool with being the latter, I'm really not sure what to say.
esmith
Veteran Member
I didn't have to watch the trial in the Senate to know it wasn't going anywhere and I didn't have to watch the dog and pony show about the Jan 6 hearing to know they were nothing more than political theater. I am quite aware of the unlawful actions of demonstrators on Jan 6th, but the House has no judical authority over citizens.
esmith
Veteran Member
Whoopie-Doo.
esmith
Veteran Member
Do you have an opinion on a nuclear explosion? Have you ever seen one live?
Well I did see that nuclear explosion that occurred during the Jan 6th committee hearings.
Did you see that one?
No, I guess you didn't see that.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So, you're cool being the latter.
Eesh. That's on you. Whoop di do indeed.
I'd venture to say that most people don't talk about things they don't know anything about. Or shouldn't anyway.
esmith
Veteran Member
Well now we now know that you don't know what a thermonuclear detonation is don't we.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That is not what he previously had said. Matter of fact, he repeatedly has referring to it as a "witch hunt" and has smeared Garland as a "leftist".
He said the January 6th Committee is/was. That particular Committee is a rogue aberration. That is different from saying all Committee investigations are.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Clearly, it is not.
For you to stoop to such a low, especially for one who is an educator, is appalling. The committee has the right to do this per the Constitution, and some Pubs do agree that it needed to be done.
The reality, which you are avoiding, is that there has been some Pub support, plus the vast majority of witnesses are Republicans who have direct links to Trump. To defend depravity is depravity in and of itself, especially since it's now clearly obvious what Trump in general has been doing and why he's been doing it.
Just the committee investigations into him.
Am I wrong? Has there been an investigation of Trump, or the Trump administration, or Trump businesses that Donald Trump has not called a witch hunt?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Hunter Biden doesn't have to be President in order to be involved in impeachable offenses on the part of Joe Biden.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Of course it was not going anywhere. Since you do not seem to follow politics much let me give you a quick recap. In the House where it was the House's duty all sorts of evidence against Trump was found, even though the Republicans either did not want to participate or openly opposed attempts to find evidence. The vote for impeachment was pretty much along party lines. Then it was the Senates job to try the case with evidence from both sides, except because the Republicans would not participate there did not appear to be any for Trump. Thinking for some odd reason that this was totally unfair, the Republican leadership did not allow the presentation of evidence.
Now let's say a friend of a judge is brought to a trial for a very serous charge and for some odd reason that judge does not allow the prosecutor to present any evidence. What would you call that court? By the way the answer is the same if only the prosecutor is allowed to present evidence too. I ill let you think about tit, but put the answer in a spoiler for you:
A kangaroo court.
A person that was likely to be guilty is let off in a kangaroo court when the prosecutor is not allowed to present evidence.
A person that was likely to be guilty is let off in a kangaroo court when the prosecutor is not allowed to present evidence.
In which case, you are not investigating Hunter, you are investigating Joe Biden. Why not just be honest and say so?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Oh, so you're into "guilt by association"? If not, then what are you saying above?
Did you just admit that there have been several Congressional Committees that targeted President Trump?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And for good reason that some Pubs agree with as well.
BTW, what do you think about Trump's meeting over lunch with two Holocaust deniers that are also notorious anti-Semitics? Now he's claiming he didn't know they were, but even some Pubs ain't buying that story.
Last edited:
Yes, of course. What is your point?
I asked you if there has been one that Trump has not called a witch hunt?