BigRedBuster Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 11 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Don’t know. It’s public info though and easy to look up if you are wanting to know. So, how can you make the claim you did about those networks? 1 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 1 hour ago, teachercd said: Oh, okay. No, seriously. Try again. Your response involved something about 50 billion dollars and public education that had nothing to do with the post you cited. Unless you meant to quote a different poster. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 15 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: So, how can you make the claim you did about those networks? Because there are foreign owners of shares of the company. Quite different than a controlling interest in a company 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 32 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Don’t know. It’s public info though and easy to look up if you are wanting to know. I'm not making the claim, you are. If the concern is share holders then how do you know it's not majority American owned? If it's about executive leadership who makes up the board of directors? 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 5 minutes ago, ZRod said: I'm not making the claim, you are. If the concern is share holders then how do you know it's not majority American owned? If it's about executive leadership who makes up the board of directors? That has nothing to do with what the original poster said. You are bringing majority owned and controlling interest into the equation. The OP said foreign ownership. Foreign ownership includes shareholders. 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 52 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: That has nothing to do with what the original poster said. You are bringing majority owned and controlling interest into the equation. The OP said foreign ownership. Foreign ownership includes shareholders. You're being pedantic. You know what the intent of the statement was. 1 2 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 2 hours ago, ZRod said: You're being pedantic. You know what the intent of the statement was. Ehhh not really 2 2 Link to comment
Scarlet Posted June 26, 2022 Share Posted June 26, 2022 Hey looky here. Russian Ron was lying all along. 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 22 minutes ago, knapplc said: Oh…well….isn’t that interesting. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 34 minutes ago, knapplc said: Any guesses who the surprise testimony may be from? Is it Gini Thomas, Pence, the Trump WH lawyer (can't remember the name - starts wt C) By the way, the GIF is funny. What movie is that from? Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 7 minutes ago, TGHusker said: By the way, the GIF is funny. What movie is that from? The gif is from Django Unchained, a 2012 Quentin Tarantino film starring Jamie Foxx & Leonardo di Caprio. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 8 minutes ago, TGHusker said: Any guesses who the surprise testimony may be from? Is it Gini Thomas, Pence, the Trump WH lawyer (can't remember the name - starts wt C) By the way, the GIF is funny. What movie is that from? I'm going to guess that it is not Thomas. If it were someone like her, she would be blabbing somewhere that she is testifying for all the world to see so she could "set the record straight". Pence would be very interesting and I could see him agreeing to keep it quiet. Haven't there been some guys high up in Oathkeepers that have agreed to cooperate? Maybe it's them. Maybe they want to keep it quiet because they fear for their own safety from their own group of wackos. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 Just now, BigRedBuster said: I'm going to guess that it is not Thomas. If it were someone like her, she would be blabbing somewhere that she is testifying for all the world to see so she could "set the record straight". Pence would be very interesting and I could see him agreeing to keep it quiet. Haven't there been some guys high up in Oathkeepers that have agreed to cooperate? Maybe it's them. Maybe they want to keep it quiet because they fear for their own safety from their own group of wackos. The bold. Forgot about that. That I think is very likely. Good insight. They would be high profile, bombshell type testimonies for sure. And yes as big and bold as they seem to be on Jan 6 they are probably shaking in their boots now - having to negotiate for 'lessor time' if they cooperate while facing/fearing the possibility of a Jeffrey Epstein type of ending. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts