SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[tallguy]

Feb 22, 2018 19:29:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 22, 2018 17:48:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Another useless response.  

This is about campaign finance law violations.  How is that an indictment of the entire U.S. justice system? 

And again (as with the Daniels affair and Mueller), how do you get to the idea that "this is what the Democrats try to use to bring the man down"?  The complaint was filed by a non-partisan watchdog group committed to eliminating corruption in elections and campaign finance.  For someone who enjoys pontificating in such a dismissive manner you sure tend to conflate a lot of issues out of ignorance.  There are a number of people here of whom I do not expect better.  I have been up to now loath to consider you one of them.  Have I been wrong?  

Damn, Tall, do you EVER actually start a post with anything other than an ad hominem?  

That depends entirely on what people give me to respond to.   

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 22, 2018 20:02:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Feb 22, 2018 19:29:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Damn, Tall, do you EVER actually start a post with anything other than an ad hominem?  

That depends entirely on what people give me to respond to.   

The silver lining is that if "Tallguy" ever replies to one of my posts and the reply doesn't start with a quip about how exceptionally stupid, clueless, or lazy I am, I'll know your account has been hacked.

[tallguy]

Feb 22, 2018 20:13:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 22, 2018 20:02:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

That depends entirely on what people give me to respond to.   

The silver lining is that if "Tallguy" ever replies to one of my posts and the reply doesn't start with a quip about how exceptionally stupid, clueless, or lazy I am, I'll know your account has been hacked.

Or, alternatively, you can figure out what the facts are before you become dismissive and insulting.  That might work too. 

I don't recall the last time I had to correct you (Daniels-Mueller) as having being particularly insulting.  I thought I merely asked from where you got your information.  Truly, though, if you really want to be considered part of the anti-truth, anti-facts, right-wing-nut posting group I'm sure someone here can hook you up.  If you prove worthy they might even give you the engraved plaque, though last I heard they were back-ordered on the membership rings due to the Trump bump.  

[OldCoyote]

I noticed that instead of debating what Paul post you respond with insults.

Is the reason for the insults is because you can not actually intelligently debate Paul??

Oh well,,, back to viewing insults instead of debate.

[Opti]

Feb 21, 2018 21:36:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2018 17:09:38 GMT -5 Opti said:

"He did not indict them for violating 52 U.S.C. §30121 (contributions and donations by foreign nationals). The question is, why not?""

Let's give the author a word problem since he apparently needs help understanding the difference between donating directly to a campaign and paying for a service.

Trump goes to Kentucky Fried Chicken and buys a meal. He is served by a foreigner here on a temporary VISA. Please explain why Trump does not have to count this as a campaign contribution and worry about violating 52 U.S.C. §30121 ?

happy just finished telling me there's a chance Pres. Trump's hush money to his mistresses could be deemed a "campaign expense" by a US judge.

In light of such insanity, don't you think it prudent to at least look up whether Mr. Steele had to register somewhere in order to legally perform opposition research for Ms. Clinton's campaign? If there is such a requirement (which makes no sense, but seeing as 'making sense' isn't of any particular concern to the US justice system), and Mr. Steele failed to meet it, he and his employers would be in hot water, would they not?

I don't find any joy or satisfaction of looking up stuff just because. I merely took part of Paul's post by whatever author of the moment and found there was yet again the same flawed argument trying to make Christopher Steele guilty of something he could not be guilty of. If he is indeed guilty of other crimes I am confident Mueller can bring that up and if not, I'm certain parts of the GOP will be slinging legal mud soon enough. Anyone could be subject to laws I do not know about. However I am familiar with

the intention of the one I referenced and thankfully its short reading as well.

If you want to check those things out, be my guest.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 22, 2018 22:39:34 GMT -5 Opti said:

Feb 21, 2018 21:36:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

happy just finished telling me there's a chance Pres. Trump's hush money to his mistresses could be deemed a "campaign expense" by a US judge.

In light of such insanity, don't you think it prudent to at least look up whether Mr. Steele had to register somewhere in order to legally perform opposition research for Ms. Clinton's campaign? If there is such a requirement (which makes no sense, but seeing as 'making sense' isn't of any particular concern to the US justice system), and Mr. Steele failed to meet it, he and his employers would be in hot water, would they not?

I don't find any joy or satisfaction of looking up stuff just because. I merely took part of Paul's post by whatever author of the moment and found there was yet again the same flawed argument trying to make Christopher Steele guilty of something he could not be guilty of. If he is indeed guilty of other crimes I am confident Mueller can bring that up and if not, I'm certain parts of the GOP will be slinging legal mud soon enough. Anyone could be subject to laws I do not know about. However I am familiar with

the intention of the one I referenced and thankfully its short reading as well.

If you want to check those things out, be my guest.

The theory isn't so much that Mr. Steele is "guilty", it's that he's "just as guilty" as the Russians.

I realize this sounds ridiculous, but you need only read Tall's Harvard Law Review article to realize the obvious purpose of a law means nothing, quibbling over the specific wording means everything, and the absurdity can work against you just as much as it can work for you. Hence the obvious differences between Russian trolls and Mr. Steele may not actually matter.

[swamp]

Feb 22, 2018 22:05:48 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

I noticed that instead of debating what Paul post you respond with insults.

Is the reason for the insults is because you can not actually intelligently debate Paul??

Oh well,,, back to viewing insults instead of debate.

You can't debate bullshit.  

[OldCoyote]

Feb 23, 2018 7:38:04 GMT -5 swamp said:

Feb 22, 2018 22:05:48 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

I noticed that instead of debating what Paul post you respond with insults.

Is the reason for the insults is because you can not actually intelligently debate Paul??

Oh well,,, back to viewing insults instead of debate.

You can't debate bullshit.  

Really??

[Deleted]

“The indictment contends that Mr. Edwards and his co-conspirators solicited $725,000 from Rachel Mellon, the 100-year-old heiress to the Mellon banking fortune, and $200,000 from Fred Baron, Mr. Edwards’s campaign finance chairman.

The money, the indictment said, was used to cover up his affair with Rielle Hunter, a campaign videographer with whom he had a child, and to pay for her prenatal medical expenses, travel and accommodations.

The fact that Mr. Edwards tried to cover up his affair is not at issue. The Justice Department says that those contributions from two wealthy patrons were campaign donations and therefore subject to federal campaign finance laws that set limits on the amounts that can be donated and received, and require public reporting. Those two donations were well in excess of the limit of $2,300 that an individual can give.

The indictment says the money was actually used for campaign purposes: If the public knew that he was having an affair, his campaign would have been over. “

www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/us/politics/04edwards.html

[billisonboard]

Feb 23, 2018 7:47:11 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Feb 23, 2018 7:38:04 GMT -5 swamp said:

You can't debate bullshit.  

Really??

I find the challenge with debating what Paul posts is that he/his sources pull things out of their full context and then offer conclusions based on altered reality. I find it best to simply provide links to the original material giving people the opportunity to see for themselves how reality was altered and draw their own conclusions from unspun information.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 23, 2018 7:47:11 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Feb 23, 2018 7:38:04 GMT -5 swamp said:

You can't debate bullshit.  

Really??

Paul ignores his staunchest critics anyway.

The ones who "ignore" him are trapped in self-imposed purgatory. They clearly don't ignore him; they follow what he has to say quite closely. But because they've publicly committed to ignoring him--a kind of passive-aggressive protest--they can't engage him directly. They're limited to lobbing ad hominems and vague criticisms during the sparing opportunities that arise in responding to third-party comments.

Paul gets to deliver a largely unchallenged narrative, and probably goes to bed every night chuckling to himself over the army of leftists "ignoring" him.

[Opti]

Feb 23, 2018 0:08:38 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 22, 2018 22:39:34 GMT -5 Opti said:

I don't find any joy or satisfaction of looking up stuff just because. I merely took part of Paul's post by whatever author of the moment and found there was yet again the same flawed argument trying to make Christopher Steele guilty of something he could not be guilty of. If he is indeed guilty of other crimes I am confident Mueller can bring that up and if not, I'm certain parts of the GOP will be slinging legal mud soon enough. Anyone could be subject to laws I do not know about. However I am familiar with

the intention of the one I referenced and thankfully its short reading as well.

If you want to check those things out, be my guest.

The theory isn't so much that Mr. Steele is "guilty", it's that he's "just as guilty" as the Russians.

I realize this sounds ridiculous, but you need only read Tall's Harvard Law Review article to realize the obvious purpose of a law means nothing, quibbling over the specific wording means everything, and the absurdity can work against you just as much as it can work for you. Hence the obvious differences between Russian trolls and Mr. Steele may not actually matter.

That theory may be the mega message you get, but the two posts accusing Steele of being guilty accuse him of being guilty in very defined ways.

Yes interpretation of any law holds the key to how it will be used in any given time period. I did not read that review. But back to reality. To accuse Steele of being guilty of things he cannot be guilty of just makes the author of those pronouncements look stupid and anyone who promotes them as unaware, a RW propaganda shill or somewhere in between.

So Steele isn't covered under sec 52. He isn't even a foreign agent because he is not acting on the behalf of a foreign country. Lazy readers and possibly many of the lazy opiners believe Steele might be a foreign agent simply because he is not American and working on politics things. But that's a false belief. Only agents working on the behalf of a foreign country are covered by that law, and they can be American or foreign. The key for that act is working on behalf of a foreign country in a "political or quasi-political capacity".

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 23, 2018 9:11:04 GMT -5 Opti said:

Feb 23, 2018 0:08:38 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The theory isn't so much that Mr. Steele is "guilty", it's that he's "just as guilty" as the Russians.

I realize this sounds ridiculous, but you need only read Tall's Harvard Law Review article to realize the obvious purpose of a law means nothing, quibbling over the specific wording means everything, and the absurdity can work against you just as much as it can work for you. Hence the obvious differences between Russian trolls and Mr. Steele may not actually matter.

That theory may be the mega message you get, but the two posts accusing Steele of being guilty accuse him of being guilty in very defined ways.

Yes interpretation of any law holds the key to how it will be used in any given time period. I did not read that review. But back to reality. To accuse Steele of being guilty of things he cannot be guilty of just makes the author of those pronouncements look stupid and anyone who promotes them as unaware, a RW propaganda shill or somewhere in between.

So Steele isn't covered under sec 52. He isn't even a foreign agent because he is not acting on the behalf of a foreign country. Lazy readers and possibly many of the lazy opiners believe Steele might be a foreign agent simply because he is not American and working on politics things. But that's a false belief. Only agents working on the behalf of a foreign country are covered by that law, and they can be American or foreign. The key for that act is working on behalf of a foreign country in a "political or quasi-political capacity".

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances.

At the risk of stating the obvious: you looked up the relevant statute to counter the notion that Mr. Steele could be charged under the FARA, which is precisely what I suggested you do.

It took a few posts, but you done good. My thanks and props.

[Opti]

Feb 23, 2018 8:36:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 23, 2018 7:47:11 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Really??

Paul ignores his staunchest critics anyway.

The ones who "ignore" him are trapped in self-imposed purgatory. They clearly don't ignore him; they follow what he has to say quite closely. But because they've publicly committed to ignoring him--a kind of passive-aggressive protest--they can't engage him directly. They're limited to lobbing ad hominems and vague criticisms during the sparing opportunities that arise in responding to third-party comments.

Paul gets to deliver a largely unchallenged narrative, and probably goes to bed every night chuckling to himself over the army of leftists "ignoring" him.

The ones who ignore him are likely happy about that choice. You'd be incorrect if you think I follow what Paul says quite closely. On a day when I read some of what he posts, I skim it and probably read somewhere between 5 and 30% of what's there.

 Any long post is likely skimmed or ignored by some posters. And if they don't like how you write (style) you are likely not be read either. But mostly its not worth engaging someone who won't admit when their arguments are off base. Unchallenged narratives are only useful if someone actually reads and cares about them.

[Opti]

Feb 23, 2018 9:35:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 23, 2018 9:11:04 GMT -5 Opti said:

That theory may be the mega message you get, but the two posts accusing Steele of being guilty accuse him of being guilty in very defined ways.

Yes interpretation of any law holds the key to how it will be used in any given time period. I did not read that review. But back to reality. To accuse Steele of being guilty of things he cannot be guilty of just makes the author of those pronouncements look stupid and anyone who promotes them as unaware, a RW propaganda shill or somewhere in between.

So Steele isn't covered under sec 52. He isn't even a foreign agent because he is not acting on the behalf of a foreign country. Lazy readers and possibly many of the lazy opiners believe Steele might be a foreign agent simply because he is not American and working on politics things. But that's a false belief. Only agents working on the behalf of a foreign country are covered by that law, and they can be American or foreign. The key for that act is working on behalf of a foreign country in a "political or quasi-political capacity".

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances.

At the risk of stating the obvious: you looked up the relevant statute to counter the notion that Mr. Steele could be charged under the FARA, which is precisely what I suggested you do.

It took a few posts, but you done good. My thanks and props.

It won't happen often in the near future Virgil, so I'd appreciate you not asking. Cables have broken here and I barely have usable internet. Its likely that may remain true until I switch to my only provider choice of the future. This is one of the few usable websites for me. Yahoo mail is spotty and I can no longer watch any TV shows online nor access more than one website at a time. Usually I will lose the other site (tab)entirely. The cable I've been moved to is barely DSL compliant.

And what you actually asked was different. Are there any laws that he could be charged under? My usual research habits are over for now. Most things won't load quickly, which means I don't get to see them at all.

[thyme4change]

Feb 23, 2018 8:13:23 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 23, 2018 7:47:11 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Really??

I find the challenge with debating what Paul posts is that he/his sources pull things out of their full context and then offer conclusions based on altered reality. I find it best to simply provide links to the original material giving people the opportunity to see for themselves how reality was altered and draw their own conclusions from unspun information.

After learning more about the Russians, I think Paul is one. I know that he was around for a decade before all that started, but I would like to conveniently ignore that. Maybe his account was hacked, or they stole his online identity.

But he shows all the markers for the Russian MO. He says super inflammatory things, he pushes insane conspiracy theories, and the standard conservative answers. And then he disappears for a few days.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 23, 2018 9:42:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

On a day when I read some of what he posts, I skim it and probably read somewhere between 5 and 30% of what's there.

I believe you. The criticism wasn't directed at you.

Being curious about what the other side thinks, wanting to investigate, is an admirable quality. Even if you're certain ideological differences, ingrained distrust, etc. will preclude your taking anything seriously, you at least get a beat on what your opponent and 100 million like-minded countrymen are thinking.

Feb 23, 2018 9:57:37 GMT -5 Opti said:

My usual research habits are over for now. Most things won't load quickly, which means I don't get to see them at all.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Feb 23, 2018 10:51:42 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Feb 23, 2018 8:13:23 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I find the challenge with debating what Paul posts is that he/his sources pull things out of their full context and then offer conclusions based on altered reality. I find it best to simply provide links to the original material giving people the opportunity to see for themselves how reality was altered and draw their own conclusions from unspun information.

After learning more about the Russians, I think Paul is one. I know that he was around for a decade before all that started, but I would like to conveniently ignore that. Maybe his account was hacked, or they stole his online identity.

But he shows all the markers for the Russian MO. He says super inflammatory things, he pushes insane conspiracy theories, and the standard conservative answers. And then he disappears for a few days.

Sobering thoughts. Perhaps just an unwitting agent of their agenda since he was clearly the preferred target audience.

One could then conclude that the escalation of the extreme and ridiculous could merely be an effort to avoid the realization that one was had; whether the motivation for that effort is strictly conscious, habitual, or unconscious is beside the point. 

[Deleted]

Feb 23, 2018 10:51:42 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Feb 23, 2018 8:13:23 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I find the challenge with debating what Paul posts is that he/his sources pull things out of their full context and then offer conclusions based on altered reality. I find it best to simply provide links to the original material giving people the opportunity to see for themselves how reality was altered and draw their own conclusions from unspun information.

After learning more about the Russians, I think Paul is one. I know that he was around for a decade before all that started, but I would like to conveniently ignore that. Maybe his account was hacked, or they stole his online identity.

But he shows all the markers for the Russian MO. He says super inflammatory things, he pushes insane conspiracy theories, and the standard conservative answers. And then he disappears for a few days.

He's not Russian. But, there are other explanations. 

[dezii]

Feb 23, 2018 9:57:37 GMT -5 Opti said:

Feb 23, 2018 9:35:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

At the risk of stating the obvious: you looked up the relevant statute to counter the notion that Mr. Steele could be charged under the FARA, which is precisely what I suggested you do.

It took a few posts, but you done good. My thanks and props.

It won't happen often in the near future Virgil, so I'd appreciate you not asking. Cables have broken here and I barely have usable internet. Its likely that may remain true until I switch to my only provider choice of the future. This is one of the few usable websites for me. Yahoo mail is spotty and I can no longer watch any TV shows online nor access more than one website at a time. Usually I will lose the other site (tab)entirely. The cable I've been moved to is barely DSL compliant.

And what you actually asked was different. Are there any laws that he could be charged under? My usual research habits are over for now. Most things won't load quickly, which means I don't get to see them at all.

"Cables have broken here and I barely have usable internet"

So sorry to hear...where are u located...have to make sure of staying away from that area though if in country, there might be other positives to live out there...

[dezii]

Feb 23, 2018 9:42:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

Feb 23, 2018 8:36:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Paul ignores his staunchest critics anyway.

The ones who "ignore" him are trapped in self-imposed purgatory. They clearly don't ignore him; they follow what he has to say quite closely. But because they've publicly committed to ignoring him--a kind of passive-aggressive protest--they can't engage him directly. They're limited to lobbing ad hominems and vague criticisms during the sparing opportunities that arise in responding to third-party comments.

Paul gets to deliver a largely unchallenged narrative, and probably goes to bed every night chuckling to himself over the army of leftists "ignoring" him.

The ones who ignore him are likely happy about that choice. You'd be incorrect if you think I follow what Paul says quite closely. On a day when I read some of what he posts, I skim it and probably read somewhere between 5 and 30% of what's there.

 Any long post is likely skimmed or ignored by some posters. And if they don't like how you write (style) you are likely not be read either. But mostly its not worth engaging someone who won't admit when their arguments are off base. Unchallenged narratives are only useful if someone actually reads and cares about them.

"The ones who ignore him are likely happy about that choice."

.......

[Opti]

Cables break. The phone company is retiring copper wire, so they aren't fixing much because they are laying fiber. Unfortunately my complex doesn't want the impact of fiber being run here, so we will be limited to the cable company and that isn't new cable either. Everything fails and degrades over time. Especially insulation for cables.

[dezii]

Feb 23, 2018 13:33:29 GMT -5 Opti said:

Cables break. The phone company is retiring copper wire, so they aren't fixing much because they are laying fiber. Unfortunately my complex doesn't want the impact of fiber being run here, so we will be limited to the cable company and that isn't new cable either. Everything fails and degrades over time. Especially insulation for cables.

To bad....am also in a condo complex...Comcast our cable outlet and they laid fiber a few years ago...still occasional interruptions but usually quick recover..

We have many Canadians here for six months of time so many have had satellite installed...they also get basic cabl;e..pay for it but it's in their condo fees...paying for even if theyn had no TV's...naturally doubt anyone does that.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 22, 2018 20:02:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Feb 22, 2018 19:29:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Damn, Tall, do you EVER actually start a post with anything other than an ad hominem?  

That depends entirely on what people give me to respond to.   

you didn't start the post with an ad hominem. 

words are not people, and that is all you criticized.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 22, 2018 22:05:48 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

I noticed that instead of debating what Paul post you respond with insults.

Is the reason for the insults is because you can not actually intelligently debate Paul??

Oh well,,, back to viewing insults instead of debate.

when presented with no points worth debating, what do you expect?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 23, 2018 10:51:42 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Feb 23, 2018 8:13:23 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I find the challenge with debating what Paul posts is that he/his sources pull things out of their full context and then offer conclusions based on altered reality. I find it best to simply provide links to the original material giving people the opportunity to see for themselves how reality was altered and draw their own conclusions from unspun information.

After learning more about the Russians, I think Paul is one. I know that he was around for a decade before all that started, but I would like to conveniently ignore that. Maybe his account was hacked, or they stole his online identity.

But he shows all the markers for the Russian MO. He says super inflammatory things, he pushes insane conspiracy theories, and the standard conservative answers. And then he disappears for a few days.

nah.  he is not a Russian.  he just cuddles up with them either out of sheer ignorance or deviousness.

[tallguy]

Mar 7, 2018 11:51:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 22, 2018 20:02:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

That depends entirely on what people give me to respond to.   

you didn't start the post with an ad hominem. 

words are not people, and that is all you criticized.

True.  If only everyone's reading comprehension was that good.  Oh well.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 7, 2018 11:51:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 22, 2018 20:02:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

That depends entirely on what people give me to respond to.   

you didn't start the post with an ad hominem. 

words are not people, and that is all you criticized.

Barbs such as "Do you ever check facts before posting?", "You're becoming as unreadable as the guy I usually troll." are clear attacks on the person, not a specific statement, idea, or philosophy. They're meant to impugn credibility and belittle the intellect.

Statements such as "Again you're citing facts in ignorance.", "You're wasting our time with your assumptions.", etc. accompanied by explanations of which facts/assumptions are in err, are legitimate counterarguments.

[dondub]

Clearly off topic. Can we get back to the treason and mop up operation please?

[tallguy]

Mar 7, 2018 17:03:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 7, 2018 11:51:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you didn't start the post with an ad hominem. 

words are not people, and that is all you criticized.

Barbs such as "Do you ever check facts before posting?", "You're becoming as unreadable as the guy I usually troll." are clear attacks on the person, not a specific statement, idea, or philosophy. They're meant to impugn credibility and belittle the intellect.

Statements such as "Again you're citing facts in ignorance.", "You're wasting our time with your assumptions.", etc. accompanied by explanations of which facts/assumptions are in err, are legitimate counterarguments.

After the second or third time in a row of not having the facts straight before posting in, what was the phrase, a "dismissive and insulting" manner I consider it far more a question than an attack, and a very legitimate question at that.  Far better was the exchange in the CNN-Haab family thread, where you ASKED for explanation, accepted and presumably verified the facts proffered, and admitted that you had been misled by what had to be a slanted website.  You will recall also that my response to that was entirely respectful, and a good discussion followed.  That is an example that should be followed.