On 11/5/19 2:19 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <
NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:rFjwF.31571$Ko9....@fx48.iad:
>
>> On 11/5/19 1:56 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <
NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:nqhwF.14231
>>> $QZ6....@fx37.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 11/4/19 1:29 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> R Dean <"R Dean"@
gmail.com> wrote in news:JaZvF.2940$II7.1327
>>> @fx17.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/22/2019 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/19 9:28 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <
NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:PaDrF.26222$kV2....@fx22.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/19 4:52 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:0s3rF.25642$kV2....@fx22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the one they suspended... and the one that has no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show the public? That rises to the level of Quid
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro Quo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump admitted there was a quid pro quo ... and Mulvaney
>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the one that calls its self an *IMPEACHMENT* inquiry when
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> House of Representatives has yet to vote to invoke any
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment of any kind including anything called an
>>>>>>>>>>> impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The House doesn't have to vote on anything until it is
>>>>>>>>>> presented with an Article of Impeachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Constitution says the House has the power of
>>>>>>>>> impeachment.... when did the HOUSE decide to invoke
>>>>>>>>> anything having to do with impeachment?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no impeachment of any kind that has been authorized
>>>>>>>>> by the entire House of Representatives as the Constitution
>>>>>>>>> says, so where di this "IMPEACHMENT" inquiry get it's power?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    1) The constitution doesn't say
>>>>>>>> "the entire House".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    2) The House hasn't voted on
>>>>>>>> impeachment yet. All that is
>>>>>>>> happening is an impeachment inquiry.
>>>>>>>> And THAT is only necessary because
>>>>>>>> the Atty General refuses to appoint
>>>>>>>> an independent counsel, as was done
>>>>>>>> in the case of Nixon (Sam Irvin) and
>>>>>>>> Clinton (Ken Starr).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there were a crime the AG would have appointed an independent
>>>>>>> Counsel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since there were no crimes and even Ken Star says this is a witch
>>>>>>> hunt, then there is no need for another Special Counsel..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is is a PROPAGANDA event created by the Democrats for the
>>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The House needs to vote on anything that is impeachment which is
>>>>>>> why they vote on the articles of impeachment and should have also
>>>>>>> voted on an impeachment inquiry...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they have the votes to pass the *IMPEACHMENT
>>>>>>> INQUIRY* the question to ask is why didn't the Democrats
>>>>>>> call for that vote for
>>> an
>>>>>>> IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY....? Because they didn't want to be on record
>>>>>>> as having voted to impeach when the TRUTH comes out there is no
>>>>>>> reason for an impeachment, and that this was all a *POLITICAL
>>>>>>> STUNT* to try to hurt TRUMP in the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that they won't vote tells us that it's was NOTHING more
>>>>>>> than another failed POLITICAL PROPAGANDA stunt by
>>>>>>> Democrats. And they were betting that TRUMP would fold
Then accepted....
And I don't do spelling and punctuation and typo flames until people
decide to to pick on me for mine.
But then I don't need to distract from the content by making a big deal
out of the delivery of the truth.
In fact I just responded to someone and I fixed a few typos in both the
other persons and ny own text..... so that it was easier reading. I
figured neither one of us were doing a lot of proof reading to correct
errors and even when I do proof read I pass over the same mistakes
because they look OK just as when I typed them. Possibly some form of
dyslexia or simply a lack of ability to see the small font clearly.
At any rate, I get called worse than whet you type when I spell it all
correct and get perfect punctuation and don't make any typos... just
for tellig the truth. If you think a spelling flame is worth it then I'm
sure you are really really busy on the internet and I can't imagine you
have enough time to flame all of the mistakes people make.. so I feel
priveleged that picked mine to highlight. It means you actually read it.
Which most of the Liberals don't do when they call me names. They
usually just become triggered by my name and spew a Tourette's riddled
flame to try to distarct from the truth, because they know that's what I
type and I get the truth right even when I commit a spelling faux-pa or
a typo or miss punctuation. I have even been known to mispronunce a
word or two when speaking to people face to face.... but perfection
isn't my goal, the truth is.
There I didn't proof read so you have some seriouscorrections to flame...
--
That's Karma
*Rumination*
2 - Liberals live in fear of anyone who promotes the notion of
self-sufficiency and responsible behavior.