Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 28, 2018 11:09:19 GMT -5
If memory serves, relatively few contributors here voted for either Pres. Trump or Pres. Obama. Not that YMAM is a stellar example of critical thinking, but we do OK, and we didn't fall for "Hope and Change" or "Make America Great Again". U can count me in for Obama twice...Hillery tw- ...oops...once.... I applaud your bravery in admitting it, sir.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,736
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 28, 2018 11:19:28 GMT -5
I voted for Obama once - in 2012.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,177
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2018 11:36:49 GMT -5
I voted for Obama once - in 2012. I also voted for him in 2012. I was very concerned about McCain's very limited life experience. Then there was Sarah Palin. Never really into the Hope and Change.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 28, 2018 11:41:07 GMT -5
U can count me in for Obama twice...Hillery tw- ...oops...once.... I applaud your bravery in admitting it, sir. Hey I am battle tested....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,355
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 28, 2018 12:34:37 GMT -5
1. The DNC servers contain evidence of rigging the primary election for Hillary as well as likely evidence of the criminal conspiracy to spy on Trump and his team. Not only that, but it would probably also reveal a lot of criminal activity that we're not even aware of yet-- and we are aware of quite a bit.
ok, let's say this is all true. it isn't, but let's say it is. here is a little challenge for you:
try and think of a way that it is POSSIBLE that this is entirely legal. because that possibility exists.
this is the thing about your crazy rightwing news sources. they miss the obvious, and go down the conspiracy rabbit hole.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 28, 2018 13:07:17 GMT -5
1. The DNC servers contain evidence of rigging the primary election for Hillary as well as likely evidence of the criminal conspiracy to spy on Trump and his team. Not only that, but it would probably also reveal a lot of criminal activity that we're not even aware of yet-- and we are aware of quite a bit. ok, let's say this is all true. it isn't, but let's say it is. here is a little challenge for you: try and think of a way that it is POSSIBLE that this is entirely legal. because that possibility exists. this is the thing about your crazy rightwing news sources. they miss the obvious, and go down the conspiracy rabbit hole. I'm sorry , but the poster, no names need be mentioned, but one who is paranoid over all these conspiracy theories...and your correct, not happening..probably not even contemplated... But the sorry thing is, they are not kidding...they believe this...their reason for being is to spread this misinformation as did the clergy when Spain was colonizing their possessions in South America and Mexico...Jehovah Witnesses and Evangelist do today...even Muslim clerics spread false interpretations today in the middle East..in fact where ever they can get a audience,....same thing here is happening and fun time of back and forth of opinions is no longer happening...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 28, 2018 15:01:14 GMT -5
1. The DNC servers contain evidence of rigging the primary election for Hillary as well as likely evidence of the criminal conspiracy to spy on Trump and his team. Not only that, but it would probably also reveal a lot of criminal activity that we're not even aware of yet-- and we are aware of quite a bit. ok, let's say this is all true. it isn't, but let's say it is. here is a little challenge for you: try and think of a way that it is POSSIBLE that this is entirely legal. because that possibility exists. this is the thing about your crazy rightwing news sources. they miss the obvious, and go down the conspiracy rabbit hole. If you want to convince him, supply a plausible alternative. What's your theory on why they won't turn over the servers for analysis?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 28, 2018 15:11:25 GMT -5
Is there a link that corroborates?
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 28, 2018 15:26:08 GMT -5
1. The DNC servers contain evidence of rigging the primary election for Hillary as well as likely evidence of the criminal conspiracy to spy on Trump and his team. Not only that, but it would probably also reveal a lot of criminal activity that we're not even aware of yet-- and we are aware of quite a bit. ok, let's say this is all true. it isn't, but let's say it is. here is a little challenge for you: try and think of a way that it is POSSIBLE that this is entirely legal. because that possibility exists. this is the thing about your crazy rightwing news sources. they miss the obvious, and go down the conspiracy rabbit hole. If you want to convince him, supply a plausible alternative. What's your theory on why they won't turn over the servers for analysis? I know your not talking to me but to stick my two cents in...why bother..thats just playing into his hands...keeping this blather going...man is so full of hate and despises all who he feels are beneath him...which seems to be most all except those that believes as he does...why bother...I'll let u play with him...for a while I'll be somewhere else...am sure enough here will continue to show how full of c**p he and his theories are.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 28, 2018 20:25:55 GMT -5
Operative phrase: "Destruction of evidence" - make no mistake about it, that is a VERY big deal. There are no "innocent explanations".
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss his ongoing investigation into the DOJ and FBI. Chairman Goodlatte holds primary oversight authority over the entire Justice Department.
Part of the conversation turns very interesting, and provides an indicator into the next phase, when Bartiromo mentions messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Attorney Lisa Page surrounding an intent to “destroy evidence”, during their participation in the Clinton investigation. WATCH:
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 28, 2018 20:30:25 GMT -5
Did The DOJ FISA Fraud Create US District Judge Recusal?theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/28/did-justice-department-fisa-fraud-create-u-s-district-court-judge-recusal/The story behind why U.S. District Court Judge would be recused, is transparently missing from any follow-up by media. With all the current sunlight over possible manipulation of a FISA court application by the FBI, no-one seems curious if Judge Rudolph Contreras was the FBI’s FISA approval judge, and the U.S. DC Judge in the Flynn pleading. The story has disappeared into the swamp; but the story is important. There is a very strong possibility that U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras was forcibly recused by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, because Contreras is also the FISA Court Judge who signed-off on the 2016 FISA application (warrant) that led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Flynn. That FISA application is now being questioned. The initial media report stated Judge Contreras “was recused” implying the decision was ultimately put upon him. However, I repeat, if there was a conflict on December 7th, 2017 wouldn’t that same conflict have existed on December 1st (Flynn pleading).? If the conflict did exist on December 1st, 2017, why did Contreras even allow himself to preside over the first hearing of General Mike Flynn’s rather odd guilty plea?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 28, 2018 21:15:20 GMT -5
This is all going one place: a special counsel investigation whereupon big players WILL go to federal prison. Comey has already stated under oath to Congress that he illegally leaked classified information to a 'friend' which he knew would be disseminated to the NY Times (revealing, by the way, the whole incestuous Washington Swamp - Fake Media modus operandi) in hopes a special counsel would be appointed.
Of course, we know there was no "memo". It was a hastily concocted scheme to begin the special counsel smokescreen because Comey didn't see it coming- Trump waited until he was 3,000 miles away before he struck-- with DOJ raiding the FBI and seizing all of Comey's work material, computers, and devices.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,177
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2018 23:52:45 GMT -5
This is all going one place: a special counsel investigation whereupon big players WILL go to federal prison. Comey has already stated under oath to Congress that he illegally leaked classified information to a 'friend' which he knew would be disseminated to the NY Times (revealing, by the way, the whole incestuous Washington Swamp - Fake Media modus operandi) in hopes a special counsel would be appointed. Of course, we know there was no "memo". It was a hastily concocted scheme to begin the special counsel smokescreen because Comey didn't see it coming- Trump waited until he was 3,000 miles away before he struck-- with DOJ raiding the FBI and seizing all of Comey's work material, computers, and devices. Okay, looking at the technique gives us: "big players" = small fries "federal prison" = probation "illegally" = maybe not the bestest idea "incestuous" = third cousins by marriage "Swamp" = rain puddle "Of course, we know" = a buddy of mine and I are guessing "concocted scheme" = right wing conspiracy theory Hey this reality thing is kinda fun.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,355
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 29, 2018 0:22:26 GMT -5
If you want to convince him, supply a plausible alternative. What's your theory on why they won't turn over the servers for analysis? I know your not talking to me but to stick my two cents in...why bother..thats just playing into his hands...keeping this blather going...man is so full of hate and despises all who he feels are beneath him...which seems to be most all except those that believes as he does...why bother...I'll let u play with him...for a while I'll be somewhere else...am sure enough here will continue to show how full of c**p he and his theories are. convince him of what? i am simply asking him to consider the fact that all of that shit CAN be legal. primaries are not controlled by the same agencies as general elections are. parties are entitled to "rig" the primaries how they see fit. until modern times, primaries were not even held publicly. they don't need to be. i happen to think winner take all primaries are grossly unfair and undemocratic. others think superdelegates are. but that is up to PARTIES to decide. if you don't like those parties, choose another parties. however, this business if adjudicating parties based on their doctrines ex-post-facto is, for lack of a more concise way of putting it, bullshit. "spying" can also be legal, within certain limits. i can hire a PI to follow you around and report on what you are doing. that is perfectly legal. there are limitations to what can be done, and i expect the PI to follow those limits. i posed a question of Paul: has he CONSIDERED that the actions might be perfectly legal. that's it. it is a yes or no question. i think everyone should CONSIDER the idea that actions may be legal before they go on a public board and act as judge and jury, convicting the parties in questions of crimes that might not exist. and yeah, that includes Trump and the GOP, since you will undoubtedly ask that, next.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,355
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 29, 2018 0:23:54 GMT -5
This is all going one place: a special counsel investigation whereupon big players WILL go to federal prison. Comey has already stated under oath to Congress that he illegally leaked classified information to a 'friend' which he knew would be disseminated to the NY Times (revealing, by the way, the whole incestuous Washington Swamp - Fake Media modus operandi) in hopes a special counsel would be appointed. Of course, we know there was no "memo". It was a hastily concocted scheme to begin the special counsel smokescreen because Comey didn't see it coming- Trump waited until he was 3,000 miles away before he struck-- with DOJ raiding the FBI and seizing all of Comey's work material, computers, and devices. Okay, looking at the technique gives us: "big players" = small fries "federal prison" = probation "illegally" = maybe not the bestest idea "incestuous" = third cousins by marriage "Swamp" = rain puddle "Of course, we know" = a buddy of mine and I are guessing "concocted scheme" = right wing conspiracy theory Hey this reality thing is kinda fun. no, they won't. not on the Democratic/FBI side, anyway. so, there you have two opinions. let's see who is right.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,177
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 29, 2018 3:51:42 GMT -5
Okay, looking at the technique gives us: "big players" = small fries "federal prison" = probation "illegally" = maybe not the bestest idea "incestuous" = third cousins by marriage "Swamp" = rain puddle "Of course, we know" = a buddy of mine and I are guessing "concocted scheme" = right wing conspiracy theory Hey this reality thing is kinda fun. no, they won't. not on the Democratic/FBI side, anyway. so, there you have two opinions. let's see who is right. Actually, three. You need to take into account the "technique". AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP told us that he offers far, far right ideas he doesn't actually believe just to pull things that direction. So we have yours, his far, far right BS, and my wild ass guess on what Paul thinks is reality.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 29, 2018 9:44:11 GMT -5
To be clear- I do have sources. They have actually stated that some literally unbelievable things have been uncovered that go way beyond the two Trump Derangement Syndrome lovebirds at the FBI- and straight to Obama, Hillary, and the DNC. They tell me the entire Democratic Party and a big chunk of Republicans are compromised, That foreign spies are running our government via blackmail and extortion (If you don't know about the Imran Awan scandal and the Pakistani hackers working for the DNC-- you should brush up on that) and that if it ever got out, "All hell would break loose".
So, I'm not presenting anything I don't actually believe- only things which cannot yet be verified.
Remember- we keep moving farther from the left-wing propaganda narrative over to where I am-- and I think we're going to move a lot further than a failed plot to undo an election.
If you view the Obama presidency properly- as a crime spree- it's easier to see where it all goes.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,177
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 29, 2018 10:08:04 GMT -5
... So, I'm not presenting anything I don't actually believe- ... You clearly stated you post things that are far, far right of what you consider reality. In short- it's technique. If you're here.... and the reality you need to see is here.... I say I'm here and you say....
you say I'm crazy. Obviously the truth is here...
So is it not reasonable to take the position that you are presenting things you don't really believe within your game of "technique"?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,468
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 29, 2018 10:11:02 GMT -5
Your sources aren't your neighbor's wiener dogs, are they? Just want to be sure. You wouldn't be the first person led astray by dogs.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,355
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 29, 2018 10:51:41 GMT -5
no, they won't. not on the Democratic/FBI side, anyway. so, there you have two opinions. let's see who is right. Actually, three. You need to take into account the "technique". AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP told us that he offers far, far right ideas he doesn't actually believe just to pull things that direction. So we have yours, his far, far right BS, and my wild ass guess on what Paul thinks is reality. so he doesn't actually believe what he posts? he just posts to "hem" and "push"? what a shocker.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,736
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 29, 2018 10:57:08 GMT -5
His technique is not working on me because he is so out there and so wordy that I can't get through any of it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,355
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 29, 2018 11:04:06 GMT -5
His technique is not working on me because he is so out there and so wordy that I can't get through any of it. the other problem with it that it is so out there, so incongruous with the facts, that it undermines his reputation.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,267
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jan 29, 2018 11:12:27 GMT -5
... So, I'm not presenting anything I don't actually believe- ... You clearly stated you post things that are far, far right of what you consider reality. In short- it's technique. If you're here.... and the reality you need to see is here.... I say I'm here and you say....
you say I'm crazy. Obviously the truth is here...
So is it not reasonable to take the position that you are presenting things you don't really believe within your game of "technique"? Oh snap! Billis virgiled him
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,267
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jan 29, 2018 12:14:19 GMT -5
His technique is not working on me because he is so out there and so wordy that I can't get through any of it. the other problem with it that it is so out there, so incongruous with the facts, that it undermines his reputationsanity. cthulhu is calling.....the longer you play the game, the more sanity you lose......
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 29, 2018 12:48:55 GMT -5
I know your not talking to me but to stick my two cents in...why bother..thats just playing into his hands...keeping this blather going...man is so full of hate and despises all who he feels are beneath him...which seems to be most all except those that believes as he does...why bother...I'll let u play with him...for a while I'll be somewhere else...am sure enough here will continue to show how full of c**p he and his theories are. convince him of what? i am simply asking him to consider the fact that all of that shit CAN be legal. primaries are not controlled by the same agencies as general elections are. parties are entitled to "rig" the primaries how they see fit. until modern times, primaries were not even held publicly. they don't need to be. i happen to think winner take all primaries are grossly unfair and undemocratic. others think superdelegates are. but that is up to PARTIES to decide. if you don't like those parties, choose another parties. however, this business if adjudicating parties based on their doctrines ex-post-facto is, for lack of a more concise way of putting it, bullshit. "spying" can also be legal, within certain limits. i can hire a PI to follow you around and report on what you are doing. that is perfectly legal. there are limitations to what can be done, and i expect the PI to follow those limits. i posed a question of Paul: has he CONSIDERED that the actions might be perfectly legal. that's it. it is a yes or no question. i think everyone should CONSIDER the idea that actions may be legal before they go on a public board and act as judge and jury, convicting the parties in questions of crimes that might not exist. and yeah, that includes Trump and the GOP, since you will undoubtedly ask that, next. I agree with all of this, with the exception that if a party claims to be unbiased, democratic, etc., internal subversion of these principles is immoral and very much deserving of condemnation, even when perfectly legal. More to the point: Paul's original question was asking members to explain why the DNC didn't turn over their servers. In addition to critiquing his theory, why not provide him with your own? Or am I missing something? Is your theory that, while you don't believe the DNC did anything illegal, you share Paul's opinion that they "rigged" the party nomination--a fact that might get out and wind up embarrassing them if the FBI poked around their servers?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,736
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 29, 2018 12:56:18 GMT -5
convince him of what? i am simply asking him to consider the fact that all of that shit CAN be legal. primaries are not controlled by the same agencies as general elections are. parties are entitled to "rig" the primaries how they see fit. until modern times, primaries were not even held publicly. they don't need to be. i happen to think winner take all primaries are grossly unfair and undemocratic. others think superdelegates are. but that is up to PARTIES to decide. if you don't like those parties, choose another parties. however, this business if adjudicating parties based on their doctrines ex-post-facto is, for lack of a more concise way of putting it, bullshit. "spying" can also be legal, within certain limits. i can hire a PI to follow you around and report on what you are doing. that is perfectly legal. there are limitations to what can be done, and i expect the PI to follow those limits. i posed a question of Paul: has he CONSIDERED that the actions might be perfectly legal. that's it. it is a yes or no question. i think everyone should CONSIDER the idea that actions may be legal before they go on a public board and act as judge and jury, convicting the parties in questions of crimes that might not exist. and yeah, that includes Trump and the GOP, since you will undoubtedly ask that, next. I agree with all of this, with the exception that if a party claims to be unbiased, democratic, etc., internal subversion of these principles is immoral and very much deserving of condemnation, even when perfectly legal. More to the point: Paul's original question was asking members to explain why the DNC didn't turn over their servers. In addition to critiquing his theory, why not provide him with your own? Or am I missing something? Is your theory that, while you don't believe the DNC did anything illegal, you share Paul's opinion that they "rigged" the party nomination--a fact that might get out and wind up embarrassing them if the FBI poked around their servers? Don't we already know they (at least) manipulated their primary? Or are the dems denying that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 14:33:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 12:57:17 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 29, 2018 13:10:07 GMT -5
Why would you think this is meaningful? He was eligible to retire in March and had previously announced he would do so. He has accumulated leave which allows him to not work the rest of those days. Thousands of people across the country do the same thing every day. Did you miss that, or does it not matter to you?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 29, 2018 13:14:55 GMT -5
More to the point: Paul's original question was asking members to explain why the DNC didn't turn over their servers. In addition to critiquing his theory, why not provide him with your own?
Virgil,
I asked if there was a corroborating link to Paul's claim that the DNC would not hand over it's servers. Until then this is just another spurious claim like so many others. And if the investigation needs to examine them how about a subpoena or whatever would be required to seize them for a forensic analysis??
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 29, 2018 14:06:52 GMT -5
If you think asking for a link to back up a claim is "picking on Paul" so be it. I just consider it proper netiquette to back up such claims as he made.
Now how about one from you that shows the DNC actually destroyed theirs and whether they have a copy. TYIA.
|
|