Liberal Forum

Bruce » 26 Jul 2023, 8:42 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 8:42 am

Hitler’s art has been in circulation on the art markets since he gave up the life of a professional painter.

His toxic name,, which represents either the or one of the world’s most evil villains no doubt depresses the price of his works.

Imagine if Donald Trump showed the press his Adolf Hitler painting.  You can’t.  Not even Trump is that stupid.

Yet still, a cheap Hitler is only a few thousand, and a good one like that castle painting might bring the price of  a new Toyota Corolla.

A cheap Hunter Biden is the price of a new middle range Mercedes.

I wouldn't have one if it was given to me!!! **** crackhead hunter, **** joke biden and **** YOU!!!
 

Buffalo » 26 Jul 2023, 8:52 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 8:52 am

I wouldn't have one if it was given to me!!! **** crackhead hunter, **** joke biden and **** YOU!!!

Which is another reason the fair market value of Bidens is so astonishing,  on the art market.

Every MAGA on this planet will die of old age before their children may want to to buy a Hunter Biden.

The market for Bidens is only among the wealthiest Democrats and Mitt Romney type Republicans.

And even Mitt Romney would keep it on the quiet.
 

maineman » 26 Jul 2023, 8:31 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 8:31 am

an example:  Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were both legal scholars, I am sure you would agree.

They were very good personal friends but rarely agreed on anything regarding legal opinions.

They both had well-reasoned opinions based on scholarship, which were usually diametrically opposed.

You like Turley's opinion?  Bless your heart.  
I don't.  
See how that works?

Your point is taken. I agree that Turley's scholastic opinion is much, much closer to that of a Supreme Court justice than that of, say, Morning Joe....or Chuck Todd...and carries more authority.

neueregel » 26 Jul 2023, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 9:11 am

Your point is taken. I agree that Turley's scholastic opinion is much, much closer to that of a Supreme Court justice than that of, say, Morning Joe....or Chuck Todd...and carries more authority.

His opinion on the law might have more authority, but the headline had to do with his assertion that the media "knew" the scandal was serious.  I would suggest that Chuck Todd was a stronger authority on what the media does or does not know than Turley.  

Buffalo » 26 Jul 2023, 8:40 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 8:40 am

No he is not!!!  he is a corrupt, crackhead that rides his corrupt, demented, perverted Dad's coat tails.  He did not pay his taxes, he LIED on a firearms apllication about his drug addiction (which is a felony) and has had at least 10 relapses since his supposed drug rehab.

You are a ****, liberal idiot to think that ****!!!

10 relapses?   How do we know this number?

maineman » 26 Jul 2023, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 9:43 am

His opinion on the law might have more authority, but the headline had to do with his assertion that the media "knew" the scandal was serious.  I would suggest that Chuck Todd was a stronger authority on what the media does or does not know than Turley.

I concede that Turley might be overestimating what a typical MSM talking head may or may not know about the law. I've not considered it from that perspective.

Xavier_Onassis » 26 Jul 2023, 8:33 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 8:33 am

How many planetary rotations since conceived living in series parallel time displaced in an ever changing form ancestral position have you existed so far?
 I have no idea.  But sole will tell us how many planetary rotations since conceived living in series parallel time displaced in an ever changing form ancestral position he has existed so far .

 

Difference between you and I, I can and you won't. we both understand why. You stand your ground and I defend my time left

So since joe has cured cancer … Dems want to vote for him. Lol.

Logic was never Dems strong suit

NEILCAR » 26 Jul 2023, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 10:50 am

So since joe has cured cancer … Dems want to vote for him. Lol.

Logic was never Dems strong suit

Republicans have only won the national popular vote once, in 2004, since 1988.

The Democrat will win the popular vote in 2024, the question is by how much, if the Republicans can win the electoral college.

The last traditional Republican candidate was Mitt Romney.  

One of the two major American parties is held hostage by extremists.

No reasonable person alive is opposed to Biden’s Cancer Moonshot, to end cancer as we know it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... e-know-it/

Republicans pretend it doesn’t exist.

How will supporting cancer work out, for the GOP?

 

Bruce » 26 Jul 2023, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 11:14 am

Republicans have only won the national popular vote once, in 2004, since 1988.

The Democrat will win the popular vote in 2024, the question is by how much, if the Republicans can win the electoral college.

The last traditional Republican candidate was Mitt Romney.  

One of the two major American parties is held hostage by extremists.

No reasonable person alive is opposed to Biden’s Cancer Moonshot, to end cancer as we know it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... e-know-it/

Republicans pretend it doesn’t exist.

How will supporting cancer work out, for the GOP?

How does joe curing cancer equate to GOP supporting cancer. Please take a logic class. 
 

BuckNaked » 26 Jul 2023, 9:56 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 9:56 am

10 relapses?   How do we know this number?

He has been through rehab 6 times!!! 
 

neueregel » 26 Jul 2023, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 9:58 am

I concede that Turley might be overestimating what a typical MSM talking head may or may not know about the law. I've not considered it from that perspective.

or he might not understand the public relations aspects of the case as well as he does the legal specifics.  And again, legal "seriousness" is a legal opinion.  How it plays in Peoria is not.

maineman » 26 Jul 2023, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 11:51 am

or he might not understand the public relations aspects of the case as well as he does the legal specifics.  And again, legal "seriousness" is a legal opinion.  How it plays in Peoria is not.

The ONLY "public relations asspect" of ANY criminal case/trial is the **** TRUTH!!!  The **** law is the **** law and crackhead hunter broke the law more than once!!! LYING on a federal firearms application is a gooddamn FELONY!!! PERIOD!!!  **** peoria and **** you!!!

Buffalo » 26 Jul 2023, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 12:22 pm

The ONLY "public relations asspect" of ANY criminal case/trial is the **** TRUTH!!!  The **** law is the **** law and crackhead hunter broke the law more than once!!! LYING on a federal firearms application is a gooddamn FELONY!!! PERIOD!!!  **** peoria and **** you!!!

Do you take that same hard line with Trump and his thirty-one violations of the Espionage Act?  
 

Buffalo » 26 Jul 2023, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 11:44 am

He has been through rehab 6 times!!!

I was unaware of that 

BuckNaked » 26 Jul 2023, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 1:44 pm

I was unaware of that

10?  6?  macht nichts  

maineman » 26 Jul 2023, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 11:51 am

or he might not understand the public relations aspects of the case as well as he does the legal specifics.  And again, legal "seriousness" is a legal opinion.  How it plays in Peoria is not.

I think it's certainly possible he doesn't consider the politics but rather strictly the legalities.

maineman » 26 Jul 2023, 12:25 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 12:25 pm

Do you take that same hard line with Trump and his thirty-one violations of the Espionage Act?

Do you know the meaning of alleged?

RebelGator » 26 Jul 2023, 3:49 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2023, 3:49 pm

Do you know the meaning of alleged?

right back atcha, Cletis

If Biden gets reelected he should give his acceptance speech wearing a drool bib.