Like what?
And yes. After the first debate they called him unbiased.
Advertisement

by The Not So Communal Kommune » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:15 pm

by The Tiger Kingdom » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:15 pm
The Not So Communal Kommune wrote:Ethics violations?
The Not So Communal Kommune wrote:Killed a man's wife?

by The Emerald Dawn » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:16 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:The Emerald Dawn wrote:Boston Sour:
Whisky, lemon juice, sugar, egg white. Shaken. Touch it with ice and I'll break your hand.
I had an actor friend who was a bartender (SURPRISE!) who at cast parties would mix the drinks. When he asked me what I wanted I would go, "Whatever easiest for you, man." He'd give me the drinks and explain exactly what it is and what went in it and I'd wander off going, "Crazy blue stuff, got it."
Unfortunately before alcohol was able to make its mark on me I got a hold of sticky green locally grown Northern California weed. Booze never stood a chance.

by Jocabia » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:16 pm

by AiliailiA » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:16 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.

by The Not So Communal Kommune » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:17 pm
The Tiger Kingdom wrote:
That's...a bit of an old chestnut. Consensus is it's a bit...sleazy...what he did to get around taxing, but it's not illegal. Potentially distasteful, though.The Not So Communal Kommune wrote:Ethics violations?
That's an actual charge. I don't know how much it has to it, but it's kinda immaterial as it's too late to affect the election anyway.The Not So Communal Kommune wrote:Killed a man's wife?
Have not heard that one yet.

by Grave_n_idle » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:17 pm
The Tiger Kingdom wrote:
That's...a bit of an old chestnut. Consensus is it's a bit...sleazy...what he did to get around taxing, but it's not illegal. Potentially distasteful, though.The Not So Communal Kommune wrote:Ethics violations?
That's an actual charge. I don't know how much it has to it, but it's kinda immaterial as it's too late to affect the election anyway.The Not So Communal Kommune wrote:Killed a man's wife?
Have not heard that one yet.

by Jocabia » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:17 pm

by AiliailiA » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:17 pm
The Emerald Dawn wrote:Cannot think of a name wrote:I had an actor friend who was a bartender (SURPRISE!) who at cast parties would mix the drinks. When he asked me what I wanted I would go, "Whatever easiest for you, man." He'd give me the drinks and explain exactly what it is and what went in it and I'd wander off going, "Crazy blue stuff, got it."
Unfortunately before alcohol was able to make its mark on me I got a hold of sticky green locally grown Northern California weed. Booze never stood a chance.
See, I've never smoked anything. Tobacco, MJ, nothing. I'm physically incapable of being drunk, so I drink.
Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.

by The Not So Communal Kommune » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:18 pm

by Jocabia » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:18 pm
The Not So Communal Kommune wrote:The Tiger Kingdom wrote:That's...a bit of an old chestnut. Consensus is it's a bit...sleazy...what he did to get around taxing, but it's not illegal. Potentially distasteful, though.
That's an actual charge. I don't know how much it has to it, but it's kinda immaterial as it's too late to affect the election anyway.
Have not heard that one yet.
At least you admitted to the taxes thing.
It has no evidence and is just taking time from the court.
Does Joe Soptic ring a bell?

by The Not So Communal Kommune » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:18 pm

by The Not So Communal Kommune » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:19 pm
Jocabia wrote:The Not So Communal Kommune wrote:
At least you admitted to the taxes thing.
It has no evidence and is just taking time from the court.
Does Joe Soptic ring a bell?
Admitted what? That it's sleazy? That it wasn't illegal. People weren't claiming he broke the law. They were claiming he is a perfect example of why the law needs to be changed.
by Cannot think of a name » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:20 pm

by The Emerald Dawn » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:21 pm

by The Not So Communal Kommune » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:21 pm

by TaQud » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:22 pm

by Gauthier » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:22 pm

by Jocabia » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:23 pm
by Cannot think of a name » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:23 pm

by SpudEmpire » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:23 pm

by The Not So Communal Kommune » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:23 pm

by Jocabia » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:24 pm

by The Not So Communal Kommune » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:27 pm
Jocabia wrote:The Not So Communal Kommune wrote:
Ummmm.
Talking about him not paying enough, cheating on Morman tithes. There was a thread on this.
UAW is wasting court time on this.
Joe Soptic?
He didn't pay enough. That's not a conspiracy. He paid less than I did. He paid less than everyone who works, because payroll taxes are more than he pays.
The charges are also not a conspiracy.
Joe Soptic's wife died. That happened. They claimed it was related to his losing his insurance as a result of Bain's treatment. That's not a conspiracy. You may disagree with it (as did many of the anchors on MSNBC, in fact), but it's not a conspiracy. The facts of it were true. It's simply a question of whether or not those facts lead to the conclusion suggested by the ad.
I think if you don't know what "conspiracy" means that you should stop using the word.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Drachovia, Enormous Gentiles, Fartsniffage, Floofybit, Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum, Ifreann, Ostroeuropa, Rusozak, Siimyardo, The Jamesian Republic, Valyxias, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement