There is no having a decent conversation with that EEF character. If you recall when he first came to the forum he said that he is trying to enlighten everyone by taking the other side of a discussion. Like most of us don’t already know the other side. I call it talking out both sides of his ass. But that is just me. I feel he is degrading people here and treating them like they don’t have the intelligence to understand all sides of a discussion. He tries to show he is intellectually superior to everyone when in fact he makes himself look just the opposite most of the time. He talks down to people and he is very much a narcissist. He is a waste of time trying to have a discussion with. He doesn’t take his side and defend it. He takes all sides to try and enlighten you. WTF is up with that? He also lies quite a bit. He’s not worth my time so I just put him on ignore.

Let’s face it, we know who the informant is. We already know his background and we also know his bias and animus towards Trump. We also know the Dems are trying to keep him from testifying so he and Schiff don’t get into trouble. This plus the fact that he doesn’t have any first hand knowledge of the phone call should easily disqualify his complaint.

Correct on all points.  The big problem I have with EEF is the amount of damage he does if nobody challenges him and his beliefs (not facts -- facts exist independent of his beliefs).

I know I get into trouble for engaging him, but I really don't care.  What other people think of me doesn't dictate how I live my life.  It never has, and I doubt it ever will.  We have a name for people who try to please everybody at once.  We call them "politicians."

I noticed lately he's less active on here, but when he does visit, he comments on every single thread -- even if the comment is something like, "I have nothing to add."

He can't help himself.  On the Internet, you can be anything you want to be.  Unfortunately, too many people choose to be AssHoles.   

He can't help himself.  On the Internet, you can be anything you want to be.  Unfortunately, too many people choose to be AssHoles.   

Holy Crap.
You got a mirror for Christmas!

I’m not trolling. Just calling you on it.
Go back through your posts.

Holy Crap.
You got a mirror for Christmas!

I’m not trolling. Just calling you on it.
Go back through your posts.

Obviously my posts bother you.   

Run to your safe space.   

Too bad the New Year won't bring us a new "you."   

There is no having a decent conversation with that EEF character. If you recall when he first came to the forum he said that he is trying to enlighten everyone by taking the other side of a discussion. Like most of us don’t already know the other side. I call it talking out both sides of his ass. But that is just me. I feel he is degrading people here and treating them like they don’t have the intelligence to understand all sides of a discussion. He tries to show he is intellectually superior to everyone when in fact he makes himself look just the opposite most of the time. He talks down to people and he is very much a narcissist. He is a waste of time trying to have a discussion with. He doesn’t take his side and defend it. He takes all sides to try and enlighten you. WTF is up with that? He also lies quite a bit. He’s not worth my time so I just put him on ignore.

Let’s face it, we know who the informant is. We already know his background and we also know his bias and animus towards Trump. We also know the Dems are trying to keep him from testifying so he and Schiff don’t get into trouble. This plus the fact that he doesn’t have any first hand knowledge of the phone call should easily disqualify his complaint.

I was gonna add my 0.02, but you did a good job there. On multiple levels.   

If you recall when he first came to the forum he said that he is trying to enlighten everyone by taking the other side of a discussion.

I rember the dork posting all sorts of things that appeared to be trying to get 2A members to post incriminationg material.

He was quickly ID'd as a HPD troll looking to instigate.

When he morphed into a garden variety liberal argument lover, I put him on ignore.  No idea what he posts these days, just see the stream of blocked posts.  That AH guy same thing, but he does not seem to have the same narcissistic need to serially post.

Hey Rob, can you see me now ?

If I was like Moosed/DarmokatSalad/Mauidog\ Flapp Jackson (all the same person by the way) I would tell you i’m glad you found your safe space...but I’m not so I won’t.

I met EEF. Sold me a semi-melted flashlight. (Yeah I still bought it )
I don’t think he’s a cop. Fed maybe but not a cop by local cop standards anyway. Then again maybe that’s why they chose him.
Just an opinion though.

I rember the dork posting all sorts of things that appeared to be trying to get 2A members to post incriminationg material.

He was quickly ID'd as a HPD troll looking to instigate.

When he morphed into a garden variety liberal argument lover, I put him on ignore.  No idea what he posts these days, just see the stream of blocked posts.  That AH guy same thing, but he does not seem to have the same narcissistic need to serially post.

I vaguely remember him trying to get people to post things I know I was not comfortable with. And I remember someone outed him as LE of some sort. But I have never met the guy. Some people who have met him say he is a nice guy. Maybe so. His online persona sucks to me. I don’t care if he has differing views. He could be a conservative or a wild eyed liberal. I can converse with someone who has a view and defends it. But no one really knows his views because he is constantly arguing whatever side he feels like. To try and enlighten those of us who obviously know more than he does. One cannot get to know someone like that. I guess that is what he wants but it comes across as demeaning IMHO. I put him on ignore because I caught him in some lies and just decided he wasn’t worth my time any more. It is one thing to be a jerk, its another thing to just out and out lie.

Hey Rob, can you see me now ?

If I was like Moosed/DarmokatSalad/Mauidog\ Flapp Jackson (all the same person by the way) I would tell you i’m glad you found your safe space...but I’m not so I won’t.

I met EEF. Sold me a semi-melted flashlight. (Yeah I still bought it )
I don’t think he’s a cop. Fed maybe but not a cop by local cop standards anyway. Then again maybe that’s why they chose him.
Just an opinion though.

I wouldn't call it melted lol. It was superficial either way. As for the rest I don't know whether that is a compliment or an insult hehe 

Wrong.
Everyone accused of a crime (or in this case, impeachable acts) has a fundamental right to face their accuser.  Why?

Nope, you are incorrect. At the trial the person has the right to face their accuser but there is no blanket right to face anyone who made any sort of accusation against you.

So the defendant & his lawyers can explore bias, other motives for possibly lying, their past (serial accuser?), and the verocity of their facts.  it allows the defense to cross-examine the accuser, which has a multitude of potential truth-finding benefits.  Reading a lawyer-created complaint is not the same as asking the accuser clarification questions or requesting answers for inconsistencies between the written complaint, depositions, public statements if any, and other witness testimonies.

If a reporting person's statement is used as direct evidence in a trial then yes but if the reporting person's statement is not used as evidence then they get to remain anonymous. Anonymous information is used in trials all the time when it can be independently verified by investigation. Please note I am the one presenting you with facts that you try to find ways to ignore, not the other way around.

I vaguely remember him trying to get people to post things I know I was not comfortable with. And I remember someone outed him as LE of some sort. But I have never met the guy. Some people who have met him say he is a nice guy. Maybe so. His online persona sucks to me. I don’t care if he has differing views. He could be a conservative or a wild eyed liberal. I can converse with someone who has a view and defends it. But no one really knows his views because he is constantly arguing whatever side he feels like. To try and enlighten those of us who obviously know more than he does. One cannot get to know someone like that. I guess that is what he wants but it comes across as demeaning IMHO. I put him on ignore because I caught him in some lies and just decided he wasn’t worth my time any more. It is one thing to be a jerk, its another thing to just out and out lie.

You may not see my reply but you have suggest I regularly lie and I have to confront that. Whatever else could be said negative about my debate style aside, I do not lie. I don't like to lie, I am not good at it, and I don't do it.

You say you don't know what side I take, I don't try to take a side all the time, I just point out where the facts lead me. I understand it doesn't make me fit cleanly into one side or the other and people appear to have trouble when someone doesn't fit into their classifications but I value objectivity over the label of any one side. So if a democrat makes a good point I recognize it and if a republican makes a good point I recognize that instead of being blinded by loyalty or defensiveness of one side or the other. This is why I will point out good arguments by democrats and bad arguments by republicans though I am more of a republican.

My intention is never to demean so I apologize if I came across like that. In politics I do not get hostile and I see things from a different angle. I see where both sides make arguments that appear they don't understand the reasons of the other side so I try to illustrate the other side in a way that gives an accurate understanding instead of the demonized hyperbolic one. Perhaps I am not as eloquent at doing that as I would like to be.

Nope, you are incorrect. At the trial the person has the right to face their accuser but there is no blanket right to face anyone who made any sort of accusation against you.

If a reporting person's statement is used as direct evidence in a trial then yes but if the reporting person's statement is not used as evidence then they get to remain anonymous. Anonymous information is used in trials all the time when it can be independently verified by investigation. Please note I am the one presenting you with facts that you try to find ways to ignore, not the other way around.

Your statist, authoritarian, unconstitutional rationalizations and beliefs show you are definitely in the Liberal'Leftist/Progressive camp.

Nothing against Trump has been "independently verified" beyond the exculpatory facts:  Trump said he wanted nothing from the Ukrainian president.  No quid pro quo.  He only wants him to do the right thing.

No other evidence has been offered to verify the opinions contained in the complaint.

You may not see my reply but you have suggest I regularly lie and I have to confront that. Whatever else could be said negative about my debate style aside, I do not lie. I don't like to lie, I am not good at it, and I don't do it.

You say you don't know what side I take, I don't try to take a side all the time, I just point out where the facts lead me. I understand it doesn't make me fit cleanly into one side or the other and people appear to have trouble when someone doesn't fit into their classifications but I value objectivity over the label of any one side. So if a democrat makes a good point I recognize it and if a republican makes a good point I recognize that instead of being blinded by loyalty or defensiveness of one side or the other. This is why I will point out good arguments by democrats and bad arguments by republicans though I am more of a republican.

My intention is never to demean so I apologize if I came across like that. In politics I do not get hostile and I see things from a different angle. I see where both sides make arguments that appear they don't understand the reasons of the other side so I try to illustrate the other side in a way that gives an accurate understanding instead of the demonized hyperbolic one. Perhaps I am not as eloquent at doing that as I would like to be.

That's a lie.

why argue with a tree?

why argue with a tree?

So the rocks know not to believe the lies the tree spouts?   

That's a lie.

Hey Flapp,

Was this his reply to one of my posts? He lied to you about lying. Not only have I caught him numerous times in his own lies during discussions, but one time he lied ABOUT ME, TO ME, that is when I drew the line and put him on ignore. Differences of opinions are one thing, but when I exposed something he said as not true, I must have hit a nerve because he started saying things about me that were not true. To me it appeared that he went off his meds or something like that because his whole attitude changed from one of stupidity and back peddling to attacking me. It was one of those moments when I realized this guy is getting close to going postal. Enough, ignore.

Hey Flapp,

Was this his reply to one of my posts? He lied to you about lying. Not only have I caught him numerous times in his own lies during discussions, but one time he lied ABOUT ME, TO ME, that is when I drew the line and put him on ignore. Differences of opinions are one thing, but when I exposed something he said as not true, I must have hit a nerve because he started saying things about me that were not true. To me it appeared that he went off his meds or something like that because his whole attitude changed from one of stupidity and back peddling to attacking me. It was one of those moments when I realized this guy is getting close to going postal. Enough, ignore.

Yes.  He's refuting your absolutely spot-on conclusions about the bullshit he posts.

You may not see my reply but you have suggest[ed] I regularly lie[,] and I have to confront that.
Whatever else could be said negative about my debate style aside, I do not lie. I don't like to lie,
I am not good at it, and I don't do it.

You say you don't know what side I take, I don't try to take a side all the time, I just point out where the facts lead me.

** Blah
** Blah
** More Bullshit
** etc.

He sees himself as the Conservative Whisperer, translating for us all what the Leftist/Liberal/Socialist/Progressive arguments are -- since we are too ignorant, stupid, biased and racist to understand those ideas without his guidance.

We're just lucky to have him here -- for the good of the 2A cause.  Without his interpretive skills, we'll never be able to bring non-Republicans into the 2A fold. 

Yes.  He's refuting your absolutely spot-on conclusions about the bullshit he posts.

He sees himself as the Conservative Whisperer, translating for us all what the Leftist/Liberal/Socialist/Progressive arguments are -- since we are too ignorant, stupid, biased and racist to understand those ideas without his guidance.

We're just lucky to have him here -- for the good of the 2A cause.  Without his interpretive skills, we'll never be able to bring non-Republicans into the 2A fold. 

Agree. Let’s get back to the subject at hand.

What do you think Pelosi’s next move is going to be? I don’t think McConnell is going to go thru with a trial without the articles and house managers.

Agree. Let’s get back to the subject at hand.

What do you think Pelosi’s next move is going to be? I don’t think McConnell is going to go thru with a trial without the articles and house managers.

If Pelosi is developing a strategy, it has to be based on the undeniable outcome that Trump will not be removed from office.

The strategy has been the same for 3 years -- non-stop investigations that would undoubtedly find evidence of a crime, at the very least of which would be obstruction of justice based on a perjury trap interview.

So far, that strategy has not entangled Trump, but it has taken down people close to him.

Her only real path now is to cry "Foul!" before the trial even begins, calling McConnell unfair and biased.  That bias thing is a joke.  We're talking about Congress -- a collection of nothing BUT party-loyal, biased, and partisan hacks.

By accusing the Senate of rigging the trial, they can try to shift the blame for the abysmally inadequate case they developed to impeach Trump.  "It's not our fault he wasn't removed. The evidence was undisputed and overwhelming.  It's the unfair rules the majority set up that let Trump skate."

I don't think they can muster much more than blaming the GOP senators.  They sure can't produce actual evidence, no matter how many non-witness witnesses they call.

If Pelosi is developing a strategy, it has to be based on the undeniable outcome that Trump will not be removed from office.

The strategy has been the same for 3 years -- non-stop investigations that would undoubtedly find evidence of a crime, at the very least of which would be obstruction of justice based on a perjury trap interview.

So far, that strategy has not entangled Trump, but it has taken down people close to him.

Her only real path now is to cry "Foul!" before the trial even begins, calling McConnell unfair and biased.  That bias thing is a joke.  We're talking about Congress -- a collection of nothing BUT party-loyal, biased, and partisan hacks.

By accusing the Senate of rigging the trial, they can try to shift the blame for the abysmally inadequate case they developed to impeach Trump.  "It's not our fault he wasn't removed. The evidence was undisputed and overwhelming.  It's the unfair rules the majority set up that let Trump skate."

I don't think they can muster much more than blaming the GOP senators.  They sure can't produce actual evidence, no matter how many non-witness witnesses they call.

Let this be a lesson to anyone who cooperates with any anti Trump investigation.  Do not give a statement unless ordered by the courts.  ANd if you do, have your lawyer present.  How many got screwed by the DNC looking for something during the statements made?  Flynn and Cohen are 2 that I know of so far.

Agree. Let’s get back to the subject at hand.

What do you think Pelosi’s next move is going to be? I don’t think McConnell is going to go thru with a trial without the articles and house managers.

She'll wait till just before the elections to submit articles in hopes of taking the senate and then  impeach the newly elected Trump.