Rules For Thee But Not For Me

[red viking]

1 hour ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Yep. Just ask Trump. Dems played the game and now they’re getting a taste of their own medicine.  It’s a beautiful thing for sure. 

Those were legit. He was actually convicted on 34 felonies and would have been more if he didn't stop those from moving forward. 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Those were legit. He was actually convicted on 34 felonies and would have been more if he didn't stop those from moving forward. 

So these were all legit but the indictment process for the Jan 6 committee wouldn’t be?   Bahahahahahahhahahaha.  You’re a brainwashed sheeple.  The Jan 6 committee didn’t need to be pardoned if they did nothing wrong. Due process could have handled it 

Edited November 13, 2025 by JimmySpeaks

[WrestlingRasta]

6 hours ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

If you call taxation without representation within the confines of our law. I think it was total non representation, with no checks on what was delivered and what was thrown out. 

It was not in ANY WAY a case of taxation without representation. First, and at its simplest core, it had absolutely nothing to do with establishing or collecting taxes.  Second, select investigative committees are a standard function of Congress, with its powers established….by law. And third, taxation - representation does not = we get whatever we want and only the outcomes we want.  In not one single of the many previous committee investigations has everyone been happy with the result, or process for that matter.  “I think” does not determine its lawfulness, the law does. The argument reminds me of stuff I deal with at work regularly.  “I pay taxes so I can _______”. Ummmmm, no, you can’t. 
 

The investigations purpose was not to set any taxes, set any laws, or anything of the sort.  It was to investigate, report its findings to the public, and make reccomendations. That’s it. And it was completely within the confines of the law, particularly relative to charging its members with crimes. 

Edited November 14, 2025 by WrestlingRasta

[Offthemat]

37 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

It was not in ANY WAY a case of taxation without representation. First, and at its simplest core, it had absolutely nothing to do with establishing or collecting taxes.  Second, select investigative committees are a standard function of Congress, with its powers established….by law. And third, taxation - representation does not = we get whatever we want and only the outcomes we want.  In not one single of the many previous committee investigations has everyone been happy with the result, or process for that matter.  “I think” does not determine its lawfulness, the law does. The argument reminds me of stuff I deal with at work regularly.  “I pay taxes so I can _______”. Ummmmm, no, you can’t. 
 

The investigations purpose was not to set any taxes, set any laws, or anything of the sort.  It was to investigate, report its findings to the public, and make reccomendations. That’s it. And it was completely within the confines of the law, particularly relative to charging its members with crimes. 

I took his phrase “no taxation without representation” to apply to the makeup of the committee.  After polosi rejected the appointed Republicans, which was UNPRECEDENTED, she appointed two members who were more hostile, and certainly more energetic, than some of the dimocrats.  Having no opposition, the committee lacked credibility, and they admitted to destroying evidence.  It was  absolutely Soviet in style and conduct. 

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I took his phrase “no taxation without representation” to apply to the makeup of the committee.  After polosi rejected the appointed Republicans, which was UNPRECEDENTED, she appointed two members who were more hostile, and certainly more energetic, than some of the dimocrats.  Having no opposition, the committee lacked credibility, and they admitted to destroying evidence.  It was  absolutely Soviet in style and conduct. 

She actually only rejected two of the proposed, two who had sworn loyalty to Trump, and as a mark for political points McCarthy pulled the remaining republicans appointees (5) save for Chaney and Kinzinger, because they wanted to serve. 
 

On a formal note, “I took” also does not make it what you want it to make, and it doesn’t make it unlawful.  On a less than formal note, Pull your head out of your ass and learn to think for yourself for once. Don’t be a parrot. It’s unbecoming. 

[JimmySpeaks]

12 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

How is this relevant?

Far more than you’ll ever realize. 

[Offthemat]

20 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

save for Chaney and Kinzinger

This is wrong.  Neither were appointed by McCarthy, they agreed to join the Star Chamber because they wanted to damage Trump.  You should probably take another hit, you seem to think you’re somebody you’re not.  

[WrestlingRasta]

3 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

This is wrong.  Neither were appointed by McCarthy, they agreed to join the Star Chamber because they wanted to damage Trump.  You should probably take another hit, you seem to think you’re somebody you’re not.  

Which is why I included the part you conveniently left out when quoting me, “they wanted to serve”. I know exactly who I am, and who I’m not.  You are not a parrot, stop acting like one.  
 

Side note, I haven’t taken a hit in six months.  It’s silly someone with a medical reason for using marijuana instead of addictive opioids cannot, but until our current government policies change on that topic, we all have choices to make …. (Not that your feeble attempt at being cute has anything to do with this topic, but since you brought it up) 

[JimmySpeaks]

18 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

This is wrong.  Neither were appointed by McCarthy, they agreed to join the Star Chamber because they wanted to damage Trump.  You should probably take another hit, you seem to think you’re somebody you’re not.  

This  

[Caveira]

10 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Which is why I included the part you conveniently left out when quoting me, “they wanted to serve”. I know exactly who I am, and who I’m not.  You are not a parrot, stop acting like one.  
 

Side note, I haven’t taken a hit in six months.  It’s silly someone with a medical reason for using marijuana instead of addictive opioids cannot, but until our current government policies change on that topic, we all have choices to make …. (Not that your feeble attempt at being cute has anything to do with this topic, but since you brought it up) 

Weird question.  I don’t know what state you live in (Florida ?).   Can you not find weed or did you just stop smoking.  Either answer is correct…. 

[JimmySpeaks]

20 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

This is wrong.  Neither were appointed by McCarthy, they agreed to join the Star Chamber because they wanted to damage Trump.  You should probably take another hit, you seem to think you’re somebody you’re not.  

You can’t get this one off his high horse about thinking he’s ALWAYS morally right.  He will never change and the baggage he carries weighs heavily on him. 

Edited November 14, 2025 by JimmySpeaks

[WrestlingRasta]

11 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Weird question.  I don’t know what state you live in (Florida ?).   Can you not find weed or did you just stop smoking.  Either answer is correct…. 

Florida.  I stopped. I had a prescription and a dispensary five minutes from my home. But, things changed at work, and continuing would put my career at risk, so I let the prescription run out and did not renew. 
 

Local government follows federal government as far as medical marijuana is concerned. So until the feds see the light….like I said, we all have choices to make. 

[WrestlingRasta]

14 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

You can’t get this one off his high horse about thinking he’s ALWAYS morally right.  He will never change and the baggage he carries weighs heavily on him. 

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Florida.  I stopped. I had a prescription and a dispensary five minutes from my home. But, things changed at work, and continuing would put my career at risk, so I let the prescription run out and did not renew. 
 

Local government follows federal government as far as medical marijuana is concerned. So until the feds see the light….like I said, we all have choices to make. 

Fair enough boss.   That sucks a bit.   I don’t know the closest state to FL that it’s legal.  Consider driving there ?   I’ve a buddy with a wife in a bad health state and he drives a few hours every quarter or so for her.   Other than that.  
 

have a nice week / weekend otherwise. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Keep laughing right through the truth hurting. 

[JimmySpeaks]

Choices are real 

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Fair enough boss.   That sucks a bit.   I don’t know the closest state to FL that it’s legal.  Consider driving there ?   I’ve a buddy with a wife in a bad health state and he drives a few hours every quarter or so for her.   Other than that.  
 

have a nice week / weekend otherwise. 

Nothing changed with the state, but with my job and random drug testing policies.  As I said the local govt follows the feds, so they don’t recognize the prescription should I fail a test. So the choice was whether or not to keep the prescription and risk the career, or let it go.  (Even though it was prescribed to me as a patient in an emergency room).  Is what it is.  We all have choices to make. 

[Offthemat]

40 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Which is why I included the part you conveniently left out when quoting me, “they wanted to serve”. I know exactly who I am, and who I’m not.  You are not a parrot, stop acting like one.  
 

Side note, I haven’t taken a hit in six months.  It’s silly someone with a medical reason for using marijuana instead of addictive opioids cannot, but until our current government policies change on that topic, we all have choices to make …. (Not that your feeble attempt at being cute has anything to do with this topic, but since you brought it up) 

See?  I was right, again.  
I’m not ‘parroting’.  There’s lots of people who have sense enough to know what went on with that committee.  We probably mention some of the same problems.  All one sided, no opposition party, suborning perjury, complete with Hollywood production.  
But you found @Gene Mills Fan phrasing confusing and chose to get nasty with me when I tried to clarify it for you.  So take your own advice. 

[WrestlingRasta]

7 hours ago, Offthemat said:

See?  I was right, again.  What were you right about??

I’m not ‘parroting’.  There’s lots of people who have sense enough to know what went on with that committee.  We probably mention some of the same problems.  All one sided, no opposition party, suborning perjury, complete with Hollywood production. Lots of people hailing to the words of Big T and following what he tells you to feel doesn't mean you're not parroting, it means you're one of a large group of parrots.  Or flock of sheep, to put it another way.

But you found @Gene Mills Fan phrasing confusing Gene Mills Fan phrasing was not confusing, it was wrong, as I clearly laid out in the post you initially responded to, you quoted it, I would hope you could comprehend it, it did not need your 'clarification' 

and chose to get nasty with me when I tried to clarify it for you. I didn't know telling someone to pull their head out of their ass and think for themself was nasty, it was..as you state here...advice.  Friendly advice.  It's not like I told you to go play in the street because I had nothing to add to the conversation.

 So take your own advice. I do, which is how I am able to see things for what they are, no matter who we're talking about, rather than follow the flock and go with whatever der Leader is telling me to think.   You should try it, it's enlightening.   

Have a great weekend!

 

[Gene Mills Fan]

9 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I took his phrase “no taxation without representation” to apply to the makeup of the committee.  After polosi rejected the appointed Republicans, which was UNPRECEDENTED, she appointed two members who were more hostile, and certainly more energetic, than some of the dimocrats.  Having no opposition, the committee lacked credibility, and they admitted to destroying evidence.  It was  absolutely Soviet in style and conduct. 

 

[Gene Mills Fan]

9 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

She actually only rejected two of the proposed, two who had sworn loyalty to Trump, and as a mark for political points McCarthy pulled the remaining republicans appointees (5) save for Chaney and Kinzinger, because they wanted to serve. 
 

On a formal note, “I took” also does not make it what you want it to make, and it doesn’t make it unlawful.  On a less than formal note, Pull your head out of your ass and learn to think for yourself for once. Don’t be a parrot. It’s unbecoming. 

She appointed only two who already showed their position.  so no other check except for  Chaney and Kinzinger who already took their position but just wanted to "Serve".  I'm not stating its unlawful its legally assembling a stacked deck.

Nothing they did was wrong but without a check its cherry picked and half the story. 

[WrestlingRasta]

9 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Nothing they did was wrong

Thank you, so we circle back to my point in this topic.......the pardons were given not to protect them from criminal actions.  They were given to save a lot of time, hassle, and expenses to both the individuals and the tax payers, because there was no criminal wrong doing, and Big T had made it clear he was going to go after them.  

[Gene Mills Fan]

16 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Thank you, so we circle back to my point in this topic.......the pardons were given not to protect them from criminal actions.  They were given to save a lot of time, hassle, and expenses to both the individuals and the tax payers, because there was no criminal wrong doing, and Big T had made it clear he was going to go after them.  

They did nothing wrong that we know about yet, it has been documented a possibility of number of videos was destroyed? /not released?  I'm seeing your logic but disagree with the premise. They couldn't care less about the cost to the taxpayer!! or they would have stopped with the Russian Sh..?  then the cost of the impeachment, they've shown over and over they do not care about these costs when it means losing power.  there remains the possibility They were given the pardons in reciprocation for their support. 

Edited November 14, 2025 by Gene Mills Fan

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

You’re kinda slow huh?  Being successful isn’t someone winning and someone else losing.  It’s being accountable to what it takes to be successful.  It’s not that hard to figure out.  Poor people in America have more than people in much of the rest of the world because of capitalism. It’s why so many want in here.  
 

I find it funny how during the riots a few years back when people were burning down stores that made life bearable it was no big deal to inconvenience those same people you’re referencing.  You know actively “harming a community “.  As for theft it’s still a problem as most things are locked up in many stores in certain areas. It’s also not safe for people to work in certain stores therefore they can’t remain open to do lack of a reliable workforce.  Companies go bankrupt and out of business all the time because they make stupid decisions.  

Which riots and which stores specifically? Where did all this take place? 
Because on this side there are real tangible examples. The video makes that crystal clear. 
Burning buildings was harmful. And the insurance made those businesses whole and able to rebuild and return their benefit to the community. 
Theft: not trust me bro. Give me evidence. Your opinion isn’t worth anything. 
Safety: again , evidence? With none you have no point. 
Bad decisions: agreed. When did we get on this topic?

[ThreePointTakedown]

10 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Far more than you’ll ever realize. 

If it was you or the poster would have an answer. 
I think what you both are trying to do is demean me and my credibility by questioning my age. 
Instead of countering my points with evidence. These are tactics of someone that knows they are losing. And to a teenager, no less. 
That has to hurt.