Rudy Giuliani Predicts Trump will be 'Totally Vindicated' by 'Smoking Gun' in Hunter Biden probe: 'We've got the Documents'

Lunchboxxy

Moderator
Apr 2010
21,412
26,225
Oregon
Anyone who doesn’t understand why a troubled Eastern block company would hire the son of a Vice President, among with other prominent westerners, to white wash their image is just choosing to remain purposefully obtuse at this point. It’s pretty obvious. The company wanted an image overhaul after the money laundering scandal so they hired some dudes with good names. You think Ukraine gives a flying fuck about a cocaine problem? Come the fuck on. The average person wouldn’t have the slightest clue about that, they would just see “Hunter Biden” in the name placard and think “wow! This company has a Biden!”. That’s exactly why they did it.

Rich douche bags get cushy jobs because they have famous dads all of the time. Exhibit A is the fucking President. Hilarious conservatives are suddenly pretending to realize that most 1%ers don’t actually earn their money. There are countless companies with famous people or relatives of famous people on their boards that don’t actually do shit. They’re just there for their name
 
  • Like
Reactions: DerpStateSally

highway234

Former Staff
Feb 2010
20,122
9,071
I've Got Nowhere Else to Go
I'm not defending the Iraq War. That was a terrible blunder. And the Great Game I'm talking about dates back hundreds of years. It's as old as the modern nation state. And in general rich countries have been powerful countries, and they have grown rich only when they have been powerful. Before the US leading it was the UK (which grew exponentially richer as it took advantage of its powerful navy and it's disregard of Catholic attempts to divide the world by proxy). Before the UK it was Spain. Before Spain it was Germany (the inexplicably named Holy Roman Empire). That takes us back to at least 800 AD. And there was an ancient version: the Romans, before them the Greeks, before them the Persians. And before the world became truly global in the 16th century, there was version of the same game in the East (though I understand it far less well).

The Great Game has been a part of human culture and economic competition basically forever, having grown from localized versions of the same thing (Egypt, Assyria, Sumer, etc.).

Homo sapiens are a violent, competitive species. It's not pretty but it's who we are. You can't end the game and you can't choose not to play. You can, I suppose, choose to be a perpetual loser in the game, but that in itself proves my point. If we didn't do it, somebody else would. That's a poor excuse for an individual, but among nations, it's the only valid response.
hey, for those the "great game" is making rich, great. It's not making a lot of people rich, although it's making a small number of people very rich, and there may come a day when it won't make you or me as prosperous as it's allegedly made us up to now, either.

the iraq war wasn't a great blunder. I sorta think brzezinski just wasn't read in on it. they needed more boots on the ground in the middle east (to fight your great game), they needed them on a long-term basis, and they got 'em. they had to sacrifice the US's reputation, what was left, to get them, but they seemed to think it would be worth it, just like Madeline thought those 500,000 dead kids in iraq was worth it. We always think it's worth it when other people die to benefit us. when we die to benefit other people, not so much. as you say, economic competition, we're very brutal, you can't opt out, etc.

I'ts kinda like, yeah, enlightened self-interest is great, but it's even better if you take out the enlightened part.

I'm not sure if we're arguing or commiserating.
 
Last edited:

highway234

Former Staff
Feb 2010
20,122
9,071
I've Got Nowhere Else to Go
Anyone who doesn’t understand why a troubled Eastern block company would hire the son of a Vice President, among with other prominent westerners, to white wash their image is just choosing to remain purposefully obtuse at this point. It’s pretty obvious. The company wanted an image overhaul after the money laundering scandal so they hired some dudes with good names. You think Ukraine gives a flying fuck about a cocaine problem? Come the fuck on. The average person wouldn’t have the slightest clue about that, they would just see “Hunter Biden” in the name placard and think “wow! This company has a Biden!”. That’s exactly why they did it.

Rich douche bags get cushy jobs because they have famous dads all of the time. Exhibit A is the fucking President. Hilarious conservatives are suddenly pretending to realize that most 1%ers don’t actually earn their money. There are countless companies with famous people or relatives of famous people on their boards that don’t actually do shit. They’re just there for their name
I'm pretty sure we understand why they did it. the question is, is it plausible to say it's an impeachable crime to want to investigate it?

kinda weird that they'd hire hunter because of his good name but then turn around and not care about his cocaine and hooker problem. so much for MeToo, huh?
 
Last edited:

highway234

Former Staff
Feb 2010
20,122
9,071
I've Got Nowhere Else to Go
the funniest bit about this whole pointless impeachment busywork wrangle is that it seems to have hurt trump not a whit, in fact it seems to have helped him, and now, meanwhile, now anytime the subject comes up, Hunter Biden comes up right on the heels. So the net result of this whole thing is now the democrats have to spend all their time defending the fact that they put a coke-addict whoremonger in a sensitive position in a foreign company where, let's face it, he was among other things representing the United States. It kinda seems like maybe the dems should just stop bringing it up? but nope, they're gonna ride that hobby horse right into election season.

that's why i sorta keep thinking the dems are being paid to take a fall. nobody's this bad at what they do.