JN

"Leaked" request by some Democrats that asked Nancy to coordinate censure vote instead of impeachment vote.

Recommended Posts

Pleased to see that its human handler has deemed it necessary to intervene recently on behalf of jello, due to AI circuits unable to respond properly to others poking holes in its blatant agenda here.

How many times can I point out the obvious, don't feed the jello?

What's the sense of wrestling with jello? ... You both get slimed, and the jello AI likes it (and learns and gets smarter).

9d2e22d8f2f0278d93fa699e326e5ff2aafce6b04f221aabbdee5779552e7f69.jpg.dd843794e6ef452437b7818c18ec2a1b.jpg

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Pleased to see that its human handler has deemed it necessary to intervene recently on behalf of jello, due to AI circuits unable to respond properly to others poking holes in its blatant agenda here.

How many times can I point out the obvious, don't feed the jello?

What's the sense of wrestling with jello? ... You both get slimed, and the jello AI likes it (and learns and gets smarter).

9d2e22d8f2f0278d93fa699e326e5ff2aafce6b04f221aabbdee5779552e7f69.jpg.dd843794e6ef452437b7818c18ec2a1b.jpg

 

Pretty confident the jello doesn't get smarter, but as you say, it's obvious now the human has to handle the account. It still can't come up with a choate thought, singular or plural. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I love tropical weather.  I moved back to the U.S. after all these years primarily because the mandatory retirement age in Malaysia is 60 years old.  Up until just a few years ago, the mandatory retirement age was 55 years old.  Insanity.  I am in no way ready to retire.  Heck, I'm already labelled hyperactive here.  But I cannot fight Malaysia laws.  So I gave up a losing battle to find another contract in Malaysia after my last contract there finished, and moved back to the U.S.   I expect to be called in for a local interview here shortly after Thanksgiving, for a Project Manager role.  And recruiters in U.S. have been contacting me since I moved back to the U.S.

Good for you Tom and I wish you luck in your job searching.👍

In the UK there is no mandatory age when you have to retire, in fact if you approach an employee who is of "retirement age" (ie able to claim an old age pension) and suggest they retire it is seen as constructive dismissal. Seems fair enough to me, if you are still fit for work and want to do so and your performance is unaffected then I would consider someone with 40-50 years of knowledge and experience to be more valuable than someone without it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, remake it said:

Yes, as shown by not knowing that ignoranti is the Italian version of the Latin ignorante, while the Latin word ignoramus is a verb and has already been expressed in its plural form from its derivative, but to most its all Greek.

Just where have I stated anything about this on this thread or any other???

I was mentioning Octopus / Octopuses!

Oh and by the way check out any dictionary interpretation of the plural of Ignoramus below (this seems very apt in your case)

"An ignoramus is a word for a person without any intelligence, an extremely dumb individual. It is a pejorative term meant to be an insult.

The plural is ignoramuses. Some dictionaries list ignorami as a variation of the plural, but this is a backformation by those who suppose since ignoramus comes from Latin that it would have the Latin –plural. However, in the original Latin, ignoramus was a verb, not a noun, and would still have the -es plural."

 Try reading and getting your facts straight in future before posting idiotic posts like this, you just continue to make yourself (and your handler) look like a moron!

You are clearly getting your wires fried BOT

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the analogy goes like this. Trump wants dirt on the Bidens. He assembles a team to prep the idea of get weapons for dirt or no weapons for no dirt. Meanwhile Trumps men stop the funding/put on hold while the scheme plays out. 
A whistleblower hears of the scheme from multiple sources and being a never trumper tells Congress/Dems. 
Trumps defense of a self proclaimed perfect scheme is to go after the whistleblower and anyone who heard about the scheme. Expose their partisanship and disloyalties. No mention of the merits of the scheme other than its perfect.

Did I get that right? Are the facts wrong or just me. Hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently the funds for the weapons are released hours after the whistleblower reports his hearsay. Congress calls for an investigaton. Trumps multiple departments are instructed not to supply any information or become a witness even if subpoenaed. None of the inside group who applied or didn’t apply pressure on the Ukraine testified.
So the public is left with a political question. Will this be the new acceptable way for presidents to dig up dirt on opponents/no harm no foul or this behavior is an abuse of power. Do we want foreign governments helping or hurting elections or a particular issue. 
Sanctions are similar, using tools to sway decisions, Iran and N Korea being examples. It’s just Biden or his boy as another example. except the scheme was exposed and failed. Does it make the scheme bad policy.
Maybe the public will give up on the idea of rule of law as long as their candidate is in power. Trump is giving you the chance to decide. The rule of law is just enforcement of ideas. Are ideas changing and laws will change and follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

17 hours ago, remake it said:

It was a response to your claim that "Those people are equally if not more credible than all the state department insiders," so it went to "credibility," and that's a slam dunk fail on your part.

No, the factual basis would be the use of actual facts, and when these have been examined your claims have been repeatedly debunked.

But the delusional beliefs are yours, given there is no actual evidence supporting what you say unless you fall into the trap of believing liars.

They are Ukranian prosecutors investigating corruption, the people that were indicted were not making the statements.  You seem to have little grasp of the facts since you only seem to understand misleading media soundbites from watching CNN all day.  The facts are there and if you think John Solomon is a liar then I can't help you.  Speaking of facts, you have yet to state any facts in support of your claims that any of this has been "debunked", what exactly does that mean?  You have also failed to show that any of these claims are false or lacking in evidence.

I reject your appeals to authority or competence that has not been demonstrated.  So try to prove your claims instead of throwing stuff around and hoping something sticks.

Edited by wrs
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wrs said:

Speaking of facts, you have yet to state any facts in support of your claims that any of this has been "debunked", what exactly does that mean?  You have also failed to show that any of these claims are false or lacking in evidence.

wrs you wont get any either as its always the same from Remake It on any thread topic.

Tom and Jan believe it to be an AI bot with a handler based in China, which is more than likely the case, so you waste your time debating with it. I fell into the trap again earlier of replying and I should know better by now!

Just my opinion of course, feel free to carry on if you wish but it will end in frustration as the bot will go round in circles with you forever.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

wrs you wont get any either as its always the same from Remake It on any thread topic.

Tom and Jan believe it to be an AI bot with a handler based in China, which is more than likely the case, so you waste your time debating with it. I fell into the trap again earlier of replying and I should know better by now!

Just my opinion of course, feel free to carry on if you wish but it will end in frustration as the bot will go round in circles with you forever.

I am curious to see if the handler can provide some basis for their claims, usually they are long on vague responses and short on facts.  If it was a real person then it might discuss the facts but it doesn't seem to do that.  Of course that is also what the dems do so I wonder if we couldn't characterize them as programmed bots also?  LOL!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wrs said:

I am curious to see if the handler can provide some basis for their claims, usually they are long on vague responses and short on facts.  If it was a real person then it might discuss the facts but it doesn't seem to do that.  Of course that is also what the dems do so I wonder if we couldn't characterize them as programmed bots also?  LOL!

Hence we see the NPC phenom. 5d7e7a4acc26b.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

However, in the original Latin, ignoramus was a verb, not a noun, and would still have the -es plural.

Well, that's not how languages work ,and that's not close to correct given that the verb has been expressed as "we" do not know, and not in the first person perpendicular form, aye!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, remake it said:

Well, that's not how languages work ,and that's not close to correct given that the verb has been expressed as "we" do not know, and not in the first person perpendicular form, aye!

Lol, first person perpendicular indeed. Engrish much? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wrs said:

 Speaking of facts, you have yet to state any facts in support of your claims that any of this has been "debunked", what exactly does that mean?  You have also failed to show that any of these claims are false or lacking in evidence.

All you have done is assume the 12 witnesses are lying, which means that any time they stated Russia, instead of the Ukraine, was responsible for 2016 US election interference they will have immediately perjured themselves, and given these claims were made about Russia many times and none have been indicted for perjury, your claims remain patently absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, wrs said:

They are Ukranian prosecutors investigating corruption, the people that were indicted were not making the statements.

You realize the person you are talking about has a record of corruption as long as the Mississippi and that the EU had been attempting to oust him from his role well before Biden held the sword of Damocles over the Ukrainian government's head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep still no FACTS

youre not gonna get those wrs from this bot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, remake it said:

All you have done is assume the 12 witnesses are lying, which means that any time they stated Russia, instead of the Ukraine, was responsible for 2016 US election interference they will have immediately perjured themselves, and given these claims were made about Russia many times and none have been indicted for perjury, your claims remain patently absurd.

Christine Blasey Ford hasn't been charged with perjury, even though the were more than a dozen lies in her "story". One thing about your "logic", it's consistently illogical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Lol, first person perpendicular indeed. Engrish much? 

Definition of perpendicular pronoun in English

perpendicular pronoun

NOUN

slang US
  • The personal pronoun ‘I’, typically with implication of egotism on the part of a person speaking or writing in the first person.

Origin

Late 19th century; earliest use found in Lippincott's Monthly Magazine. With allusion to the appearance of the capital letter ‘I’ on the printed page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Definition of perpendicular pronoun in English

perpendicular pronoun

NOUN

slang US

  • The personal pronoun ‘I’, typically with implication of egotism on the part of a person speaking or writing in the first person.

Origin

Late 19th century; earliest use found in Lippincott's Monthly Magazine. With allusion to the appearance of the capital letter ‘I’ on the printed page.

Lol, now the bot will pretend it did it on purpose

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

One thing about your "logic", it's consistently illogical. 

This is from the guy that believes in virgin births and a man putting 2 of every animal on a big boat??  ;) 

You do make me laugh Ward haha. Take care, had to reply to this belter after a quick scan through threads 🤣

Fair play to Noah though for finding penguins and polar bears in the Middle East ... and kangaroos for that matter ... oh and thousands of others. I'd have given up if I was him. But hey, what do I know?  You need that 'Christian logic' for that stuff ... :) 

3 hours ago, remake it said:

your claims remain patently absurd.

Remake it, I agree with you 100% (you weren't talking about religion but ignore that bit - we agree on something, woohoo!  :) )

Cheers 

Happy christmas (a stolen festival from pagans - they had to go no doubt) x

la la la 

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Oh and fair play to the animals for not eating each other ...

Not sure what they lived on for 40 days but I'm sure it's all explained in the book

:)

By the way, when the world was flooded, was it fresh water or salt water because the 'other' fish would have all died surely...? Meh, I'm sure the book explains it perfectly ... when it's not going on about death perhaps? 

You love me really and you know it.

It's also quite a talent to recognise a male and a female of the millions of insects on Earth. How long did he have to do this again? While making a big boat from scratch? Meh - all sounds pretty ''logical'' yep.

Actually Ward, there's one thing we will agree on ... we both have a great surname.

@remake it   ''geezer geyser'' is still a belter by the way ...

Cheers

#DT2020  x

#darwin

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Christine Blasey Ford hasn't been charged with perjury, even though the were more than a dozen lies in her "story". One thing about your "logic", it's consistently illogical. 

Exactly what testimony did she provide to the House Judiciary Committee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Yep still no FACTS

youre not gonna get those wrs from this bot 

12 "fact" witnesses provided testimony, so if you have a different version of their facts, where is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The handler and the bot still spewing nonsense I see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The handler and the bot still spewing nonsense I see

bc31f0f31d7dae3099e550387837a49f731ad5840293e9266b2235d6b0e725cb.jpeg.6892ab6e21850f96e1990d0f44f55626.jpeg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, remake it said:

You realize the person you are talking about has a record of corruption as long as the Mississippi and that the EU had been attempting to oust him from his role well before Biden held the sword of Damocles over the Ukrainian government's head.

From your source article:

The wild conspiracy theory on which Trump based his assertion – that Joe Biden had Shokin removed to stop him investigating wrongdoing in his son’s gas company – has already been widely debunked. 

Once again, another source that simply repeats the same mantra without facts to back it up.  What it goes on to talk about is Shokin opening cases and not following up which seems to be a repeated claim by people saying he is corrupt.  However, if he was so compliant with the wishes of his boss, why didn't he close the Burisma case when asked to do so?  Funny how the article doesn't address that question and that is of course the nexus of the matter, not wild conspiracy theories about Shokin being corrupt, which even the article you linked concludes he is not.

Now there is also the testimony of the current prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko who also testified in that meeting.  His information was fairly startling and suggests massive corruption involving the US embassy staff as well as Joe Biden himself.  Mr Lutsenko testified that ambassador Yovanovitch impeded his ability to investigate these matters and had a do not prosecute list.  He also testified that he started to look at the same case Shokin was unwilling to close and that the money trail does lead to Hunter Biden.  

Mr. Lutsenko also gave solid testimony as to how Paul Manafort was smeared by the Ukranians during the 2016 election which caused him to have to step down as Trump's campaign manager.  

The statements of these two prosecutors provide more than ample evidence that the US DOJ should be investigating how both the state department and the Bidens may have been involved with Ukranian corruption during the Obama administration as well as how the DNC and US embassy personnel coordinated with the Ukranians to dig up dirt on Trump and interfere with the US election in 2016.

15 hours ago, remake it said:

All you have done is assume the 12 witnesses are lying, which means that any time they stated Russia, instead of the Ukraine, was responsible for 2016 US election interference they will have immediately perjured themselves, and given these claims were made about Russia many times and none have been indicted for perjury, your claims remain patently absurd.

I haven't assumed any such thing.  The witnesses for the most part gave hearsay testimony which was largely self-serving.  The republicans did a good job of exposing the truth, that there was no quid pro quo, the aid was released on time and the Ukranians were never aware that there was any linkage between the aid and investigations.  

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.