Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUTailgatingRules on March 29, 2017, 11:42:12 AM
-
Stunning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euq0NitCFZk
-
No way. Get out. I do not believe this.
-
But Trump is eliminating Meals on Wheels. And Ivanka needs vetting.
-
No way. Get out. I do not believe this.
Yes way
-
:facepalm:
Did you actually watch the video? She says nothing of the sort. WTF are you talking about?
Not only does the video in no way corroborate the title of this thread, the bottom right quarter of the screen says "VERY FAKE NEWS".
:facepalm:
-
Yes way
Ha.
Actually have no idea what the video said. Couldn't get a good enough of a signal where I am to watch it worth a damn. Just wanted to be a smartass.
-
:facepalm:
Did you actually watch the video? She says nothing of the sort. WTF are you talking about?
Not only does the video in no way corroborate the title of this thread, the bottom right quarter of the screen says "VERY FAKE NEWS".
:facepalm:
Isn't that what trump calls CNN and msnbc now? May have been what that's in reference to. Guessing the video footage is from one of those two?
-
Isn't that what trump calls CNN and msnbc now? May have been what that's in reference to. Guessing the video footage is from one of those two?
It's from MSNBC
-
It's from MSNBC
Damn. That wifi signal inside margaritaville is skrong. How are the crab legs today ?
-
:facepalm:
Did you actually watch the video? She says nothing of the sort. WTF are you talking about?
Not only does the video in no way corroborate the title of this thread, the bottom right quarter of the screen says "VERY FAKE NEWS".
:facepalm:
"If the Trump Admin found out how we knew what we knew about them"
"Not enough was coming out into the open and I knew there was more"
"My Colleagues were trying to help get info to the hill" (i.e. politicizing intelligence)
"But that's why you have the leaking, people were worried"
-
Maybe you'll like this version better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yuk48pIFEo
-
"If the Trump Admin found out how we knew what we knew about them"
"Not enough was coming out into the open and I knew there was more"
"My Colleagues were trying to help get info to the hill" (i.e. politicizing intelligence)
"But that's why you have the leaking, people were worried"
She's talking about collecting data ON RUSSIA and a fear that the Trump administration would undo whatever intelligence they have.
If you look at that objectively, not through the lens of VERY FAKE NEWS assigning meaning to it that isn't there, it actually reflects poorly on Trump, or at least their perception of him, if anything.
-
She's talking about collecting data ON RUSSIA and a fear that the Trump administration would undo whatever intelligence they have.
If you look at that objectively, not through the lens of VERY FAKE NEWS assigning meaning to it that isn't there, it actually reflects poorly on Trump, or at least their perception of him, if anything.
Yup.
But, the Trumpets are saying MSNBC is real news now...funny how that works.
-
She's talking about collecting data ON RUSSIA and a fear that the Trump administration would undo whatever intelligence they have.
If you look at that objectively, not through the lens of VERY FAKE NEWS assigning meaning to it that isn't there, it actually reflects poorly on Trump, or at least their perception of him, if anything.
Getting mighty hot around this woman. Susan Rice not looking real good either
-
Getting mighty hot around this woman. Susan Rice not looking real good either
It's definitely getting interesting
So, the Cliffs version of that situation for those that don't know is that it leaked that Susan Rice "unmasked" Trump administration officials from FBI wiretaps on Russian agents. What that means is they were not the target of the wiretap but were incidentally caught up in them through being in conversations with the targets. It is typically protocol to not "unmask" the incidental third parties unless it's necessary for national security. The thing about that is they're given a wide latitude for what has "national intelligence value", and it will be virtually impossible to prove that this doesn't fall into that box, from a legal standpoint. But the process is supposedly well documented, so we should know WHY she requested the information if this is investigated further, which I suspect it will be.
In the very least, it APPEARS to be highly unethical to do this to an opposition party during an election. We know that SOMEONE leaked this to the media, hence the Flynn/Russia hysteria we're currently seeing. It's possible it wasn't someone at the DNC/Obama Admin/Hillary Campaign, but I find that unlikely given what we know now.
We're getting to a point now where it's going to be clear that one party or the other is corrupt as fuck and should suffer consequences. Given what we know about John Podesta's emails, Donna Brazille leaking CNN debate questions to Hillary, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz actively sabotaging Bernie Sanders' campaign in favor of Hillary, Loretta Lynch's secret tarmac meeting with Bill during Hillary's FBI investigation, Lois Lerner's hard drive crash and backup tape erasure...let's just say it wouldn't surprise me if this was purely political and highly unethical as well. If that's the case, the DNC is every bit as guilty of "hacking the election", to use their words, as they are accusing Russia of doing.
BUT
There is also the chance at this point that what they were collecting against the Russians really DID implicate Trump officials in some sort of collusion with the Russian government, in which case impeachment should absolutely be on the table.
Still too early to know which is true for sure, and I guarantee you every single Republican is dead nuts convinced of the former and every single Democrat is dead nuts convinced of the latter.
-
Oh, and something else highly suspicious is this:
Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."
-
Oh, and something else highly suspicious is this:
Susan rice is as crooked as it gets too. Has been since at least Benghazi when she knowingly lied about all of that as well. You could actually call her Lyin Susan and it wouldn't be incorrect.
-
There is also the chance at this point that what they were collecting against the Russians really DID implicate Trump officials in some sort of collusion with the Russian government, in which case impeachment should absolutely be on the table.
:taunt:
-
:taunt:
As I said.
Still too early to know which is true for sure, and I guarantee you every single Republican is dead nuts convinced of the former and every single Democrat is dead nuts convinced of the latter.
-
As I said.
I should note that as I already stated, even I tend to think at this stage that it's more likely the case that the DNC used innocuous conversations of Trump officials collected by the FBI to imply some grand scale collusion, than that said collusion took place.
But for all the :taunt: emojis you care to post, you don't know that to be incontrovertible fact at this stage. I know you think you do. And should it turn out to be the case, you will think that it vindicates you "knowing" all along. But unless you've seen the future or were a part of the "unmasking" process, all you know right now is what your bias tells you.
-
And another thing? It is every bit as likely as anything else that Democrats DID use unethical tactics to reveal ultimately that Trump officials WERE involved in treasonous activities.
It's not necessarily mutually exclusive.
-
As I said.
You should watch the last episode of Homeland. Very connected to what's going on now and how a disinformation campaign can be used to delegitimize an administration.
Saul -- played by Mandy Patinkin -- reminds the president elect that the smear campaign she's enduring (that's coincidentally being orchestrated by members of the former administration) is something America's been doing since the 50s.
"Follow the money.. will be much harder than you think. That's what you'll be doing when this rolls right over you.
We have a disinformation campaign designed to discredit the president elect. As of today we have boots on the ground, like the protesters I had to wade through to get here. That seem familiar to any of you?
It does to me. It's what we did in Nicaragua, Chile, Congo, a dozen other places all the way back to Iran in the 50s. And it does not end well for the elected regime.
You're fighting for your lives here. Do you get that? You can't afford to stay silent..."
I assume the writers planned for Hillary's election and expected a backlash against her which was the rationale behind that storyline. What's so interesting to me is that what you're seeing on the screen almost perfectly defines the attacks against President Trump.
Even before he was sworn there were members of the US Congress raising the specter of impeachment. Planting that seed. (Thus the rationale behind my :taunt: when you brought it up.
As explained on Homeland the assault on President Trump from the Obama/Hillary camps is a textbook example of the campaigns that were waged against regimes we opposed world wide. Saul's description is eerily accurate. What's being done to Trump IS what we did in Nicaragua. And Chile. And Iran. And....
The global imperialists didn't get their way. They are now waging war on America.
Please don't fall for it.
Lemme give you a simple example of just how pervasive it is. Was on the left coast last week. Getting groceries and the girl asks if I want them bagged. Duh. How else do you carry groceries? Bags are 10 cents each. Say what? I ask why. She says "Trump." I say what? She said after Trump got elected, they had to start charging for bags. Every other clerk I asked said basically the same thing. Trump was going to take money away from the state, so they had to start charging for bags to make it up. Trump was going to give money to the rich, so they needed to charge for bags to help poor people. Trump passed a law that required them to charge for bags. That's how their local politicians are spinning it. That's what they think. But the morons actually VOTED for the bag fee. Proposition 67, passed in November. At the same time all the illegals in Cali were voting for Hillary, they also marked YES (or Si) on a ballot initiative that PROHIBITS stores from providing plastic or paper bags, but allows them to sell said bags to customers. None of the money goes to the poor. None goes to the environment. All goes directly to the store that charges the fee. More than $300 million a year will be generated for.... nothing. And somehow this is Trump's fault? Liberals = Morons. This is just another example of a subtle disinformation campaign. Despite more than 7 million voting yes for this law, every single person I asked about it blamed Trump.
-
I should note that as I already stated, even I tend to think at this stage that it's more likely the case that the DNC used innocuous conversations of Trump officials collected by the FBI to imply some grand scale collusion, than that said collusion took place.
But for all the :taunt: emojis you care to post, you don't know that to be incontrovertible fact at this stage. I know you think you do. And should it turn out to be the case, you will think that it vindicates you "knowing" all along. But unless you've seen the future or were a part of the "unmasking" process, all you know right now is what your bias tells you.
I've got something you can collude.
-
I've got something you can collude.
He's black below the waist folks. Or ummm that's what I heard.
-
(or Si)
I LOL'ed
-
And another thing? It is every bit as likely as anything else that Democrats DID use unethical tactics to reveal ultimately that Trump officials WERE involved in treasonous activities.
It's not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Please stop reacting. Think for a minute.
If any credible evidence of "treasonous activities" (and fuuuuuuck you for even using that term) actually existed don't you think they would have used it by now? Given the level of hatred, the stark naked fear that this president might actually insist on performance and accountability.... if they could have truly buried him they would have already done so.
The fact that they haven't and all they traffic in is rumor, innuendo, speculation and whispers makes me confident.
This isn't a real investigation. There's nothing there despite hillary and Obama using every legal and illegal avenue available to dredge something up. This is nothing but a smear campaign. They can't get him. So they're just going to keep flinging bullshit rhetoric and shaky allegations through an all-too-complicit media in an effort to tarnish him. It's subtle and simple. Look no further than the adjectives used to describe him. Look at your own inflamed and unfounded biases.
I know when I'm right. And I am.
-
More juicy stuff
http://www.dailywire.com/news/15068/limbaugh-real-russia-story-obama-weaponized-james-barrett
-
Why has "Unmasked" suddenly become the new buzz word?
-
Why has "Unmasked" suddenly become the new buzz word?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jb-tGx6S7D0/maxresdefault.jpg)
Always ahead of the times. Just like there are always two sides of the coin.
-
Why has "Unmasked" suddenly become the new buzz word?
Better than saying Hillary has become unmommy parted?
-
PS:
As I predicted the major news networks are either:
A) covering for Rice
2) ignoring the story or
iii) refusing to discuss it and calling it a "diversion"
There's your collusion. There's your effort to sway the populace and rig elections.
As Denzel says we no longer have news we have opi-news. Too much information.
-
You should watch the last episode of Homeland. Very connected to what's going on now and how a disinformation campaign can be used to delegitimize an administration.
Saul -- played by Mandy Patinkin -- reminds the president elect that the smear campaign she's enduring (that's coincidentally being orchestrated by members of the former administration) is something America's been doing since the 50s.
"Follow the money.. will be much harder than you think. That's what you'll be doing when this rolls right over you.
We have a disinformation campaign designed to discredit the president elect. As of today we have boots on the ground, like the protesters I had to wade through to get here. That seem familiar to any of you?
It does to me. It's what we did in Nicaragua, Chile, Congo, a dozen other places all the way back to Iran in the 50s. And it does not end well for the elected regime.
You're fighting for your lives here. Do you get that? You can't afford to stay silent..."
I assume the writers planned for Hillary's election and expected a backlash against her which was the rationale behind that storyline. What's so interesting to me is that what you're seeing on the screen almost perfectly defines the attacks against President Trump.
Even before he was sworn there were members of the US Congress raising the specter of impeachment. Planting that seed. (Thus the rationale behind my :taunt: when you brought it up.
As explained on Homeland the assault on President Trump from the Obama/Hillary camps is a textbook example of the campaigns that were waged against regimes we opposed world wide. Saul's description is eerily accurate. What's being done to Trump IS what we did in Nicaragua. And Chile. And Iran. And....
The global imperialists didn't get their way. They are now waging war on America.
Please don't fall for it.
Lemme give you a simple example of just how pervasive it is. Was on the left coast last week. Getting groceries and the girl asks if I want them bagged. Duh. How else do you carry groceries? Bags are 10 cents each. Say what? I ask why. She says "Trump." I say what? She said after Trump got elected, they had to start charging for bags. Every other clerk I asked said basically the same thing. Trump was going to take money away from the state, so they had to start charging for bags to make it up. Trump was going to give money to the rich, so they needed to charge for bags to help poor people. Trump passed a law that required them to charge for bags. That's how their local politicians are spinning it. That's what they think. But the morons actually VOTED for the bag fee. Proposition 67, passed in November. At the same time all the illegals in Cali were voting for Hillary, they also marked YES (or Si) on a ballot initiative that PROHIBITS stores from providing plastic or paper bags, but allows them to sell said bags to customers. None of the money goes to the poor. None goes to the environment. All goes directly to the store that charges the fee. More than $300 million a year will be generated for.... nothing. And somehow this is Trump's fault? Liberals = Morons. This is just another example of a subtle disinformation campaign. Despite more than 7 million voting yes for this law, every single person I asked about it blamed Trump.
I sell those bags. They cost 1.4 cents each. The is now the largest profit % of any item in the supermarket. The Grocery owners love this new law. They tried to pass the same law in New Orleans last year and failed
-
I just want to know who the starting QB is going to be. I mean, will Gus go with the tested starter or the new hot thing off the street. Brandon Cox or Kodi Burns? WHO WILL IT BE?
-
I align mostly with Chad's thinking on this issue.
The most troubling part to me, since everything else is speculation at this point, is Rice lying.
-
I align mostly with Chad's thinking on this issue.
The most troubling part to me, since everything else is speculation at this point, is Rice lying.
No, I think Ray pretty much owned up to it. Hard to deny it when there's video evidence.
-
I align mostly with Chad's thinking on this issue.
The most troubling part to me, since everything else is speculation at this point, is Rice lying.
It's nothing new. If it is to anyone then they've been under a rock. This is the woman who perpetuated the Benghazi whore shit.
-
In response to Kaos's screeds about how it's UNPOSSIBLE!11 for there to be any possibility that the Trump administration has dirt on their hands, I ask:
Why did Michael Flynn have to resign? Because he lied to Trump and Pence? Ok. Why did he lie?
Why does he want immunity? Recall when Hillary aides were seeking immunity Trump & Flynn (and many here) were hammering on about how that concedes guilt.
And just in: Steve Bannon was just forced to resign as well. Doesn't raise an eyebrow that multiple National Security advisers are being forced to step down within 75 days of Trump's presidency?
I'm not saying this DEFINITELY means there is treasonous activity going on, but it certainly appears at least as likely that there is corruption to some degree within Trump's staff as there is from the Democrats.
-
In response to Kaos's screeds about how it's UNPOSSIBLE!11 for there to be any possibility that the Trump administration has dirt on their hands, I ask:
Why did Michael Flynn have to resign? Because he lied to Trump and Pence? Ok. Why did he lie?
Why does he want immunity? Recall when Hillary aides were seeking immunity Trump & Flynn (and many here) were hammering on about how that concedes guilt.
And just in: Steve Bannon was just forced to resign as well. Doesn't raise an eyebrow that multiple National Security advisers are being forced to step down within 75 days of Trump's presidency?
I'm not saying this DEFINITELY means there is treasonous activity going on, but it certainly appears at least as likely that there is corruption to some degree within Trump's staff as there is from the Democrats.
My problem with you is that you toss around words like "treason" and "impeachment" without any justification for either. Those are enormous, impactful words. You use them flippantly. In that you're no better than Trevor Noah, that CNN mommy partsicle Don Lemon or that assflapping Bill Maher. It makes you a part of the hysteria and my response to that is always going to be a hard right.
YOU say he was "forced to resign." That isn't the truth. It's what the left wants you to believe. He was there for one reason, a reason which no longer exists and hasn't even really been a part of the NSC.
I hate to channel Prowler here, but maybe you should do some research. smh.
-
My problem with you is that you toss around words like "treason" and "impeachment" without any justification for either. Those are enormous, impactful words. You use them flippantly. In that you're no better than Trevor Noah, that CNN mommy partsicle Don Lemon or that assflapping Bill Maher. It makes you a part of the hysteria and my response to that is always going to be a hard right.
Do you not see the IFs that precede any time your trigger-words are used by me?
-
In response to Kaos's screeds about how it's UNPOSSIBLE!11 for there to be any possibility that the Trump administration has dirt on their hands, I ask:
Why did Michael Flynn have to resign? Because he lied to Trump and Pence? Ok. Why did he lie?
Why does he want immunity? Recall when Hillary aides were seeking immunity Trump & Flynn (and many here) were hammering on about how that concedes guilt.
And just in: Steve Bannon was just forced to resign as well. Doesn't raise an eyebrow that multiple National Security advisers are being forced to step down within 75 days of Trump's presidency?
I'm not saying this DEFINITELY means there is treasonous activity going on, but it certainly appears at least as likely that there is corruption to some degree within Trump's staff as there is from the Democrats.
There is more to the bannon resignation than meets the eye. Some believe he was a hired gun to do something very specific in a short amount of time. Which seems to line up with his statement.
Steve Bannon statement: "Susan Rice operationalized the National Security Council. I de-operationalized it"
-
My problem with you is that you toss around words like "treason" and "impeachment" without any justification for either. Those are enormous, impactful words. You use them flippantly. In that you're no better than Trevor Noah, that CNN mommy partsicle Don Lemon or that assflapping Bill Maher. It makes you a part of the hysteria and my response to that is always going to be a hard right.
YOU say he was "forced to resign." That isn't the truth. It's what the left wants you to believe. He was there for one reason, a reason which no longer exists and hasn't even really been a part of the NSC.
I hate to channel Prowler here, but maybe you should do some research. smh.
That ^^. In bold. Even a remotely small amount of paying attention to the goings on the first 3 months in the trump administration reveals this fact. He was there for a very specific reason. And did it.
-
My problem with you is that you toss around words like "treason" and "impeachment" without any justification for either. Those are enormous, impactful words. You use them flippantly. In that you're no better than Trevor Noah, that CNN mommy partsicle Don Lemon or that assflapping Bill Maher. It makes you a part of the hysteria and my response to that is always going to be a hard right.
YOU say he was "forced to resign." That isn't the truth. It's what the left wants you to believe. He was there for one reason, a reason which no longer exists and hasn't even really been a part of the NSC.
I hate to channel Prowler here, but maybe you should do some research. smh.
Whut? So you're implying he just said "My job here is done. Mission accomplished. I see no reason to remain in power. Back to Breitbart I go. Ta-tah."
You're channelling Prowler alright.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS688US688&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbs=qdr:d&q=bannon&tbm=nws&*
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/Chizad-Lappy/Bannon_3.jpg)
-
That ^^. In bold. Even a remotely small amount of paying attention to the goings on the first 3 months in the trump administration reveals this fact. He was there for a very specific reason. And did it.
And what, pray tell, is that specific reason that EVERYONE knew as a fact would OBVIOUSLY only require his role as National Security advisor to have the lifespan of a house fly? What is that thing that totally slipped y'all's minds to mention up until after he resigned?
-
I'm going to unmask the lot of you.
-
Was Flynn forced to resign in your world? Or did he also decide he had done all that he needed to do in 20 some-odd days and retire and move to Florida?
-
I'm going to unmask the lot of you.
Somehow, I don't know how, but that sounds very prevalent in the gay community.
-
Do you not see the IFs that precede any time your trigger-words are used by me?
Doesn't matter.
If evidence turns up that you fuck little helpless baby seals then your activities could be construed as sealfuckuonous. You're probably also a child abuser. If the bruises on your child's knees turn out to be from abuse, that is. You'll probably be convicted and sentenced to prison if anybody finds that dead hobo your neighbor said he saw enter your basement. Yes. The neighbor who is pissed because your dog barks all day and dug up your flowers.
Doesn't matter. Seal Tucker. Child abuser. Hobo killer.
-
Was Flynn forced to resign in your world? Or did he also decide he had done all that he needed to do in 20 some-odd days and retire and move to Florida?
Hobo killer!
-
Whut? So you're implying he just said "My job here is done. Mission accomplished. I see no reason to remain in power. Back to Breitbart I go. Ta-tah."
You're channelling Prowler alright.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS688US688&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbs=qdr:d&q=bannon&tbm=nws&*
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/Chizad-Lappy/Bannon_3.jpg)
HAHAHA.
CNN.
Huffy Post.
in Depth
Boston Globe
LA Times
Some local fox
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA.
Ha.
You said "forced to resign". Hobo killer!!
I just had a member of my board of directors reassigned to a position in the field. repping the company. He wanted a more active role. I thought he could help us more there. Oh NOES! I forced him to resign. He was remoooooved. Oh shit! Whatever will I do?
:taunt:
-
HAHAHA.
CNN.
Huffy Post.
in Depth
Boston Globe
LA Times
Some local fox
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA.
Ha.
You said "forced to resign". Hobo killer!!
I just had a member of my board of directors reassigned to a position in the field. repping the company. He wanted a more active role. I thought he could help us more there. Oh NOES! I forced him to resign. He was remoooooved. Oh shit! Whatever will I do?
:taunt:
Yes. Literally every result when you google "Bannon" in the last 24 hours.
Is Brietbart anti-Steve Bannon?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/steve-bannon-removed-from-national-security-council/
Steve Bannon removed from National Security Council
Where the fuck is your source that he left of his own volition? Where's the "research" I need to do. Please educate me, professor.
This is dumber than anything Prowler has ever posted here. Let me guess, you're retroactively trolling again. Jesus...
:facepalm:
-
And what, pray tell, is that specific reason that EVERYONE knew as a fact would OBVIOUSLY only require his role as National Security advisor to have the lifespan of a house fly? What is that thing that totally slipped y'all's minds to mention up until after he resigned?
That thing - his duty - was to reveal Susan Rice for what she is. Now the NSC is in the hands of McMaster. Bannon will not be going back to Breitbart per his new role and sec clearance.....
"Bannon remains chief strategist for POTUS and an adviser on nat'l security/for. affairs. But he will not be part of NSC, per WH sources"
This isn't hard Chad. As Vinnie Jackson (yes he's on Twitter) likes to say - think of it as 4D chess.
“Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized,†Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.
This Breitbart Link says "leaves".
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/05/steve-bannon-leaves-national-security-council-susan-rice-takedown/
I would expect every media outlet outside of them and foxnews to say "removed". Its politics.
Regardless - it's semantics either way. Anyone can say anything in media. What matters is why it happened, not how a headline phrases it. Flynn has nothing to do with this. Not sure why that is relevant to bannon. Start a thread about Flynn and we can talk about him too.
-
Yes. Literally every result when you google "Bannon" in the last 24 hours.
Is Brietbart anti-Steve Bannon?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/steve-bannon-removed-from-national-security-council/
Where the fuck is your source that he left of his own volition? Where's the "research" I need to do. Please educate me, professor.
This is dumber than anything Prowler has ever posted here. Let me guess, you're retroactively trolling again. Jesus...
:facepalm:
The source is HIM.
If you are saying that getting it straight from the source is dumber than prowler then I'm gonna have to say what you wrote above is dumber than prowler.
You're really overthinking this.
-
The source is HIM.
If you are saying that getting it straight from the source is dumber than prowler then I'm gonna have to say what you wrote above is dumber than prowler.
You're really overthinking this.
I liken this to what I heard recently on ESPN. I forget which two radio hosts it was, but they played a clip from Kirk Cousins saying he absolutely did not demand a trade and that he did go to management and ask if they had plans to move him. He was asking why then, did that very afternoon, a shoe salesman ask him why he was demanding to get out of Washington?
The two hosts all but said Cousins was lying because Chris Mortenson said his source told him Cousins demanded a trade. So, Chris Mortenson doesn't work for the Redskins, wasn't in the room during the meeting and never talked to Kirk Cousins. But these two goobs said there was no doubt Cousins demanded a trade. Despite the fact that Cousins himself said he didn't.
I don't care if he did or not, just laughing my ass off because Chris Mortenson's source is more reliable than something coming straight from the horse's mouf.
-
:facepalm:
That thing - his duty - was to reveal Susan Rice for what she is. Now the NSC is in the hands of McMaster. Bannon will not be going back to Breitbart per his new role and sec clearance.....
"Bannon remains chief strategist for POTUS and an adviser on nat'l security/for. affairs. But he will not be part of NSC, per WH sources"
This isn't hard Chad. As Vinnie Jackson (yes he's on Twitter) likes to say - think of it as 4D chess.
“Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized,†Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.
What the fuck is unique to Bannon that he and only he holds the key to "exposing" Rice? How does that batty shit even remotely begin to make sense?
This Breitbart Link says "leaves".
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/05/steve-bannon-leaves-national-security-council-susan-rice-takedown/
I would expect every media outlet outside of them and foxnews to say "removed". Its politics.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/05/steve-bannon-removed-from-national-security-council.html
Steve Bannon removed from National Security Council
http://www.breitbart.com/news/steve-bannon-removed-from-national-security-council/
Steve Bannon removed from National Security Council
Regardless - it's semantics either way. Anyone can say anything in media. What matters is why it happened, not how a headline phrases it.
Guys, maybe if EVERYONE but Breitbart (and also a different link from Breitbart) is reporting the completely reasonable fact that he was REMOVED from his position rather than the insane proclamation that he just decided to step down after 75 days in the role, MAYBE Breitbart is full of shit. Hear me out, but maybe Breitbart is biased towards Steve Bannon. AND EVEN ONE OUT OF TWO BREITBART STORIES SAY HE WAS REMOVED.
Flynn has nothing to do with this. Not sure why that is relevant to bannon. Start a thread about Flynn and we can talk about him too.
Check the thread title again, buddy. Go back and read the post that steered us into this discussion. Just because Kaos cherry-picked Bannon to go full-retard about, doesn't change the questions as I asked them.
I'll post it again for you:
In response to Kaos's screeds about how it's UNPOSSIBLE!11 for there to be any possibility that the Trump administration has dirt on their hands, I ask:
Why did Michael Flynn have to resign? Because he lied to Trump and Pence? Ok. Why did he lie?
Why does he want immunity? Recall when Hillary aides were seeking immunity Trump & Flynn (and many here) were hammering on about how that concedes guilt.
And just in: Steve Bannon was just forced to resign as well. Doesn't raise an eyebrow that multiple National Security advisers are being forced to step down within 75 days of Trump's presidency?
I'm not saying this DEFINITELY means there is treasonous activity going on, but it certainly appears at least as likely that there is corruption to some degree within Trump's staff as there is from the Democrats.
It was clearly primarily about Flynn and then threw in the side question about Bannon to further support my point.
The source is HIM.
If you are saying that getting it straight from the source is dumber than prowler then I'm gonna have to say what you wrote above is dumber than prowler.
You're really overthinking this.
Susan Rice said she didn't know anything about any requests to unmask Trump officials. She also says it wasn't for political purposes. THE SOURCE IS HER!!!
And even with that said? Bannon NEVER SAYS he wasn't axed. He doesn't. You may have "read between the lines" of one Breitbart article, but not that lyin' other one. But it's not what happened. Factually.
-
Clearly 100% his idea, guys.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/327534-bannon-threatened-to-quit-if-removed-from-national-security-council
Bannon threatened to quit if removed from National Security Council role: report
Chief White House strategist Stephen Bannon was unhappy with the decision to remove him from his role on the National Security Council and threatened to quit, according to a new report.
The New York Times reported Wednesday evening that Bannon “resisted the move,†and threatened to resign if the change was made. But the Times said his team has denied that he ever made such a threat.
Bannon, who led Trump’s campaign in its final months, was elevated in January to a position on the NSC principals committee, drawing widespread criticism that Trump was trying to politicize the council.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and director of national intelligence had their roles downgraded in the move.
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has now reversed some of those changes, a move that was approved by President Trump, according to a senior White House official.
The White House downplayed the change, insisting it was not a demotion for Bannon.
The New York Times also reported that the president was frustrated with the recognition Bannon was getting for his work on the Trump administration’s agenda and was unhappy with liberals calling his top adviser “President Bannon.â€
The shifting roles also restored the Joint Chiefs chairman and intelligence directors roles as “regular attendees†of the principals committee on the NSC.
-
Clearly 100% his idea, guys.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/327534-bannon-threatened-to-quit-if-removed-from-national-security-council
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The Hill.
New York Times.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
How can you come off as intelligently as you sometimes do and still be such a sheep?
-
I'm also getting a little fucking tired of shit like this:
In response to Kaos's screeds about how it's UNPOSSIBLE!11 for there to be any possibility that the Trump administration has dirt on their hands, I ask:
Screed my ass. We don't agree. I'm right, you're wrong but that's okay. I accept that. You'll figure it out one day. Certainly doesn't mean that I'm any less intelligent or perceptive than you are just because you shit your pants in a rage. It's insulting and unnecessary.
You're ruining the board again.
-
I'm also getting a little fucking tired of shit like this:
Screed my ass. We don't agree. I'm right, you're wrong but that's okay. I accept that. You'll figure it out one day. Certainly doesn't mean that I'm any less intelligent or perceptive than you are just because you shit your pants in a rage. It's insulting and unnecessary.
You're ruining the board again.
Yes clearly of the two of us, I'm the one shitting my pants in a rage because I'm saying we don't have enough facts to conclude definitively that every Democrat in this situation is pure evil incarnate and every Republican involved is a saint.
This is the part of the playbook where you have beclowned yourself so badly you switch gears to policing my "tone". Cool.
-
Yes clearly of the two of us, I'm the one shitting my pants in a rage because I'm saying we don't have enough facts to conclude definitively that every Democrat in this situation is pure evil incarnate and every Republican involved is a saint.
This is the part of the playbook where you have beclowned yourself so badly you switch gears to policing my "tone". Cool.
It's clear to everybody but you.
-
:facepalm:What the fuck is unique to Bannon that he and only he holds the key to "exposing" Rice? How does that batty shit even remotely begin to make sense?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/05/steve-bannon-removed-from-national-security-council.htmlhttp://www.breitbart.com/news/steve-bannon-removed-from-national-security-council/Guys, maybe if EVERYONE but Breitbart (and also a different link from Breitbart) is reporting the completely reasonable fact that he was REMOVED from his position rather than the insane proclamation that he just decided to step down after 75 days in the role, MAYBE Breitbart is full of shit. Hear me out, but maybe Breitbart is biased towards Steve Bannon. AND EVEN ONE OUT OF TWO BREITBART STORIES SAY HE WAS REMOVED.
Check the thread title again, buddy. Go back and read the post that steered us into this discussion. Just because Kaos cherry-picked Bannon to go full-retard about, doesn't change the questions as I asked them.
I'll post it again for you:
It was clearly primarily about Flynn and then threw in the side question about Bannon to further support my point.Susan Rice said she didn't know anything about any requests to unmask Trump officials. She also says it wasn't for political purposes. THE SOURCE IS HER!!!
And even with that said? Bannon NEVER SAYS he wasn't axed. He doesn't. You may have "read between the lines" of one Breitbart article, but not that lyin' other one. But it's not what happened. Factually.
Rice has been caught saying two different things in multiple occasions about multiple things. Bannon has given one statement about his exit from the NSC. LYIN SUSAN.
And you obviously don't know much about this guys background if you don't know why he was put in this position. Call him what you want but he's a master chess player on policy steering. I'm not sure you fully understand how the NSC functions and who can be on it.
He's still the chief strategist. That would indicate there was no animosity. Or bad blood. He's moving back to only being a strategist. That has all the markings of this being purely strategic. If there had been a skirmish or a dust up then he would be gone completely like Flynn.
You are again getting way too caught up in the semantics of the reporting. You are taking headlines and de facto op eds as gold. They are not.
-
Rice has been caught saying two different things in multiple occasions about multiple things. Bannon has given one statement about his exit from the NSC. LYIN SUSAN.
And you obviously don't know much about this guys background if you don't know why he was put in this position. Call him what you want but he's a master chess player on policy steering. I'm not sure you fully understand how the NSC functions and who can be on it.
He's still the chief strategist. That would indicate there was no animosity. Or bad blood. He's moving back to only being a strategist. That has all the markings of this being purely strategic. If there had been a skirmish or a dust up then he would be gone completely like Flynn.
You are again getting way too caught up in the semantics of the reporting. You are taking headlines and de facto op eds as gold. They are not.
Fucking screeder....
-
Rice has been caught saying two different things in multiple occasions about multiple things. Bannon has given one statement about his exit from the NSC. LYIN SUSAN.
First of all, it's clearly NOT the only statement from him as there are multiple stories out there that he's pissed about it and threatened to resign over it.
Secondly, despite your insinuation, the one statement you are clinging to is NOT contradictory to the fact that it was not his idea to leave. You keep saying it is, but it isn't. The only thing it supports is the theory you're buying that the Breitbart guy is in a unique position to "expose" Rice in some way that NOBODY ELSE on planet earth is capable of doing. Which you continue to cling to from here.
And you obviously don't know much about this guys background if you don't know why he was put in this position. Call him what you want but he's a master chess player on policy steering. I'm not sure you fully understand how the NSC functions and who can be on it.
He's still the chief strategist. That would indicate there was no animosity. Or bad blood. He's moving back to only being a strategist. That has all the markings of this being purely strategic. If there had been a skirmish or a dust up then he would be gone completely like Flynn.
I am well versed on Bannon and I'm fairly certain I knew who he was before you did. You certainly seem to hold him in high esteem. I do not. So the reason he and only he could expose Rice, and also the reason that he only needed 75 days to do it, and the reason why once those 75 days were over he had to pull the parachute ripcord to gracefully stunt-dive out of the NSC is because he's a "master chess player". No one else can do whatever vague thing it is you're hinting he can do. He's just smarter than 99.9% of humanity and everyone else in that .01% just weren't up to Trump's standards. Got it.
You are again getting way too caught up in the semantics of the reporting. You are taking headlines and de facto op eds as gold. They are not.
As is usual, Kaos Jedi mind tricked you into thinking I'M the one getting caught in the weeds over this. He's the one who responded to my mostly-about-Flynn post by "pantsshitting" about how wildly idiotic I am to say Bannon was forced out as did LITERALLY every SINGLE publication that covered the story. It's all #FakeNews unless it came from FreedomFries.AngryBaldEagleInAMAGAHat.biz/Pepe.
-
There is more to the bannon resignation than meets the eye. Some believe he was a hired gun to do something very specific in a short amount of time. Which seems to line up with his statement.
Steve Bannon statement: "Susan Rice operationalized the National Security Council. I de-operationalized it"
Where in that quote does it say "And now that I've completed my mission, I'm going to leave the role of my own volition. Trump begged me to stay, but nay, I must ramble on"?
-
First of all, it's clearly NOT the only statement from him as there are multiple stories out there that he's pissed about it and threatened to resign over it.
Secondly, despite your insinuation, the one statement you are clinging to is NOT contradictory to the fact that it was not his idea to leave. You keep saying it is, but it isn't. The only thing it supports is the theory you're buying that the Breitbart guy is in a unique position to "expose" Rice in some way that NOBODY ELSE on planet earth is capable of doing. Which you continue to cling to from here.
I am well versed on Bannon and I'm fairly certain I knew who he was before you did. You certainly seem to hold him in high esteem. I do not. So the reason he and only he could expose Rice, and also the reason that he only needed 75 days to do it, and the reason why once those 75 days were over he had to pull the parachute ripcord to gracefully stunt-dive out of the NSC is because he's a "master chess player". No one else can do whatever vague thing it is you're hinting he can do. He's just smarter than 99.9% of humanity and everyone else in that .01% just weren't up to Trump's standards. Got it.
As is usual, Kaos Jedi mind tricked you into thinking I'M the one getting caught in the weeds over this. He's the one who responded to my mostly-about-Flynn post by "pantsshitting" about how wildly idiotic I am to say Bannon was forced out as did LITERALLY every SINGLE publication that covered the story. It's all #FakeNews unless it came from FreedomFries.AngryBaldEagleInAMAGAHat.biz/Pepe.
Good god dude....I give up.
-
Where in that quote does it say "And now that I've completed my mission, I'm going to leave the role of my own volition. Trump begged me to stay, but nay, I must ramble on"?
Have fun with this one. You can argue with yourself now.
-
Screed my ass. We don't agree. I'm right, you're wrong but that's okay. I accept that. You'll figure it out one day. Certainly doesn't mean that I'm any less intelligent or perceptive than you are just because you shit your pants in a rage. It's insulting and unnecessary.
You're ruining the board again.
And another thing?
We DID agree until you lost your everloving shit that I dared to quote EVERY SINGLE HEADLINE IN AMERICA that Bannon was ousted from his position.
I said from the beginning that I thought Rice APPEARED to be more guilty than the Trump administration based on what we know now. That just wasn't enough for you, so you had to start hurling insults about how I need to "educate myself" about something you believe in your mind that is 100% unequivocally bullshit. You cannot ALLOW any sort of level-headed notion that maybe we don't have enough facts at this juncture to proclaim that everyone on the Trump staff are choir boys incapable of wrongdoing.
THAT is how we got here. But I'm ruining the board.
-
Have fun with this one. You can argue with yourself now.
So, it's not there?
Just checking.
-
Aaaand, Nunes is under investigation and just stepped down from the Russia probe, as one does when they are 100% innocent.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8vESYcUIAAM70u.jpg)
(https://img.memesuper.com/901427acdc32b0754b40c9fe7ec3bd1b_posted-on-sep-23-meme-this-is-fine_580-565.png)
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/04/06/susan-rice-is-a-pawn-in-trumps-effort-to-tear-down-the-system/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.7c45a66ed442
Nunes is out of the Russia probe, and the Susan Rice spin collapses
By Jennifer Rubin April 6 at 10:13 AM
President Trump’s wild accusation and the right-wing media’s eagerness to support the claims of the Trump White House, working in cahoots with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), that there was nefarious “unmasking†of Trump associates picked up in surveillance of Russian officials has proved to be a colossal flop. Nunes wound up discrediting himself and implicating White House staffers in a half-baked scheme to deflect attention from the president.
Right-wing outlets (from Fox News to Breitbart to the New York Post) took the bait from Nunes and his associates, dragging Susan Rice into the matter — without evidence of a crime. Indeed, no evidence of impropriety exists and no evidence ties Rice to the leaking of Michael T. Flynn’s name. Given that the White House does not want to release the documents shared with Nunes that allegedly provide the basis for its tale, we can surmise that Nunes really had no evidence of much of anything.
The blatant effort to confuse and distract from the biggest political scandal of our lifetimes — Russian efforts to manipulate our election process and potential coordination with the campaign of the beneficiary of Russia’s “active measures†— does not come as any surprise. However, certain right-wing media outlets’ willingness to echo Trump’s defamatory misdirection tactics remains as distressing as ever. (It was just this sort of echo chamber effect that Russia used during the campaign to help Trump, as Clint Watts recently explained.) Chin-stroking pundits were obliged to say, “Well, both these things are important†(as if the Rice narrative has a factual basis), and the damage thereby done. A serious investigation with extensive factual support becomes no more credible than Trump’s latest tweet.
The episode highlights a worrisome development with regard to our intelligence community. Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes of Lawfareblog.com explain we run the risk of undoing the “grand bargain†(i.e. intelligence services get robust powers in exchange for equally robust oversight) that allows our intelligence community to operate within a democratic government. They explain:
Today’s crisis is sparked by allegations, both by President Trump and by some House Republicans, of political misuse of the intelligence community by the Obama administration. Whether the allegations are entirely false or turn out to have elements of truth, they put the intelligence community in the cross-hairs, since some of the institutions that are supposed to be key legitimators are now functioning as delegitimators. After all, entirely appropriate investigations of counterintelligence can easily look like inappropriate political meddling, and if the President and the House Intelligence Committee chairman are not merely not defending the intelligence community but are actively raising questions about its integrity, the bargain itself risks unraveling.
And seen in this light, House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) stubborn insistence on standing behind Nunes to perpetuate the assault on the integrity of the investigative process stands out as nothing less than unconscionable. Once again, Ryan’s partisanship has undermined his credibility.
Goldsmith and Wittes point out that “if the intelligence community had been in any way targeting the Trump team last year for collection, that should be bad news for the Trump team, since it would imply, in normal circumstances, wrongdoing. Indeed, the whole point of the narrative appears to be to discredit the Russia investigation (or some elements of it) by shifting the story away from Trump connections to the Russian wrongdoing to alleged wrongdoing in the investigation of the Russia matter.†They continue, “This appears to be Trump’s larger aim: To muddle the legitimacy of the intelligence community, and of FISA as a tool in this context, all with the aim of delegitimizing the Russia investigation and, perhaps, of delegitimizing broader internal executive branch checks on the presidency.â€
The episode underscores the degree to which we are vulnerable when those in positions of authority — Nunes, Trump, Ryan, the leakers — abuse their trust and turn the most consequential national security investigation of our lifetimes into a circus. Goldsmith and Wittes reiterate that “if the President and the House Intelligence Committee Chairman can discredit an investigation of foreign interference in an American election and collusion with that effort by the president’s campaign by alleging improper political misuse of the intelligence authorities by the prior administration, if leaking FISA intercepts is an accepted way to go after a political opponent, and if nobody can credibly say who’s telling the truth and who’s lying, then the grand bargain has truly failed, with consequences that are hard to fathom.†We should hope that the FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee — as well as the House Intelligence Committee probe minus Nunes — have the skill and integrity to produce a result in which we can all have confidence.
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective. Follow @JRubinBlogger
-
. But I'm ruining the board.
Well now wait a minute, everyone is gonna have to remember that we only have a wall and not a case.
-
And another thing?
We DID agree until you lost your everloving shit that I dared to quote EVERY SINGLE HEADLINE IN AMERICA that Bannon was ousted from his position.
I said from the beginning that I thought Rice APPEARED to be more guilty than the Trump administration based on what we know now. That just wasn't enough for you, so you had to start hurling insults about how I need to "educate myself" about something you believe in your mind that is 100% unequivocally bullshit. You cannot ALLOW any sort of level-headed notion that maybe we don't have enough facts at this juncture to proclaim that everyone on the Trump staff are choir boys incapable of wrongdoing.
THAT is how we got here. But I'm ruining the board.
a) I lost nothing. No shit, no pants, no nothing. I merely laughed at you. Suggested maybe you should look past the headlines. That apparently unleashes a torrent of linked diarrhea and sprayed insults from YOU. You weren't insulted until you started making the mocking caricature impressions and ranting like a ... well.. bitch.
2) Yeah, you're ruining the board with your screaming. It's unseemly. Dial it back a notch. Take a breath. Change the Depends.
>) I've told you this before but you're not the sole arbiter of what's sane, logical, rational or level-headed. In fact, you often can't even see any of those things from the limbs upon which you perch yourself. That's a lesson you're going to have to learn before this is over.
#anotherthing) Your default position when anyone disagrees with you is to resort to treating those with whom you disagree as inferior both intellectually and culturally.
@you'reahobokiller
PS: As of this post, there are 11 responses on this page. Care to guess how many are yours? SIX. More than half.
That qualifies -- in anyone's book -- as shitting the pants, crapping the slacks, ranting, screeding, frothing, screeching or whatever you want to call it.
#ruiningtheboard
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/04/06/susan-rice-is-a-pawn-in-trumps-effort-to-tear-down-the-system/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.7c45a66ed442
:rofl: :rofl:
Washington Post
-
:rofl: :rofl:
Washington Post
and an opinion article for the win.
-
and an opinion article for the win.
From a Republican.
-
From a Republican.
yeah, so?
-
a) I lost nothing. No shit, no pants, no nothing. I merely laughed at you. Suggested maybe you should look past the headlines. That apparently unleashes a torrent of linked diarrhea and sprayed insults from YOU. You weren't insulted until you started making the mocking caricature impressions and ranting like a ... well.. bitch.
You "merely" excised the one sentence where I say we don't KNOW at this point that the Trump administration is completely clean from my lengthy post about how it seems more likely Rice was acting nefariously and replied to it with the : taunt : emoji.
When I again reiterated my position that I tend to believe the Democrats were more likely guilty of "unethical tactics", with the caveat that that doesn't necessarily preclude the Trump team from being "involved in treasonous activities", you replied very diplomatically with "fuuuuuuck you for even using that term", told me to "stop reacting and think for a minute", and ranted about my bias for NOT saying one side is 100% guilty and the other is 100% innocent without the need to see any proof of that whatsoever.
I then ask how you can be so sure amid all of the resignations and recusements from the Trump team (this before Nunes).
You respond to THAT by calling me flippant, hysterical, and "no better than Trevor Noah, that CNN mommy partsicle Don Lemon or that assflapping Bill Maher". Then you tell me the unequivocal fact that Bannon was forced to resign isn't true, which is akin to telling me the sky isn't blue, and then snidely tell me to "do some research".
I respond by showing you that literally, every single news story reports that what I said is true and what you said is false.
Because it triggers you to be proven unquestionably, flatly WRONG about something, you went off the rails from there calling me a "sheep" for believing the lamestream media including Fox & Breitbart. I'm smug for dealing with facts and reality while you ramble on about some shit that factually never happened with absolutely no source to back up your fantastically false claims. It's not at all smug for you to repeatedly post a slew of :rofl: emojis followed by mocking invocation of the name of every publication imaginable because YOU know better, despite not even so much as offering up ANY substantiation to your insane claim.
2) Yeah, you're ruining the board with your screaming. It's unseemly. Dial it back a notch. Take a breath. Change the Depends.
The "I know you are but what am I" defense. Solid. Replying to your bullshit with facts is not screaming, tone police. I know this is your go-to defense when you've painted yourself into an embarrassing corner and I don't just let you out of the headlock. Congrats if that works on your sycophants.
>) I've told you this before but you're not the sole arbiter of what's sane, logical, rational or level-headed. In fact, you often can't even see any of those things from the limbs upon which you perch yourself. That's a lesson you're going to have to learn before this is over.
As I said. Disagree all you like, but thinking your side is impervious to guilt and the other side is incapable of anything but evil without any need to see all of the evidence first...that's not "sane, logical, rational, or level headed". It just isn't. I say so and the Oxford English dictionary says so.
#anotherthing) Your default position when anyone disagrees with you is to resort to treating those with whom you disagree as inferior both intellectually and culturally.
@you'reahobokiller
Link? If anything I've shown restraint in the face of you calling me an idiotic hysterical sheep.
PS: As of this post, there are 11 responses on this page. Care to guess how many are yours? SIX. More than half.
That qualifies -- in anyone's book -- as shitting the pants, crapping the slacks, ranting, screeding, frothing, screeching or whatever you want to call it.
#ruiningtheboard
Wow who'da thought in a 2-on-1 back and forth between you and GH2001 vs. myself I'd have almost exactly half of the responses??? Clearly this is evidence that I don't want dialogue and just want to drag the conversation in the mud.
And with that? Fuck you. Congrats, you brought me there. Now you can pretend you didn't say the same thing to me 2 1/2 pages ago.
-
yeah, so?
He doesn't get and never has that our contempt isn't for republicans or democrats. Or that those working against our duly elected president come from both sides of the aisle.
It's the same old same old, status quo, shit in my hand and tell me it's a ham sandwich, politics as usual establishment we rejected. It's the inexorable slide toward big govenment and no personal accountability that's part and parcel of both parties we oppose. It's the cultural and ideological shift away from traditional (normal) ethics and morality we refuse. We've watched our foreign policy and our identity slip from nationalism and patriotism to globalism and imperialism. We said enough.
Not to democrats. Not to republicans. To all.
Trump may not be the perfect answer. But my hope is that he kickstarts the revolution. We are the majority. Like it or not. All the fragile little snowflakes offended because I refuse to use binary pronouns like "ze" are the minority.
-
You "merely" excised the one sentence where I say we don't KNOW at this point that the Trump administration is completely clean from my lengthy post about how it seems more likely Rice was acting nefariously and replied to it with the : taunt : emoji.
When I again reiterated my position that I tend to believe the Democrats were more likely guilty of "unethical tactics", with the caveat that it that doesn't necessarily preclude Trump team from being "involved in treasonous activities", you replied very diplomatically with "fuuuuuuck you for even using that term", told me to "stop reacting and think for a minute", and ranted about my bias for NOT saying one side is 100% guilty and the other is 100% innocent without the need to see any proof of that whatsoever.
I then ask how you can be so sure amid all of the resignations and recusements from the Trump team (this before Nunes).
You respond to THAT by calling me flippant, hysterical, and "no better than Trevor Noah, that CNN mommy partsicle Don Lemon or that assflapping Bill Maher". Then you tell me the unequivocal fact that Bannon was forced to resign isn't true, which is akin to telling me the sky isn't blue, and then snidely tell me to "do some research".
I respond by showing you that literally, every single news story reports that what I said is true and what you said is false.
Because it triggers you to be proven unquestionably, flatly WRONG about something, you went off the rails from there calling me a "sheep" for believing the lamestream media including Fox & Breitbart. I'm smug for dealing with facts and reality while you ramble on about some shit that factually never happened with absolutely no source to back up your fantastically false claims. It's not at all smug for you to repeatedly post a slew of :rofl: emojis followed by mocking invocation of the name of every publication imaginable because YOU know better, despite not even so much as offering up ANY substantiation to your insane claim.
The "I know you are but what am I" defense. Solid. Replying to your bullshit with facts is not screaming, tone police. I know this is your go-to defense when you've painted yourself into an embarrassing corner and I don't just let you out of the headlock. Congrats if that works on your sycophants.
As I said. Disagree all you like, but thinking your side is impervious to guilt and the other side is incapable of anything but evil without any need to see all of the evidence first...that's not "sane, logical, rational, or level headed". It just isn't. I say so and the Oxford English dictionary says so.
Link? If anything I've shown restraint in the face of you calling me an idiotic hysterical sheep.
Wow who'da thought in a 2-on-1 back and forth between you and GH2001 vs. myself I'd have almost exactly half of the responses??? Clearly this is evidence that I don't want dialogue and just want to drag the conversation in the mud.
And with that? Fuck you. Congrats, you brought me there. Now you can pretend you didn't say the same thing to me 2 1/2 pages ago.
^
Poopy diaper.
-
Aaaand, Nunes is under investigation and just stepped down from the Russia probe, as one does when they are 100% innocent.
I really think you need to understand the "why" behind this, though. You seem to be fairly reasonable in regards to the whole Russia thing, so I will put it the best that I can. Back when Nunes came out and said that he had information that reveals that people from the Trump team were surveilled, he was asked if the information that he had resulted from a FISA request or by some other means, he said it appeared that it had to do with FISA. That in and of itself is considered "classified". He's being "investigated" because someone (MoveOn.org) filed a written complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics that he revealed classified information. The House Intelligence Committee has a rule that says it is mandatory for an investigation to take place if there is an allegation that a member of the committee improperly shared classified information. This is the investigation we are talking about.
Let's be realistic here. The "classified information" he mentioned is going to be declassified by the conclusion of the Russia probe. It's not like the guy sold military secrets. He simply said that the information collected on a presidential candidate and/or his team was the result of a FISA request. He's doing the right thing by stepping down, because the left is going to do anything they can to turn this thing sideways. This sham investigation into Nunes would take away from what is going to eventually happen, which is the public is going to find out that some shady shit took place under Obama those last 6 months.
I really don't think they are going to find some sort of collusion by the Trump campaign. Apparently they were monitoring his campaign, and it started somewhere around summer 2016. As much as the left wants Trump gone yesterday, I find it hard to believe that if there was a smoking gun out there, it hasn't been leaked.
-
I really think you need to understand the "why" behind this, though. You seem to be fairly reasonable in regards to the whole Russia thing, so I will put it the best that I can. Back when Nunes came out and said that he had information that reveals that people from the Trump team were surveilled, he was asked if the information that he had resulted from a FISA request or by some other means, he said it appeared that it had to do with FISA. That in and of itself is considered "classified". He's being "investigated" because someone (MoveOn.org) filed a written complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics that he revealed classified information. The House Intelligence Committee has a rule that says it is mandatory for an investigation to take place if there is an allegation that a member of the committee improperly shared classified information. This is the investigation we are talking about.
Let's be realistic here. The "classified information" he mentioned is going to be declassified by the conclusion of the Russia probe. It's not like the guy sold military secrets. He simply said that the information collected on a presidential candidate and/or his team was the result of a FISA request. He's doing the right thing by stepping down, because the left is going to do anything they can to turn this thing sideways. This sham investigation into Nunes would take away from what is going to eventually happen, which is the public is going to find out that some shady shit took place under Obama those last 6 months.
I really don't think they are going to find some sort of collusion by the Trump campaign. Apparently they were monitoring his campaign, and it started somewhere around summer 2016. As much as the left wants Trump gone yesterday, I find it hard to believe that if there was a smoking gun out there, it hasn't been leaked.
Hahaha.
A known goat fucker is more grounded, sensible, rational and sane than an alleged hobo killer.
-
Hahaha.
A known goat fucker is more grounded, sensible, rational and sane than an alleged hobo killer.
A racist and gay hobo killer, btw.
-
Hahaha.
A known goat fucker is more grounded, sensible, rational and sane than an alleged hobo killer.
This is another thing you do.
Take a post and artificially place me on the other side of it.
I'm the crazy one because you claim I disagree or take issue with it.
I don't.
-
This is another thing you do.
Take a post and artificially place me on the other side of it.
I'm the crazy one because you claim I disagree or take issue with it.
I don't.
So are you claiming that you're not 😜 crazy?
-
Furthermore, that Washington Post story that was pasted is completely slanted. Just an example:
The blatant effort to confuse and distract from the biggest political scandal of our lifetimes — Russian efforts to manipulate our election process and potential coordination with the campaign of the beneficiary of Russia’s “active measures†— does not come as any surprise.
They can't even see the forest for the trees. They aren't even neutral enough to think that there might not actually be a "scandal". They aren't neutral enough to consider that the revelation of possible inappropriate surveillance is not a distraction tactic; it might have actually happened. They've already made up their minds what did and did not happen. Honestly, I pretty much have too, but I'm not a reporter.
I think this is what happened: Someone in the Obama administration ordered surveillance on Trump and/or people in his team. I find it hard to believe that Obama himself would order this, so I would lean more towards an official close to him that would have the power to make this happen as much off the books as possible, but something like this can't be completely off the books. They may have thought that certainly they would pick something up that was really bad and they could leak the information thus torpedoing the Trump campaign. The ends would justify the means, Clinton would win, and none of this shit would ever see the light of day. Worst case scenario, they find nothing, but Clinton will likely win anyway. Again, the fact that something shady was done gets buried. The wildcard here was that Trump did win, AND they found nothing on him that they can use. Now the left is scared shitless about what is about to happen.
Did Russia try to influence the election? Of course. There's no doubt about that. Putin hates anything with the last name of Clinton with the fire of a thousand suns. He has for quite some time, long before Trump ever threw his hat in the ring. Russia could kill two birds with one stone by doing what they did; Clinton would lose and they could make the US look like dumbasses. The only question is if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. And I just don't see it. There's no way the left wouldn't have leaked it.
-
This is another thing you do.
Take a post and artificially place me on the other side of it.
I'm the crazy one because you claim I disagree or take issue with it.
I don't.
^
Allegedly killed a hobo.
-
^
Homo that Allegedly killed a hobo.
-
Hahaha.
A known goat fucker is more grounded, sensible, rational and sane than an alleged hobo killer.
Hahaha.
You sit on the side with a "known goat fucker"...think about that for a second.
-
I think this is what happened: Someone in the Obama administration ordered surveillance on Trump and/or people in his team.
Why is this a more probable scenario than Trump and/or his proxies getting caught as collateral parties while the actual target(s) of surveillance were being watched?
-
Why is this a more probable scenario than Trump and/or his proxies getting caught as collateral parties while the actual target(s) of surveillance were being watched?
Fine. Why were names unmasked?
If there is collusion, fine. But this has been going on for over a year. Where is the proof?
-
Fine. Why were names unmasked?
Dunno, but there is a protocol for doing so and records of the procedure that should provide some insight. Let's look at 'em.
If there is collusion, fine. But this has been going on for over a year. Where is the proof?
Dunno, maybe that ongoing investigation will turn something up eventually. I'm not arguing collusion here, I'm just asking why RWS thinks it's more likely that:
a) the Obama administration took the extraordinary step of surveilling the Trump camp; than it is that
b) Russians under surveillance had some contact with Trump and/or his surrogates, making Trump an unintended, but legitimate, target of surveillance?
-
Dunno, maybe that ongoing investigation will turn something up eventually. I'm not arguing collusion here, I'm just asking why RWS thinks it's more likely that:
a) the Obama administration took the extraordinary step of surveilling the Trump camp; than it is that
b) Russians under surveillance had some contact with Trump and/or his surrogates, making Trump an unintended, but legitimate, target of surveillance?
I'm sure the investigation will turn something up. I just don't think it will be what the Democrats wanted it to turn up, or at the very least, will expose some of the shady shit that transpired. Again, I think that as much as the Democrats do not want Trump as President, they would have long since leaked information if they had it. There a are still a lot of people left over from the Obama administration, which is why there have been so many leaks the past few months. I just can't believe that if there were a smoking gun out there that it could be kept secret.
-
Dunno, but there is a protocol for doing so and records of the procedure that should provide some insight. Let's look at 'em.
Dunno, maybe that ongoing investigation will turn something up eventually. I'm not arguing collusion here, I'm just asking why RWS thinks it's more likely that:
a) the Obama administration took the extraordinary step of surveilling the Trump camp; than it is that
b) Russians under surveillance had some contact with Trump and/or his surrogates, making Trump an unintended, but legitimate, target of surveillance?
I don't know if RWS made the same semantic mistake as Trump did when he said he was being wiretapped, or if he actually meant they were incidentally surveilled. We pretty much know that much to be factually true at this point.
What I think is likely the case is there was routine surveillance of Russia, someone somewhere in the Democratic party caught wind that there were Trump surrogates (most likely Flynn) on the other end of the line, and figured out a way to obtain that information within legal, although ethically shaky at best, grounds. I think they were able to justify their actions by claiming it was a matter of national security by nature of the fact that Flynn or whoever could possibly be a high-ranking official of the US government should Trump win the election. I think technically that is enough to pass legal muster. I think they may or may not have found information that implicates him in shady activities but made damn sure the media found out that there was interaction between them and a foreign adversarial government if for nothing else than to let the public's imaginations run wild.
All of that is conjecture based on what I've read and heard. But as I've said to trigger Kaos, what I am less sure about is if they actually found dirt or not. If I had to bet odds, I'd say they probably didn't since we haven't heard any specifics yet. But the clock hasn't run out, so we still may. Just can't say for sure at this point.
-
I don't know if RWS made the same semantic mistake as Trump did when he said he was being wiretapped, or if he actually meant they were incidentally surveilled. We pretty much know that much to be factually true at this point.
What I think is likely the case is there was routine surveillance of Russia, someone somewhere in the Democratic party caught wind that there were Trump surrogates (most likely Flynn) on the other end of the line, and figured out a way to obtain that information within legal, although ethically shaky at best, grounds. I think they were able to justify their actions by claiming it was a matter of national security by nature of the fact that Flynn or whoever could possibly be a high-ranking official of the US government should Trump win the election. I think technically that is enough to pass legal muster. I think they may or may not have found information that implicates him in shady activities but made damn sure the media found out that there was interaction between them and a foreign adversarial government if for nothing else than to let the public's imaginations run wild.
All of that is conjecture based on what I've read and heard. But as I've said to trigger Kaos, what I am less sure about is if they actually found dirt or not. If I had to bet odds, I'd say they probably didn't since we haven't heard any specifics yet. But the clock hasn't run out, so we still may. Just can't say for sure at this point.
This is more or less where I was trying to go with it.
-
I don't know if RWS made the same semantic mistake as Trump did when he said he was being wiretapped, or if he actually meant they were incidentally surveilled. We pretty much know that much to be factually true at this point.
What I think is likely the case is there was routine surveillance of Russia, someone somewhere in the Democratic party caught wind that there were Trump surrogates (most likely Flynn) on the other end of the line, and figured out a way to obtain that information within legal, although ethically shaky at best, grounds. I think they were able to justify their actions by claiming it was a matter of national security by nature of the fact that Flynn or whoever could possibly be a high-ranking official of the US government should Trump win the election. I think technically that is enough to pass legal muster. I think they may or may not have found information that implicates him in shady activities but made damn sure the media found out that there was interaction between them and a foreign adversarial government if for nothing else than to let the public's imaginations run wild.
All of that is conjecture based on what I've read and heard. But as I've said to trigger Kaos, what I am less sure about is if they actually found dirt or not. If I had to bet odds, I'd say they probably didn't since we haven't heard any specifics yet. But the clock hasn't run out, so we still may. Just can't say for sure at this point.
You're wrapped up in semantics.
Trump is 70 years old. The word "wiretapped" means something to him that the word "surveilled" does not.
Obama illegally spied on them. That's what he meant. That's what he said in his archaic way.
I know things. I've spent a lot of time with a guy in his 70s who was cooperating with the FBI in a corruption investigation. A guy who's now in prison. Don't ask. He used words like that. His truck was "wiretapped." His phone was tapped. His office was wired. Those were words he used. When he had conversations with targets, they accessed his phone, turned it on remotely and recorded everything that was said. That's why he always laid his phone on the table and didn't keep it in his pocket.
You don't have the capacity or the cleverness to "trigger" me. I can't be triggered. You however? Triggerfish. I've done it so many times it's become boring, actually.
What you've gotten right here is taht the democrats pulled shady shit -- as RWS noted -- assuming they'd never have to answer for it because there was no way in hell Trump could possibly win. When he did? Panic.
That's what you're seeing now. Panic. On their part.
If there was something there? They would have used it before the election.
This is exactly like the NCAA in Auburn except YOU'RE now the one running around throwing words like "lack of institutional control" and "probation" when there's no justification for doing it.
You "just can't say" but you have no qualms about referencing treason and impeachment. What a maroon.
End of story.
-
You're wrapped up in semantics.
Trump is 70 years old. The word "wiretapped" means something to him that the word "surveilled" does not.
Obama illegally spied on them. That's what he meant. That's what he said in his archaic way.
I know things. I've spent a lot of time with a guy in his 70s who was cooperating with the FBI in a corruption investigation. A guy who's now in prison. Don't ask. He used words like that. His truck was "wiretapped." His phone was tapped. His office was wired. Those were words he used. When he had conversations with targets, they accessed his phone, turned it on remotely and recorded everything that was said. That's why he always laid his phone on the table and didn't keep it in his pocket.
That's pretty much what I was saying. Even specifically used the word semantics. Goddamn, you can shoehorn an argument where there should be none worse than my wife.
This is exactly like the NCAA in Auburn except YOU'RE now the one running around throwing words like "lack of institutional control" and "probation" when there's no justification for doing it.
You "just can't say" but you have no qualms about referencing treason and impeachment. What a maroon.
End of story.
This is Tom Albetar chumming around with Bama players and you are Bama nation saying there is absolutely nothing of any note to see. Absolutely no need for investigation and you're outraged at the very idea that anyone would even dare to consider the thought. It's been handled internally, get off their nuts.
-
This is Tom Albetar chumming around with Bama players and you are Bama nation saying there is absolutely nothing of any note to see. Absolutely no need for investigation and you're outraged at the very idea that anyone would even dare to consider the thought. It's been handled internally, get off their nuts.
WRONG
-
WRONG
Nope, he's correct. Complete with a backdated "foreign agent" tag applied to Mike Flynn (a la backdated "cease and desist" for Tom Albetar)
-
Nope, he's correct. Complete with a backdated "foreign agent" tag applied to Mike Flynn (a la backdated "cease and desist" for Tom Albetar)
Dirt called. You're messing up a metaphor being this dumb.
-
Dirt called. You're messing up a metaphor being this dumb.
Dog shit called, said you're stupid.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html
This is the clearest evidence so far that the FBI had reason to believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that a Trump campaign adviser was in touch with Russian agents. Such contacts are now at the center of an investigation into whether the campaign coordinated with the Russian government to swing the election in Trump’s favor.
:rolleyes:
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a1/a15f0c5c77d2c23c9120f5c7fcad92d24bcff04d1e188225aaa4860a37b0cadd.jpg)
What you claim as evidence of one, I see as clear proof of the other.
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a1/a15f0c5c77d2c23c9120f5c7fcad92d24bcff04d1e188225aaa4860a37b0cadd.jpg)
What you claim as evidence of one, I see as clear proof of the other.
Weird that you read me editorializing on "proof" of anything simply by posting a link.
It doesn't point further in one direction or the other from what I said after the Susan Rice sorry last week.
Just more pertinent information to serve as another piece of the puzzle.
I'm sorry information that might lead to an informed opinion triggers you.
-
This argument was over a long time ago but apparently a clear and decisive call needs to be made. Kaos won. Undeniably. If we need to put it to a vote it will be like 15-2.
-
I'm sorry information that might lead to an informed opinion triggers you.
Maybe it's you that triggers me, you sexy beast.
-
Maybe it's you that triggers me, you sexy beast.
Oh behave.
-
Looks like another diversion attempt is needed. Who shall we bomb next?
-
Looks like another diversion attempt is needed. Who shall we bomb next?
You care to leave your address?
-
You care to leave your address?
That's it. I'm officially moving you into the keen column.
-
That's it. I'm officially moving you into the keen column.
He's going to disappoint you.
-
That's it. I'm officially moving you into the keen column.
Blind squirrel found him a nut.
-
Blind squirrel found him a nut.
No, I've been watching. His game has gone up a few notches lately.
-
No, I've been watching. His game has gone up a few notches lately.
Its not like the standards are very high around here to begin with. :sneer:
-
Aaaand, right on que, we drop the Mother of All Bombs on Afghanistan.
-
Aaaand, right on que, we drop the Mother of All Bombs on Afghanistan.
Jared wins again.
-
I don't think that diversion attempt succeeded. Gonna have to do something bigger.
-
Keeping promises to attack was was!
-
I don't think that diversion attempt succeeded. Gonna have to do something bigger.
Let me help you with another.
(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/miked0003/FB_IMG_1492131189876_zps4uujv8o9.jpg) (http://s164.photobucket.com/user/miked0003/media/FB_IMG_1492131189876_zps4uujv8o9.jpg.html)
-
Let me help you with another.
(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/miked0003/FB_IMG_1492131189876_zps4uujv8o9.jpg) (http://s164.photobucket.com/user/miked0003/media/FB_IMG_1492131189876_zps4uujv8o9.jpg.html)
And? I still don't give a fuck what you or anyone else here thinks. The FBI investigation is still ongoing, regardless if the public is paying attention.
-
And? I still don't give a fuck what you or anyone else here thinks. The FBI investigation is still ongoing, regardless if the public is paying attention.
Then not worried. If Hitlary did nothing wrong, then Trump has nothing to worry about!
-
Then not worried. If Hitlary did nothing wrong, then Trump has nothing to worry about!
Not the same situation...but good try.
-
Not the same situation...but good try.
IKR. It's all cocaine and underage hookers man!
-
IKR. It's all cocaine and underage hookers man!
You talking about the "prophet" Mohammed? The dude who hallucinated in a cave and later raped (and married) a nine year old?
-
You talking about the "prophet" Mohammed? The dude who hallucinated in a cave and later raped (and married) a nine year old?
Yup, the Abrahamic religions are fucking stupid.
-
Yup, the Abrahamic religions are fucking stupid.
Yeah tell me more about how Jesus (whether you believe he's a messiah or not) did those same things. A comparison - human to human.
-
Yeah tell me more about how Jesus (whether you believe he's a messiah or not) did those same things. A comparison - human to human.
You're assuming that Jesus was real. Nothing in Christianity is original.
-
You're assuming that Jesus was real. Nothing in Christianity is original.
You better get your shit together.
-
You're assuming that Jesus was real. Nothing in Christianity is original.
Sorry. We forgot that you refer to him as your lord and savior barack hussein obama.
-
You're assuming that Jesus was real. Nothing in Christianity is original.
You don't think he was a real human being regardless of religious belief? Is that how you frame anyone who doesn't agree with you - tell them they are just assuming? I assume you are a dumbass because I know you are. That was easy.
-
You better get your shit together.
Or what? Your storm god gonna smite me? Fuck off.
-
You don't think he was a real human being regardless of religious belief? Is that how you frame anyone who doesn't agree with you - tell them they are just assuming? I assume you are a dumbass because I know you are. That was easy.
I don't give a fuck what people believed in 2000 years ago and judging by their writings, they're ignorant sheep herders.
I assume you believe that the bible is the "word of god"...nevermind the fact that it was written by man, at least one of those men wrote while in a cave that had volcanic gas seeping into it, and some of those writings we put together by other men at the first council of Nicaea.
I assume that you think that some of the books of the bible were written by the ones that they're attributed to (here's a little hint, none of the writings had the author's names attached, that was added later, at the Council of Nicaea).
I can also assume that you didn't know that Christianity once believed in reincarnation.
I can therefore safely assume that you are a moron because if what you say.
-
Or what? Your storm god gonna smite me? Fuck off.
That's not how it works.
-
Or what? Your storm god gonna smite me? Fuck off.
Just reading some of your posts lately I'd say he already did.
-
You don't think he was a real human being regardless of religious belief? Is that how you frame anyone who doesn't agree with you - tell them they are just assuming? I assume you are a dumbass because I know you are. That was easy.
(http://i.imgur.com/jfOQSRT.gif)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/jfOQSRT.gif)
This is an exercise in letting him dig his own hole without him even knowing.
-
This is an exercise in letting him dig his own hole without him even knowing.
If I ever dig my own hole, I'm smart enough to get out of it.
-
If I ever dig my own hole, I'm smart enough to get out of it.
(http://replygif.net/i/1126.gif)
-
If I ever dig my own hole, I'm smart enough to get out of it.
Next beer is on me. Just because I like your passion.
But....you're still FOS.
-
Next beer is on me. Just because I like your passion.
But....you're still FOS.
Who's are you going to take? Never known a dem to buy anything.
-
Who's are you going to take? Never known a dem to buy anything.
Im giving him a handout. It's the Bernie way.