So...democrats no longer insist on believing all women?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Your whole premise was based on a lie you made up and yet you want someone to defend the lie you made up.

Try being honest.

WHat was the lie? And who am I trying to get to defend it?

Paul, you said insider trading is only an issue if more than one security is involved. Has anyone, anywhere, ever said that? How did you come up with that standard? Answer - it lets the democrat off the hook. But that's just a coincidence, right?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WHat was the lie? And who am I trying to get to defend it?You said "But it's OK when she does it, because she's a democrat". Are you too dim witted to recognize you made that up? What are you a toddler (again, see I can do that)

Paul, you said insider trading is only an issue if more than one security is involved.Show me where I said that. - stop lying. I explained why Burr got the most flak and the others got less flak. Has anyone, anywhere, ever said that? How did you come up with that standard? Answer - it lets the democrat off the hook. But that's just a coincidence, right?

You lied again. You are a compulsive liar.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You lied again. You are a compulsive liar.

You made up a laughably absurd excuse (insider trading doesn't warrant scrutiny if only one security was traded) that no one, ever, has used. You came up with that idiotic excuse to defend the democrat. Not only did I not lie, you proved my point.

You aid the degree to which insider trading is unethical, depends on the number of securities involved, rather than the amount of money involved, or the nature of the insider information upon which the decision to sell was made. If you actually believe that, you're an idiot. If you don't believe it but invented that excuse to defend the democrats, youre a liar.

you conceded that the democrat is getting less scrutiny. She sole over $1 million of stock based on information she gathered doing the job we entrusted her to do, information not available to the public, But you say because only 1 stock was involved, that's a valid reason for the decreased scrutiny.




An idiot or a liar. There isn't a third excuse for saying that.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You made up a laughably absurd excuse (insider trading doesn't warrant scrutiny if only one security was traded) Pull up what I said - you're lying again. You do it so much that you can't even help yourself anymore. that no one, ever, has used. You came up with that idiotic excuse to defend the democrat. Not only did I not lie, you proved my point.Pull up the statement.

You aid the degree to which insider trading is unethical, depends on the number of securities involved, rather than the amount of money involved, or the nature of the insider information upon which the decision to sell was made. If you actually believe that, you're an idiot. If you don't believe it but invented that excuse to defend the democrats, youre a liar.

you conceded that the democrat is getting less scrutiny. She sole over $1 million of stock based on information she gathered doing the job we entrusted her to do, information not available to the public, But you say because only 1 stock was involved, that's a valid reason for the decreased scrutiny.She didn't sell any stock. And no one has claimed she (or the other 2) had any information about the corona virus. Burr did - and that is why he is getting more flack.



An idiot or a liar. There isn't a third excuse for saying that.

Don't understand the last statement. I'm an idiot or an liar?

I pointed out numerous times where you lied and you can't point out any statements that I made that are incorrect.

You do know that Fienstein didn't sell any stocks right - bc it sounds like you don't know that. Not knowing that makes it seem like you are an idiot.