jakee

No, the vast majority of the time they blend them because it’s cheaper and easier. There are some excellent pure malt blended whiskies around but mostly it is done so they can use a bit of Malt whiskey and a lot of grain spirit to make a bottle of something that can still pass as whiskey. And there are plenty of single malts or pure malt blends that are far sweeter, smokier, mellower and just plain easier to drink than a Grouse. They’re not just big peaty punches in the face.

A to do list? Uh, ok, how didn’t that go again? 1) Explain your position. 2) Use evidence not bias. I understand why you would find that list too arduous, but it’s probably not something you should be admitting so readily. “As far as the answer - Take a look at the net worth before Bill's Presidency. THEN, take a look at the net worth now. Then use reason.” Reason what? Bill’s been an ex-President for almost two decades. What was he supposed to do after leaving office, become a hermit? The fact that he’s been successful in this last 20 years says nothing about his motivations or actions before and during his time in office. 80 mil apparently, by the way. How much is one foreign Trump Tower worry? How much foreign capital does Kushner need to keep 666 standing?

Who pissed in your mince pies this morning? I don’t know if you were intending to make a late play for most arrogant and condescending post of the year, but it is a contender.

You remember how a week or so ago you had the audacity to point out to someone else that this was a discussion forum? Remember how I pointed out to you at the time that you were being a massive hypocrite? Well, you’re doing it again. Why bring up a subject you don’t want to discuss? Look, it’s obvious you don’t have any reason to think the Clinton’s were profiteering from the office - I was just giving you an opportunity to make it look like you’d at leat thought about it instead of blindly swallowing right wing propaganda. But no, you got nothing. “I tell you what - Run around your house 3 times, then roll on your living room floor for 5 minutes, then give me a 200 word essay on what that made you feel.” Why would I do that? I didn’t come here to talk about exercise. You did come here to espouse biased opinions about the Clintons, so why are you taking exception to being challenged on it?

Why not just say you don’t know, like a normal person? So anyway, thanks for confirming you have no reason, it is just your strong right wing bias again.

To be fair though, he was part of a government that’s just presided over 8 years of swingeing public sector cuts and corporate tax breaks in the name of ‘austerity’ - so I’m pretty sure these promises just a cynical vote grab to ensure Brexit gets done, to be abandoned as soon as it becomes clear how much money Brexit is really going to cost.

Why do you think that? Explain. Use evidence. Demonstrate any level of critical thought beyond your bias that went into that conclusion.

It suuuuuuucks!

I in fact did not exaggerate that Turtle said that

Cool. But how come you seem to be incapable of understanding that this applies to other people as well? Be honest - how many times have you used the words hate or hatred this last week alone? “Mostly because they generally take a situation and blow up to 100 times the actual size of the issue for dramatic effect.” But again, you don’t just blame them for that. You blame them for all the things the Republicans have done too - simply because you assume they’d do them too. But as evidenced above - never the other way around. You do see just how biased you still are, right?

There you go again. When you think you can claim the democrats are doing something bad, you say they’re worse than the Republicans. When it’s pointed out (and you agree) that the Republicans did something worse you’re back to saying they’re both equally bad. Why do you have so much hatred for the Dems?

He's not being impeached for that. He's being impeached for abusing the power of the office for personal gain. Effectively, he's been caught trying to cheat in the next election. So sure, obviously the answer is to do nothing and let the election play out. The election in which we know he's trying to cheat. Great!

First, no. I'm saying that you know that Joe wasn't saying that. You also know that I was saying that, and not what you just suggested. So again, why bother making it appear that you're incapable of following a conversation? What do you hope to gain from looking dumb? Second, in regard to the above that went all through the courts and they never ruled that he did, so who am I to argue. What does that have to do with anything? If lying to the people was grounds for impeachment Trump would be facing about 10,000 articles right now, not two. Might as well have booted him out on the first day.

To be fair though, still the best evidence I’ve seen for Q being real

I don’t really understand what you think you gain by typing something so obviously wrong. You know that’s not what he meant, so why make yourself look dumb?

So Turtle - everytime it’s pointed out that the Republicans have done something partisan or devious you say the Dems would have done the exact same thing. You ask why people can’t see that and call them naive for thinking both parties aren’t exactly the same. Every. Single. Time. Now this one time you think the Dems are being partisan and devious you can’t believe the Reps would have done the same thing, despite their constant hyper-partisan behaviour and their numerous public statements that they will always put party loyalty above their public duty. Explain your position. ”I am willing to be able to look at it from almost an impartial point of view. You can believe that or not.” Err, right. See above.

No, it's the result of genuine impeachable actions by the president. However, when you have an upper chamber who have directly stated that they will spit on their constitutional duty to act as a check and balance to another branch of government then what do you do with that? The Republicans are moaning about due process? Might as well drag it out until they agree to actually apply some. That takes it into election season? Well, since they've got it why should they be stupid enough not to use it?

A) There is absolutely no reason to believe that is so. Remember the predictions before the last election that Trump would lose so badly it would take a generation for a Republican to be electable again? You're making the same mistake. B) No. Trump has committed serious misconduct in office. You can't defend that by questioning the Democrats motives. If it is genuine grounds for impeachment then their motives are irrelevant, since impeachment is still the right thing to do. Since you're not defending Trump's actions, I assume you don't have any reason to say they're not impeachable. The rest of us aren't looking at the world through right-wing coloured glasses, so we don't see what you see.

Yes. He actually gave examples. What is your counter to them? When, for example, have the Dems been guilty of simply refusing to consider doing their job when a Republican was in office? Not just blocking appointments, but not even listening to the merits of any candidate no matter who it is?

I guess you forgot that Obama did make it to the White House. He was there for 8 years. So again, your real world examples of these misdeeds are....?

What's the point in justifying actions that don't exist outside of your head? Obama hasn't done what Trump has done, because Obama isn't Trump. Here's the question that keeps cropping up with me whenever you do this. "Why does Turtlespeed have to keep using imaginary scenarios to make the point that he thinks the Democrats are shameless hypocrites? Can he simply not be bothered to find real examples, or do they not exist?"

Oh for fucks sake. Learn to write in English. Here's how you break down what you wrote - "Because it doesn't affect anyone in the US, (Meaning the Muslin [sic] Reeducation camps)" In this sentence "it" does not mean Muslim reeducation camps, because "it" can be understood by comes next. What comes next is this: "it's not as prudent to be here discussing the environment, and guns, and Q, than it is to discuss people being wrongfully jailed, and reeducated?" You've got that the wrong way around. What you actually wrote has the opposite meaning of what you intended. I misunderstood nothing, and I don't see how YOU don't get that unless it's intentional. Perhaps it's because you're so intent on disagreeing with everything I say that you can't admit any mistake, no matter how blindingly obvious. To answer the question you should have asked - "So, if I hear you correctly. Because it doesn't affect anyone in the US, it's not as prudent to be here discussing people being wrongfully jailed, and reeducated, than it is to discuss the environment, and guns, and Q?" then once again no. I didn't say anything about prudence, and I don't know where you got it from.

Did you read what you wrote? How in the hell are you so oblivious you don't think guns and the environment affect anyone in the US?

What? First, I don't know where you got the word prudent from. Second, if you don't think the environment, guns or Q affect anyone in the US then I honestly don't know what to say to you.

That is one thing he's actually done. Of course, it's not even particularly cynical to view it as a smokescreen to stave of criticism from his profiteering in other ways.