Liberal Forum

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 11:13 am » wrote:It is nice to see liberals FINALLY digging behind the headlines of unemployment numbers. Too bad they are 8 years too late.

So do believe that the numbers were fake until this month?

#ShePersisted » 11 Mar 2017 11:35 am » wrote: So do believe that the numbers were fake until this month?

I suggest, before you embarrass yourself further, you read my posts on this thread:

http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f ... lls-to-4-7

I am nice like that. You admitted your memory is bad.

Huey » 10 Mar 2017 3:28 pm » wrote: I don't trust that number.

The one I will trust is the U6 number. I also will watch the number of jobs that are part time. The same gripes hi had when Obama was **** it up. If the US dwindles and the PART TIME jobs number decreases WITH that rate falling than we have success.

Plus, since you applauded that method with Obama you need to be applauding it now.

So you are, correct?

As a reminder.

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 10:57 am » wrote: According to your article, the entire article, not your snippet, a lawyer for Flynn informed a lawyer with the transition team.
It seems the work, according to your article, was disclosed in September and terminated after his appointment. So again, do you want trump to fire him again? If he hadn't fired him you would bitching about that. Since he fired him you are still bitching about him. To the point the punishment has fit the alleged crime. ****, it ain't like he set up a private server to get around FOIA laws that ended having classified information on it.

Oh, I forgot. You voted for her.

My bad.

That's quite snarky.

First of all, I take offense at you classifying what I posted as a 'snippet' as if I was attempting to deceive.
I often edit long articles to eliminate the parts that are not pertinent to what I am posting about.

I do this, not to deceive anyone, but to save them the time and effort needed to wade through a bunch of extraneous stuff.

Secondly, I think that you constantly asking if I want Trump to fire Flynn again is silly, and really has nothing to do with my post.

My post dealt with the fact that Pence said that he knew nothing about Flynn lobbying for Turkey until this week, and it looks like that was not true.

Aside from Flynn's lawyer advising the transition, which Pence ran, there were reports in 4 or 5 media outlets and Pence received a letter from members of Congress about it.

So because Flynn was fired does that mean that I'm never allowed to mention anything having anything to do with him again?

Like the fact that the VP may have lied about what he knew about Flynn, and when he knew it?

#ShePersisted » 11 Mar 2017 11:53 am » wrote: That's quite snarky.

First of all, I take offense at you classifying what I posted as a 'snippet' as if I was attempting to deceive.
I often edit long articles to eliminate the parts that are not pertinent to what I am posting about.

I do this, not to deceive anyone, but to save them the time and effort needed to wade through a bunch of extraneous stuff.

Secondly, I think that you constantly asking if I want Trump to fire Flynn again is silly, and really has nothing to do with my post.

My post dealt with the fact that Pence said that he knew nothing about Flynn lobbying for Turkey until this week, and it looks like that was not true.

Aside from Flynn's lawyer advising the transition, which Pence ran, there were reports in 4 or 5 media outlets and Pence received a letter from members of Congress about it.

So because Flynn was fired does that mean that I'm never allowed to mention anything having anything to do with him again?

Like the fact that the VP may have lied about what he knew about Flynn, and when he knew it?

First, let's toss your "offense". You are too sensitive. If you were trying to deceive in this case you wouldn't have posted a
Ink.

NO, MA'am, it does not look like it was not true from Pence according to the information to this point. In order to honestly come to that conclusion you have to prove that the Transition lawyer that Flynn's lawyer talked to told anyone. Did he? Plus, according to your article the information was disclosed in December.

So take your argument that we have to prove Obama knew of the alleged FISA requests and investigations and apply it here.

That's fair.so, do you have that proof?

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 11:37 am » wrote:I suggest, before you embarrass yourself further, you read my posts on this thread:

http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f ... lls-to-4-7

I am nice like that. You admitted your memory is bad.

I saw those posts.

It seems like you are struggling with the fact that we have a POTUS who told us for years that we should not trust the numbers put out by the Dep't of Labor, but now says that the numbers are good.

I may be wrong, but it looks to me like you are trying to sidestep his hypocrisy and change the topic to a discussion about how the numbers are calculated.

So, let me rephrase my question.

Do you believe as the POTUS said yesterday, that the jobs number for February and the 4.7% unemployment rate are the real numbers now?

Or do you still only trust the U6 number?

#ShePersisted » 11 Mar 2017 12:22 pm » wrote: I saw those posts.

It seems like you are struggling with the fact that we have a POTUS who told us for years that we should not trust the numbers put out by the Dep't of Labor, but now says that the numbers are good.

I may be wrong, but it looks to me like you are trying to sidestep his hypocrisy and change the topic to a discussion about how the numbers are calculated.

So, let me rephrase my question.

Do you believe as the POTUS said yesterday, that the jobs number for February and the 4.7% unemployment rate are the real numbers now?

Or do you still only trust the U6 number?

:

Huey » 10 Mar 2017 3:28 pm » wrote: I don't trust that number.

The one I will trust is the U6 number. I also will watch the number of jobs that are part time. The same gripes hi had when Obama was **** it up. If the US dwindles and the PART TIME jobs number decreases WITH that rate falling than we have success.

Plus, since you applauded that method with Obama you need to be applauding it now.

So you are, correct?

What is wrong with you reading skills?

Lmmfao!

I clearly state I don't trust the numbers. Clearly. What part don't you understand?

I then go and apply the same arguments I used u dear Obama and apply them to trump. What part of that do you not understand?

Your question was answered yesterday before you asked it today.
the proper response from you should have been "I apologize Huey, I forgot about your post from yesterday"

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 12:05 pm » wrote:NO, MA'am, it does not look like it was not true from Pence according to the information to this point. In order to honestly come to that conclusion you have to prove that the Transition lawyer that Flynn's lawyer talked to told anyone. Did he? Plus, according to your article the information was disclosed in December.
So take your argument that we have to prove Obama knew of the alleged FISA requests and investigations and apply it here.
That's fair.so, do you have that proof?

Okay, so for the sake of argument let's assume that the transition lawyer didn't tell Pence.

Flynn wrote an Op-Ed on November 8th (election day) advocating for the extradition of cleric Fetullah Gulen to Turkey.

A few days later, The Daily Caller broke the story that Flynn's consulting firm was lobbying for Turkey.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/11/trump ... overnment/

It was also then reported by several other media outlets including, Politico, Bloomberg, the AP and even the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC.

And on November 18th, Elijah Cummings wrote a letter to Pence informing him of Flynn's potential conflict of interest.

It strains credulity to believe that all of that got past the transition team which Pence headed, or that members of the team were aware of it, but didn't think that it was important enough to inform Pence.

And as we know, the POTUS is a voracious consumer of the media that he purports to hate so much, but I guess he missed it too, since he said that he also just found out this week that Flynn was being paid to lobby for Turkey.

#ShePersisted » 11 Mar 2017 12:47 pm » wrote: Okay, so for the sake of argument let's assume that the transition lawyer didn't tell Pence.

Flynn wrote an Op-Ed on November 8th (election day) advocating for the extradition of cleric Fetullah Gulen to Turkey.

A few days later, The Daily Caller broke the story that Flynn's consulting firm was lobbying for Turkey.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/11/trump ... overnment/

It was also then reported by several other media outlets including, Politico, Bloomberg, the AP and even the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC.

And on November 18th, Elijah Cummings wrote a letter to Pence informing him of Flynn's potential conflict of interest.

It strains credulity to believe that all of that got past the transition team which Pence headed, or that members of the team were aware of it, but didn't think that it was important enough to inform Pence.

And as we know, the POTUS is a voracious consumer of the media that he purports to hate so much, but I guess he missed it too, since he said that he also just found out this week that Flynn was being paid to lobby for Turkey.

I am glad you understand our frustration when you claim Obama didn't know.

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 12:25 pm » wrote: The proper response from you should have been "I apologize Huey, I forgot about your post from yesterday"

The proper response from you should have been "the POTUS lied when he said that the numbers that he said were fake under Obama, are real now."

#ShePersisted » 11 Mar 2017 12:52 pm » wrote: The proper response from you should have been "the POTUS lied when he said that the numbers that he said were fake under Obama, are real now."

Still waiting for you to apologize for your other post and explain exactly what the **** you failed to comprehend:

Huey » 10 Mar 2017 3:28 pm » wrote: I don't trust that number.

The one I will trust is the U6 number. I also will watch the number of jobs that are part time. The same gripes hi had when Obama was **** it up. If the US dwindles and the PART TIME jobs number decreases WITH that rate falling than we have success.

Plus, since you applauded that method with Obama you need to be applauding it now.

So you are, correct?

Then we can move to your straw man. Note that what you are now wanting to know had not a **** thing to do with your original posts and my response. You created this to cover your ***.

#ShePersisted » 10 Mar 2017 6:13 pm » wrote: That's very insulting.
I take my whoring around very seriously.

So you admit you sell access to your body to any man with money!! Glad to see you admit it!!!

Sgt Bilko » 11 Mar 2017 12:59 pm » wrote: So you admit you sell access to your body to any man with money!! Glad to see you admit it!!!

Yet misty claims to be offended when I say she posted a snippet of an article.

Very odd indeed.

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 12:48 pm » wrote: I am glad you understand our frustration when you claim Obama didn't know.

No, I don't understand it at all.

On one hand you seem to be arguing that Obama knew that there was a FISA warrant that would have allowed the surveillance of Trump's phone calls, but then you yourself refer to 'the alleged FISA requests and investigations.'

How can you argue that Obama knew about any warrants or investigations, when it hasn't even been confirmed that a warrant was issued to tap Trump's phone, and we don't know if Trump himself was being investigated?

Flynn was lobbying for Turkey, his lawyer informed the transition team's lawyer, it was reported by several media outlets, and a member of Congress wrote a letter informing Pence about it.

Those are facts, not allegations.

Like I said, it strains credulity to think that Pence just found out about Flynn's dealings with Turkey this week.

I may not be very bright, but even I can connect the dots.

You seem to want to believe that Obama knew something based on a whole lot fewer dots.

#ShePersisted » 11 Mar 2017 1:24 pm » wrote: No, I don't understand it at all.

On one hand you seem to be arguing that Obama knew that there was a FISA warrant that would have allowed the surveillance of Trump's phone calls, but then you yourself refer to 'the alleged FISA requests and investigations.'

How can you argue that Obama knew about any warrants or investigations, when it hasn't even been confirmed that a warrant was issued to tap Trump's phone, and we don't know if Trump himself was being investigated?

Flynn was lobbying for Turkey, his lawyer informed the transition team's lawyer, it was reported by several media outlets, and a member of Congress wrote a letter informing Pence about it.

Those are facts, not allegations.

Like I said, it strains credulity to think that Pence just found out about Flynn's dealings with Turkey this week.

I may not be very bright, but even I can connect the dots.

You seem to want to believe that Obama knew something based on a whole lot fewer dots.

Duh, I know those are the facts.

It also stains credibility that Obama did not know about the investigation(s).

It is called plausible deniability.

Fewer dots my ***. You got an excuse for everything. Fewer dots? The AG knew. White House staff were informed. Articles have been published since November. Lmmfao!

Come on misty, get serious here.

At any rate it appears the Russian link with trump is a false story. Even dems are starting to admit it. Pence may have known. Even if he did the dude is already fired.

Meanwhile, 300 marines were sent to Syria. NK and Iran are flexing their muscles. The US set another monthly tax revenue record. Bad the best you can do is this?

Cannonpointer » 10 Mar 2017 9:51 pm » wrote:That mullah dodged a **** bullet - there's a fine line between extradition and rendition.

I think what Erdoğan has in mind for the mullah is more like execution than rendition.

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 1:33 pm » wrote:Duh, I know those are the facts.

It also stains credibility that Obama did not know about the investigation(s).

What investigation(s)?

You're the one who used the word 'alleged' when referring to investigations.
We've had no confirmation so far that Trump was or is being investigated.

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 1:33 pm » wrote:It is called plausible deniability.

Deniability of what?
Alleged warrants or investigations?

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 1:33 pm » wrote:Fewer dots my ***. You got an excuse for everything. Fewer dots? The AG knew. White House staff were informed. Articles have been published since November. Lmmfao!

What you call excuses, I call facts.

And why did you only post a 'snippet' of what I said?

You conveniently left out the part where the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee wrote a letter DIRECTLY to Mike Pence informing him that Flynn was lobbying for Turkey and that it may be a conflict of interest.

Maybe Pence just thought it was junk mail and threw it away without reading it.

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 1:33 pm » wrote:Come on misty, get serious here.

Why? Did I sound like I was joking?

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 1:33 pm » wrote:At any rate it appears the Russian link with trump is a false story.

Nice that you call it a false story before it has really been investigated, since the Intel Committee hearing on Russia starts on March 20th.

What we do know so far is that there are a lot of people associated with Trump who had contacts with Russia and lied about it.

So there is a lot of smoke.
Whether or not there is fire, is yet to be determined.

Huey » 11 Mar 2017 1:33 pm » wrote:Meanwhile, 300 marines were sent to Syria. NK and Iran are flexing their muscles.
The US set another monthly tax revenue record. Bad the best you can do is this?

I'm afraid so, but I feel just awful about disappointing you.

If I didn't know any better I would think that almost sounds like you're trying to deflect from the subjects that might make you uncomfortable.

I can post about a variety of issues, and I do, every day, but the OP of this thread clearly states that this is a place where I post the things that are of interest to me.

So if you come in here you pretty much know what you're gonna get.

So have you posted anything about those subjects or have you only devoted all your time here to busting my chops?

#ShePersisted » 11 Mar 2017 2:39 pm » wrote: What investigation(s)?

You're the one who used the word 'alleged' when referring to investigations.
We've had no confirmation so far that Trump was or is being investigated.
Deniability of what?
Alleged warrants or investigations?
What you call excuses, I call facts.

And why did you only post a 'snippet' of what I said?

You conveniently left out the part where the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee wrote a letter DIRECTLY to Mike Pence informing him that Flynn was lobbying for Turkey and that it may be a conflict of interest.

Maybe Pence just thought it was junk mail and threw it away without reading it.
Why? Did I sound like I was joking?
Nice that you call it a false story before it has really been investigated, since the Intel Committee hearing on Russia starts on March 20th.

What we do know so far is that there are a lot of people associated with Trump who had contacts with Russia and lied about it.

So there is a lot of smoke.
Whether or not there is fire, is yet to be determined.
I'm afraid so, but I feel just awful about disappointing you.

If I didn't know any better I would think that almost sounds like you're trying to deflect from the subjects that might make you uncomfortable.

I can post about a variety of issues, and I do, every day, but the OP of this thread clearly states that this is a place where I post the things that are of interest to me.

So if you come in here you pretty much know what you're gonna get.

So have you posted anything about those subjects or have you only devoted all your time here to busting my chops?

Bring your concerned to the dems in this article:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa ... n-n2296924

But I'll give you credit. Your creative writing classes have paid off. That is top quality spin in your posts.

Update to this post: http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f ... 60#p888473



On November 30th, 2016, Preet Bharara was called to Trump Tower and asked by the incoming POTUS and his incoming AG if would stay on in his job as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY.

Yesterday he was asked to resign.
He refused to resign and was fired today.

Preet Bharara has prosecuted nearly 100 Wall Street executives, reached historic settlements and fines with the four largest banks in the US and and closed multibillion-dollar hedge funds for illegal activities including insider trading.

He also prosecuted New York state politicians, including the Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver (D) and the Majority Leader of State Senate, Dean Skelos (R) and at one time he even threatened to prosecute the governor of NY Andrew Cuomo (D) for alleged corruption.

Aside from prosecuting terrorists his office convicted more than 1,000 people charged in a large-scale drug and gang takedown.

And he also handled the criminal prosecutions of several employees of Bernie Madoff’s firm.

Bharara leaves behind him an upcoming trial scheduled for a month from now to decide the case of Joe Percoco, a former top aide to Gov. Andrew Cuomo who is under indictment for bid rigging and bribery, and an investigation into the fundraising activities of the current mayor of NYC Bill de Blasio.

When it comes to public corruption this guy is a bulldog and not afraid to go after members of either political party.

Seems to me that if you really wanted to 'drain the swamp' he is exactly who you would want as the US Attorney for such an important district.

So why did they first ask him to stay and then fire him?

Sgt Bilko » 11 Mar 2017 12:59 pm » wrote:So you admit you sell access to your body to any man with money!! Glad to see you admit it!!!

I don't sell it.
I give it away for free.