Fanboy Central

For the Fanboys of the White Sox


    Spicey

    Share
    avatar
    blondy28
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 80
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Spicey

    Post by blondy28 on Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:32 pm

    Not surprised that Spicey barely made it 6 months.  I can't imagine lasting a day trying to defend that train wreck.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 170
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Spicey

    Post by alohafri on Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:28 pm

    blondy28 wrote:Not surprised that Spicey barely made it 6 months.  I can't imagine lasting a day trying to defend that train wreck.

    I keep hoping that he wasn't forced to sign a "no books" contract.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 154
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Spicey

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm

    Trump is pretty renowned for signing agreements with his employees not to ever disclose any of the shenanigans they encounter.  Not sure such an agreement would be legal with a gov't employee, but who knows?
    avatar
    blondy28
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 80
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Spicey

    Post by blondy28 on Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:15 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:Trump is pretty renowned for signing agreements with his employees not to ever disclose any of the shenanigans they encounter.  Not sure such an agreement would be legal with a gov't employee, but who knows?

    If such agreements exist, that would not preclude them from having to testify under oath, correct?
    avatar
    sharpy
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 76
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Spicey

    Post by sharpy on Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:48 am

    If such agreements exist, that would not preclude them from having to testify under oath, correct?


    Why? Are expecting a trial? Who is going to bring these charges? The GOP house? GOP senate? GOP DOJ?  And who is running the trial? The GOP  SCOTUS?
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 170
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Spicey

    Post by alohafri on Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:36 am

    sharpy wrote:If such agreements exist, that would not preclude them from having to testify under oath, correct?


    Why? Are expecting a trial? Who is going to bring these charges? The GOP house? GOP senate? GOP DOJ?  And who is running the trial? The GOP  SCOTUS?

    I think the GOP House and Senate keep him around because it takes the heat off of them. I think they realize that he's as goofy as we do, but since that benefits them...

    frank bonifacic
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 43
    Join date : 2017-05-05

    Re: Spicey

    Post by frank bonifacic on Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:24 am

    sharpy wrote:If such agreements exist, that would not preclude them from having to testify under oath, correct?


    Why? Are expecting a trial? Who is going to bring these charges? The GOP house? GOP senate? GOP DOJ?  And who is running the trial? The GOP  SCOTUS?
     That would only apply to an impeachment. The trial of any of his subordinates tegaring crim
    I also activity with Russis fir rcMple would be in s Federal court
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 170
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Spicey

    Post by alohafri on Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:56 am

    frank bonifacic wrote:
    sharpy wrote:If such agreements exist, that would not preclude them from having to testify under oath, correct?


    Why? Are expecting a trial? Who is going to bring these charges? The GOP house? GOP senate? GOP DOJ?  And who is running the trial? The GOP  SCOTUS?
     That would only apply to an impeachment. The trial of any of his subordinates tegaring crim
    I also activity with Russis fir rcMple would be in s Federal court

    English please.  tongue tongue tongue

    frank bonifacic
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 43
    Join date : 2017-05-05

    Re: Spicey

    Post by frank bonifacic on Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:05 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    frank bonifacic wrote:
    sharpy wrote:If such agreements exist, that would not preclude them from having to testify under oath, correct?


    Why? Are expecting a trial? Who is going to bring these charges? The GOP house? GOP senate? GOP DOJ?  And who is running the trial? The GOP  SCOTUS?
     That would only apply to an impeachment. The trial of any of his subordinates tegaring crim
    I also activity with Russis fir rcMple would be in s Federal court

    English please.  tongue tongue tongue

    Can't you read?! !"subordinates regarding criminal activity, with Russia, for example would be in Frderal Court.'n
    avatar
    blondy28
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 80
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Spicey

    Post by blondy28 on Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:10 pm

    sharpy wrote:If such agreements exist, that would not preclude them from having to testify under oath, correct?


    Why? Are expecting a trial? Who is going to bring these charges? The GOP house? GOP senate? GOP DOJ?  And who is running the trial? The GOP  SCOTUS?

    Is the only time someone testifies under oath at a trial or when there are charges?
    avatar
    sharpy
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 76
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Spicey

    Post by sharpy on Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:22 pm

    Is the only time someone testifies under oath at a trial or when there are charges?


    Oh okay ...he can go give his testimony under oath to some senate or house committee ....those have done wonders so far ...or maybe to a priest - guess you're under oath at that time too ...

    frank bonifacic
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 43
    Join date : 2017-05-05

    Re: Spicey

    Post by frank bonifacic on Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:00 pm

    S
    sharpy wrote:Is the only time someone testifies under oath at a trial or when there are charges?


    Oh okay ...he can go give his testimony under oath to some senate or house committee ....those have done wonders so far ...or maybe to a priest - guess you're under oath at that time too ...
     Special counsel csn recommend charges and if asst AG agrees there will be indictment-without input from congress

    frank bonifacic
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 43
    Join date : 2017-05-05

    Re: Spicey

    Post by frank bonifacic on Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:03 pm

    blondy28 wrote:
    sharpy wrote:If such agreements exist, that would not preclude them from having to testify under oath, correct?


    Why? Are expecting a trial? Who is going to bring these charges? The GOP house? GOP senate? GOP DOJ?  And who is running the trial? The GOP  SCOTUS?

    Is the only time someone testifies under oath at a trial or when there are charges?
    Depositions are under oath, testimony before Congressional committees are under oath, and answers to questions from FBI are subject to prosecution, it is a federal crime to lie to a FBI agent -OR. Federal revenue agent
    avatar
    cream919
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 58
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell

    Re: Spicey

    Post by cream919 on Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:57 pm

    We may be seeing the downfall of the American Government as we know it. This the child of "party before country".

    Enjoy.
    avatar
    Fanboy For Life
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 49
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Spicey

    Post by Fanboy For Life on Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:00 am

    Trump is a Party of ONE.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 170
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Spicey

    Post by alohafri on Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:34 pm

    Fanboy For Life wrote:Trump is a Party of ONE.

    Two. You have to include his pooch, Sean Hannity. Hannity's head is so far up Trump's ass, he can diagnose his tonsilitis.
    avatar
    cream919
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 58
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell

    Re: Spicey

    Post by cream919 on Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:08 pm

    Party of one seems to be enough. Do you honestly think this guy is going to be impeached and kicked out of office when you would need even his own party to turn on him and set the wheels in motion? You live in a fantasy world if you do.

    frank bonifacic
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 43
    Join date : 2017-05-05

    Re: Spicey

    Post by frank bonifacic on Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:38 pm

    cream919 wrote:Party of one seems to be enough. Do you honestly think this guy is going to be impeached and kicked out of office when you would need even his own party to turn on him and set the wheels in motion? You live in a fantasy world if you do.
    It would only happen if this deal with Russia gets worse and worse. Republicans will hold their nose as long as they can-BECAUSE they know he will sign anything they pass. They will  stick it to the country with an incompetent in the presidency if it allows them to pass that Huuuuuge tax cut for their sponsors.
    ONLY IF the base (I know it's a long shot) finally says HEY, you can't do that with Russia and defend America. until that occurs, the hypocrites in Congress will go along because they are (doing the will of the people!!!))
    avatar
    cream919
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 58
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell

    Re: Spicey

    Post by cream919 on Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:12 pm

    In other words the answer is a big fat NO!
    avatar
    sharpy
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 76
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Spicey

    Post by sharpy on Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:25 pm

    Special counsel csn recommend charges and if asst AG agrees there will be indictment-without input from congress

    AG can be fired if he doesn't play ball.  Assistant AG can be fired just as easily as the AG ...and if Sessions and his asst don't fire Mueller when told to do so, (over/under August 15? sept1? ) , then they get fired and the next guy up has to agree to do so ...then what? 
    avatar
    sharpy
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 76
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Spicey

    Post by sharpy on Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:34 pm

    Trump is a Party of ONE.


    What?  Party of ONE?  What do you call all the sheep following him? Ryan doesn't count? McConnell? Rand Paul? .. The House is 10% tea partiers and the Senate 5% - That's a big chunk of loyalty to the Fuhrer ..He has the House, he has the Senate, He has the judiciary, and before November 2018, he is going to have his Reichstag event to galvanize the base even more ...Cream is right, unfortunately this may be the end of our government as we know it - same in Turkey, same in Poland, same with Brexit. I was told on Facebook Trump couldn't run a Banana republic ...but it seems he can take over the US
    avatar
    Fanboy For Life
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 49
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Spicey

    Post by Fanboy For Life on Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:41 am

    The fucking political hysteria is too much.  To be impeached, there has to be EVIDENCE, not a load of bullshit.


    Sharpy, your idea of a MILITARY Coup to destroy our form of Government indicates you need a long vacation or have become unhinged.


    You are beginning to sound crazier than COACH.

    frank bonifacic
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 43
    Join date : 2017-05-05

    Re: Spicey

    Post by frank bonifacic on Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:02 am

    sharpy wrote:Trump is a Party of ONE.


    What?  Party of ONE?  What do you call all the sheep following him? Ryan doesn't count? McConnell? Rand Paul? .. The House is 10% tea partiers and the Senate 5% - That's a big chunk of loyalty to the Fuhrer ..He has the House, he has the Senate, He has the judiciary, and before November 2018, he is going to have his Reichstag event to galvanize the base even more ...Cream is right, unfortunately this may be the end of our government as we know it - same in Turkey, same in Poland, same with Brexit. I was told on Facebook Trump couldn't run a Banana republic ...but it seems he can take over the US
    You know, ( I agree that this is really screwed up and we have become a laughing stock nation), but:
    The good thing abut times like these is there have ALWAYS been time like these! not the exact but predictabletions of doom.
    I will admit that it is going to take some time and maybe some really drastic action by Trump or the opposition.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 154
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Spicey

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:39 pm

    Fanboy For Life wrote:The fucking political hysteria is too much.  To be impeached, there has to be EVIDENCE, not a load of bullshit.


    Sharpy, your idea of a MILITARY Coup to destroy our form of Government indicates you need a long vacation or have become unhinged.


    You are beginning to sound crazier than COACH.

    I'm not as alarmist as Tim is on this topic, but Sharpy brings up some decent points.  There are some obvious checks and balances in place to keep the president in line, but it appears that most of those checks and balances are run or controlled by the GOP.  That doesn't mean Trump would NEVER be impeached, nor does it mean he would NEVER be held in check by SCOTUS or the Senate, but if those checks and balances wanted to, they could effectively give Trump the full run of the place if they wanted to place party over nation.  I'm not yet of the belief that none of these bodies of the gov't would hold Trump to proper standards.  Most of us are probably still leaning more toward AlohaKev's comments in the past that there's a constitution in place and that Trump can't summarily violate it without catching a raft of legal shit.  But still, what if the GOP-controlled bodies don't do their job?  Who, aside from the voters, will keep their feet to the fire?   What if there ends up being clear evidence of collusion and/or obstruction of justice by the Trump campaign, and if neither the Senate or House acts on it?  Then what?  


    It's not hard to imagine violence, rallies, revolts, etc.  I hesitate to use the word "rebellion", but what if the gun nuts start shooting at an anti-Trump rally?  What if the military has to get involved to shut it down?  


    Not predicting a military coup, but it's not hard to imagine things getting really ugly in the next 12 months, and getting ugly enough to necessitate military involvement to quell some kind of revolt.  I hope I'm wrong and Tim's wrong.  I would fear for my family in those kinds of conditions.  
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 170
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Spicey

    Post by alohafri on Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:22 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    Fanboy For Life wrote:The fucking political hysteria is too much.  To be impeached, there has to be EVIDENCE, not a load of bullshit.


    Sharpy, your idea of a MILITARY Coup to destroy our form of Government indicates you need a long vacation or have become unhinged.


    You are beginning to sound crazier than COACH.

    I'm not as alarmist as Tim is on this topic, but Sharpy brings up some decent points.  There are some obvious checks and balances in place to keep the president in line, but it appears that most of those checks and balances are run or controlled by the GOP.  That doesn't mean Trump would NEVER be impeached, nor does it mean he would NEVER be held in check by SCOTUS or the Senate, but if those checks and balances wanted to, they could effectively give Trump the full run of the place if they wanted to place party over nation.  I'm not yet of the belief that none of these bodies of the gov't would hold Trump to proper standards.  Most of us are probably still leaning more toward AlohaKev's comments in the past that there's a constitution in place and that Trump can't summarily violate it without catching a raft of legal shit.  But still, what if the GOP-controlled bodies don't do their job?  Who, aside from the voters, will keep their feet to the fire?   What if there ends up being clear evidence of collusion and/or obstruction of justice by the Trump campaign, and if neither the Senate or House acts on it?  Then what?  


    It's not hard to imagine violence, rallies, revolts, etc.  I hesitate to use the word "rebellion", but what if the gun nuts start shooting at an anti-Trump rally?  What if the military has to get involved to shut it down?  


    Not predicting a military coup, but it's not hard to imagine things getting really ugly in the next 12 months, and getting ugly enough to necessitate military involvement to quell some kind of revolt.  I hope I'm wrong and Tim's wrong.  I would fear for my family in those kinds of conditions.  

    You are wrong.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Spicey

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:27 am