- VitaMan
- 03-04-2022, 09:58 AM
Just a video game to some. To others it is real.
- Why_Yes_I_Do
- 03-04-2022, 01:10 PM
Missing a few yachts already Originally Posted by VitaManMy guess is that they were redirected to be used by the eccie board moderators. I mean those yachts are probably outfitted with decent satellite internet connections through StarLink, so instead of working from home they are probably cruising in high style while sloshing down all that Ruskie vodka and managing the marauding hoards on these here boards.
- HedonistForever
- 03-04-2022, 02:22 PM
And did US taxpayers need to pay for the recount (specifically AZ citizens)? Pork barrel spending happens both side. And all the time/labor/effort because of vote is the latest sapping of $$$ be it direct or indirect.
Now that my fiend is "Whataboutism", never addressing what I said but moving on to other un-necessary spending having nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just thought I'd throw that out there for those STILL confused as to the meaning of "whataboutism".
"Manafort actively interacted with Russian intelligence for political gain."
I stated the part of the report dealing with Manafort. And it was to identify him dealing with people of Russian intelligence.
Yes that is true but what does that have to do with whether TRUMP colluded with Russia, you know, the purpose of the investigation? Leftist love to bring that up so that they can try and get some evidence that Trump colluded but Mueller never found any such evidence. True or not?
Seeing you use Vox, i'll supply a this from their article: Two Trump campaign officials — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — provided polling information to a Russian oligarch Gates believed was a “spy” for the Kremlin. This "believed" spy was Konstantin Kilimnik.
And were they indicted for that for that? or merely indicted for lying about that? I'm just wondering why they weren't indicted for actually conspiring with Russia to interfere and I would also wonder why all those Democrats that meet with the Russian Amb. who has always been considered a Russian spy, didn't get the same scrutiny
And you can show me where I said Manafort interfered with the election.
This topic from my perspective, is Trump or any of his associates "colluding with Russia to interfere in the election". If Manafort didn't illegally interfere in the election, why bring him up at all in a discussion as to whether Trump colluded with Russia? It's all superfluous at that point.
"Had Stone use Wikileaks for same."
If so, than how come when he met with Henry Oknyansky to get dirt on Hillary that Stone refused to pay for it stating donny would not pay for it? In that Justice Dept link.
If so why wasn't Stone indicted for conspiracy with Russia to interfere in the election? Do you think people like Stone ever "Name drop" to get want they want without the named person having any knowledge of what they are doing? Did Mueller ever prove that Trump had any knowledge of what Stone was saying?
As for the Steele Dossier, LOL!, find anyplace where I rely on it for a source. *I* love to throw it out there because it baits alot of these MAGA people. I think it gets their goat that it was originally funded by the repubs. And when it wasn't getting the dirt that was to their favour, they dropped it. And it must really irk them that the demos pick it up.
That's some real twisted logic right there. They dropped it when Trump became the nominee. The original investigation was to get opposition research on a Republican nominee and it did not include oppo research from a foreign source which is ILLEGAL. Yeah, Demos decided to do their own oppo research and they, unlike any Republican, broke the law by using foreign sources and were never punished for doing so something you also failed to mention.
Again, I don't rely on the paper for anything except to way in the face of alot of people here that the repubs where the birth parents for it.
So if Republicans had never decided to look into nominee Trump, Democrats would have never thought about doing oppo research on Trump? Because it sure sounds like that is what you just said? Dems did illegal research that Republicans never did. That is the point.
And as you agree, it did shine the light on things. Showed the flaws with some FBI people and they got whacked for it.
And some people namely Hillary, walked scott free because of a friendly head of the FBI whose wife and 3 daughters not only voted for Hillary but campaigned for her as well. I wonder if that had any influence on Comey?
That's a good thing. Out in the open. It ain't back room dealing for personal gain.
Sounds like you are suggesting that "the phone call" with Zelinsky was back room dealing for personal gain. To me, it sounded like a President exercising his Constitutional authority to hold up funds until he is satisfied that the people and country we are giving money to, aren't avoiding looking into corruption with some of that corruption involving the son of the man running for President. Would you like to take this moment to tell me that you don't think Joe Biden didn't do any "back room" dealing for personal gain because the FBI have a well respected man in Tony Bobulinski, that says that is exactly what Joe Biden did and to my knowledge, no grand jury was ever impaneled to look into that. I wonder why?
I am in complete agreement with you there. Originally Posted by Precious_b
Not exactly sure what you are agreeing with me on but it sounds like you are agreeing that the FBI had dirty hands in this whole matter. Would I be correct in that assumption? That they, along with the CIA, DOJ, Democrats and MSM. all conspired against the former President and I'm still betting that the Durham report will shed more light on this.
- bambino
- 03-04-2022, 05:43 PM
- winn dixie
- 03-04-2022, 07:52 PM
- Precious_b
- 03-04-2022, 09:34 PM
Originally Posted by Precious_b View Post
And did US taxpayers need to pay for the recount (specifically AZ citizens)? Pork barrel spending happens both side. And all the time/labor/effort because of vote is the latest sapping of $$$ be it direct or indirect.
Now that my fiend is "Whataboutism", never addressing what I said but moving on to other un-necessary spending having nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just thought I'd throw that out there for those STILL confused as to the meaning of "whataboutism".
"Fiend"? Isn't the whole throwing of monkey poo in this section "Whataboutism"? People ignoring points that others put up for one reason or another.
You have me at a loss. Please tell me what you are meaning. I have to say that the way you respond inside my quotes can cause me to lose where I am trying to respond. So, I am not intentionally trying to duck an issue. But to reiterate, my posting is to say some of the things that Mueller report did. They may or may not be of interest to you. And I might not view what you see as interesting the same way.
"Manafort actively interacted with Russian intelligence for political gain."
I stated the part of the report dealing with Manafort. And it was to identify him dealing with people of Russian intelligence.
Yes that is true but what does that have to do with whether TRUMP colluded with Russia, you know, the purpose of the investigation? Leftist love to bring that up so that they can try and get some evidence that Trump colluded but Mueller never found any such evidence. True or not?
I am only addressing what I stated: Yes, the Mueller investigation took awhile and cost some bucks, it did have conclusions. Do you see in any of the 5 things I stated that donny colluded?
Is this what you mean about "Whataboutism"? You said that. Not me. So we agree Manafort actively associated with Russians for political gain. Find where I said the report proved collusion. Only thing I said about donny and collusion was that he had to opportunity to do it but may have been too stupid to see it.
Seeing you use Vox, i'll supply a this from their article: Two Trump campaign officials — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — provided polling information to a Russian oligarch Gates believed was a “spy” for the Kremlin. This "believed" spy was Konstantin Kilimnik.
And were they indicted for that for that? or merely indicted for lying about that? I'm just wondering why they weren't indicted for actually conspiring with Russia to interfere and I would also wonder why all those Democrats that meet with the Russian Amb. who has always been considered a Russian spy, didn't get the same scrutiny
I didn't say they were indicted.
I said: Manafort actively interacted with Russian intelligence for political gain.
And you agreed above to that statement.
And you can show me where I said Manafort interfered with the election.
This topic from my perspective, is Trump or any of his associates "colluding with Russia to interfere in the election". If Manafort didn't illegally interfere in the election, why bring him up at all in a discussion as to whether Trump colluded with Russia? It's all superfluous at that point.
Perspective. We all have one. Maybe many.
But again, I never addressed or said he colluded.
Please get off that. I only stated Mueller report had conclusions. Never said they where about collusion.
"Had Stone use Wikileaks for same."
If so, than how come when he met with Henry Oknyansky to get dirt on Hillary that Stone refused to pay for it stating donny would not pay for it? In that Justice Dept link.
If so why wasn't Stone indicted for conspiracy with Russia to interfere in the election? Do you think people like Stone ever "Name drop" to get want they want without the named person having any knowledge of what they are doing? Did Mueller ever prove that Trump had any knowledge of what Stone was saying?
Probably because he already had his hands full with being guilty on multiple indictments. How often does a person who drops names find themselve guilty for the activities with the people they name drop around? This was a an end result of one of the conclusions of the Mueller report.
As for the Steele Dossier, LOL!, find anyplace where I rely on it for a source. *I* love to throw it out there because it baits alot of these MAGA people. I think it gets their goat that it was originally funded by the repubs. And when it wasn't getting the dirt that was to their favour, they dropped it. And it must really irk them that the demos pick it up.
That's some real twisted logic right there. They dropped it when Trump became the nominee. The original investigation was to get opposition research on a Republican nominee and it did not include oppo research from a foreign source which is ILLEGAL. Yeah, Demos decided to do their own oppo research and they, unlike any Republican, broke the law by using foreign sources and were never punished for doing so something you also failed to mention.
Are you stating that the Steele Dossier was NOT started by conservatives? Because it was. Liberals were not the people who initiated the dossier. That is a fact. Can't twist is around any other way with logic. But if you can supply a source that I am wrong, I will apologize.
I only use mention of the report to raise the dander of certain posters here. Now if you want to call that twisted, so be it.
Again, I don't rely on the paper for anything except to way in the face of alot of people here that the repubs where the birth parents for it.
So if Republicans had never decided to look into nominee Trump, Democrats would have never thought about doing oppo research on Trump? Because it sure sounds like that is what you just said? Dems did illegal research that Republicans never did. That is the point.
Read my above posting. That paper is only mentioned by me so I can humour myself by seeing the reactions of others. I pay no heed to the contents of it.
And as you agree, it did shine the light on things. Showed the flaws with some FBI people and they got whacked for it.
And some people namely Hillary, walked scott free because of a friendly head of the FBI whose wife and 3 daughters not only voted for Hillary but campaigned for her as well. I wonder if that had any influence on Comey?
And if it explicitly states that in the report, so be it. Let a few repubs off too. But I won't muddy things with opinions on that.
That's a good thing. Out in the open. It ain't back room dealing for personal gain.
Sounds like you are suggesting that "the phone call" with Zelinsky was back room dealing for personal gain. To me, it sounded like a President exercising his Constitutional authority to hold up funds until he is satisfied that the people and country we are giving money to, aren't avoiding looking into corruption with some of that corruption involving the son of the man running for President. Would you like to take this moment to tell me that you don't think Joe Biden didn't do any "back room" dealing for personal gain because the FBI have a well respected man in Tony Bobulinski, that says that is exactly what Joe Biden did and to my knowledge, no grand jury was ever impaneled to look into that. I wonder why?
So, what is your take on donny and the server that is in the transcript? It wasn't a back room if it is public record. (See comment above about being too stupid.) He sure as hell didn't mention anything about the country. Hide behind any term/phrase
whatever. They were not specifically said. The favour was for personal gain.
I am in complete agreement with you there.
Not exactly sure what you are agreeing with me on but it sounds like you are agreeing that the FBI had dirty hands in this whole matter. Would I be correct in that assumption? That they, along with the CIA, DOJ, Democrats and MSM. all conspired against the former President and I'm still betting that the Durham report will shed more light on this.
As I said, shine a light on it.
And did US taxpayers need to pay for the recount (specifically AZ citizens)? Pork barrel spending happens both side. And all the time/labor/effort because of vote is the latest sapping of $$$ be it direct or indirect.
Now that my fiend is "Whataboutism", never addressing what I said but moving on to other un-necessary spending having nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just thought I'd throw that out there for those STILL confused as to the meaning of "whataboutism".
"Fiend"? Isn't the whole throwing of monkey poo in this section "Whataboutism"? People ignoring points that others put up for one reason or another.
You have me at a loss. Please tell me what you are meaning. I have to say that the way you respond inside my quotes can cause me to lose where I am trying to respond. So, I am not intentionally trying to duck an issue. But to reiterate, my posting is to say some of the things that Mueller report did. They may or may not be of interest to you. And I might not view what you see as interesting the same way.
"Manafort actively interacted with Russian intelligence for political gain."
I stated the part of the report dealing with Manafort. And it was to identify him dealing with people of Russian intelligence.
Yes that is true but what does that have to do with whether TRUMP colluded with Russia, you know, the purpose of the investigation? Leftist love to bring that up so that they can try and get some evidence that Trump colluded but Mueller never found any such evidence. True or not?
I am only addressing what I stated: Yes, the Mueller investigation took awhile and cost some bucks, it did have conclusions. Do you see in any of the 5 things I stated that donny colluded?
Is this what you mean about "Whataboutism"? You said that. Not me. So we agree Manafort actively associated with Russians for political gain. Find where I said the report proved collusion. Only thing I said about donny and collusion was that he had to opportunity to do it but may have been too stupid to see it.
Seeing you use Vox, i'll supply a this from their article: Two Trump campaign officials — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — provided polling information to a Russian oligarch Gates believed was a “spy” for the Kremlin. This "believed" spy was Konstantin Kilimnik.
And were they indicted for that for that? or merely indicted for lying about that? I'm just wondering why they weren't indicted for actually conspiring with Russia to interfere and I would also wonder why all those Democrats that meet with the Russian Amb. who has always been considered a Russian spy, didn't get the same scrutiny
I didn't say they were indicted.
I said: Manafort actively interacted with Russian intelligence for political gain.
And you agreed above to that statement.
And you can show me where I said Manafort interfered with the election.
This topic from my perspective, is Trump or any of his associates "colluding with Russia to interfere in the election". If Manafort didn't illegally interfere in the election, why bring him up at all in a discussion as to whether Trump colluded with Russia? It's all superfluous at that point.
Perspective. We all have one. Maybe many.
But again, I never addressed or said he colluded.
Please get off that. I only stated Mueller report had conclusions. Never said they where about collusion.
"Had Stone use Wikileaks for same."
If so, than how come when he met with Henry Oknyansky to get dirt on Hillary that Stone refused to pay for it stating donny would not pay for it? In that Justice Dept link.
If so why wasn't Stone indicted for conspiracy with Russia to interfere in the election? Do you think people like Stone ever "Name drop" to get want they want without the named person having any knowledge of what they are doing? Did Mueller ever prove that Trump had any knowledge of what Stone was saying?
Probably because he already had his hands full with being guilty on multiple indictments. How often does a person who drops names find themselve guilty for the activities with the people they name drop around? This was a an end result of one of the conclusions of the Mueller report.
As for the Steele Dossier, LOL!, find anyplace where I rely on it for a source. *I* love to throw it out there because it baits alot of these MAGA people. I think it gets their goat that it was originally funded by the repubs. And when it wasn't getting the dirt that was to their favour, they dropped it. And it must really irk them that the demos pick it up.
That's some real twisted logic right there. They dropped it when Trump became the nominee. The original investigation was to get opposition research on a Republican nominee and it did not include oppo research from a foreign source which is ILLEGAL. Yeah, Demos decided to do their own oppo research and they, unlike any Republican, broke the law by using foreign sources and were never punished for doing so something you also failed to mention.
Are you stating that the Steele Dossier was NOT started by conservatives? Because it was. Liberals were not the people who initiated the dossier. That is a fact. Can't twist is around any other way with logic. But if you can supply a source that I am wrong, I will apologize.
I only use mention of the report to raise the dander of certain posters here. Now if you want to call that twisted, so be it.
Again, I don't rely on the paper for anything except to way in the face of alot of people here that the repubs where the birth parents for it.
So if Republicans had never decided to look into nominee Trump, Democrats would have never thought about doing oppo research on Trump? Because it sure sounds like that is what you just said? Dems did illegal research that Republicans never did. That is the point.
Read my above posting. That paper is only mentioned by me so I can humour myself by seeing the reactions of others. I pay no heed to the contents of it.
And as you agree, it did shine the light on things. Showed the flaws with some FBI people and they got whacked for it.
And some people namely Hillary, walked scott free because of a friendly head of the FBI whose wife and 3 daughters not only voted for Hillary but campaigned for her as well. I wonder if that had any influence on Comey?
And if it explicitly states that in the report, so be it. Let a few repubs off too. But I won't muddy things with opinions on that.
That's a good thing. Out in the open. It ain't back room dealing for personal gain.
Sounds like you are suggesting that "the phone call" with Zelinsky was back room dealing for personal gain. To me, it sounded like a President exercising his Constitutional authority to hold up funds until he is satisfied that the people and country we are giving money to, aren't avoiding looking into corruption with some of that corruption involving the son of the man running for President. Would you like to take this moment to tell me that you don't think Joe Biden didn't do any "back room" dealing for personal gain because the FBI have a well respected man in Tony Bobulinski, that says that is exactly what Joe Biden did and to my knowledge, no grand jury was ever impaneled to look into that. I wonder why?
So, what is your take on donny and the server that is in the transcript? It wasn't a back room if it is public record. (See comment above about being too stupid.) He sure as hell didn't mention anything about the country. Hide behind any term/phrase
whatever. They were not specifically said. The favour was for personal gain.I am in complete agreement with you there.
Not exactly sure what you are agreeing with me on but it sounds like you are agreeing that the FBI had dirty hands in this whole matter. Would I be correct in that assumption? That they, along with the CIA, DOJ, Democrats and MSM. all conspired against the former President and I'm still betting that the Durham report will shed more light on this.
Not exactly sure what you are agreeing with me on but it sounds like you are agreeing that the FBI had dirty hands in this whole matter. Would I be correct in that assumption? That they, along with the CIA, DOJ, Democrats and MSM. all conspired against the former President and I'm still betting that the Durham report will shed more light on this.Agreeing with what you stated: Yes, it shined a light on the false allegations made. It shined a light on a corrupt FBI, CIA, DOJ and State Dept. Multiple people fired at FBI and DOJ and landed an FBI lawyer in jail for falsifying an official document. all with the intention of making sure this bogus investigation could continue which didn't please the FISA Court.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
As I said, shine a light on it.
- bambino
- 03-05-2022, 06:41 AM
- HedonistForever
- 03-05-2022, 06:18 PM
Are you stating that the Steele Dossier was NOT started by conservatives? Because it was. Liberals were not the people who initiated the dossier. That is a fact. Can't twist is around any other way with logic. But if you can supply a source that I am wrong, I will apologize.
I only use mention of the report to raise the dander of certain posters here. Now if you want to call that twisted, so be it.
Originally Posted by Precious_b
Ive already supplied you with the facts ( I won't be doing it again ) and you even agreed that at some point, the Republicans stopped oppo research on Trump when he became the nominee. It was other Republicans trying to keep him from getting the nomination and when he did get it THEY stopped. Then Democrats decided to up the ante and hire a foreign agent to get information from a foreign source, illegal to do and that is when the Steele dossier came to be. The Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with the Steele dossier but this tells me a lot more about the way you think or in this case, the inability to think. I won't be wasting my time any more on trying to educate you. You just proved to be un-educateable. If you can't understand this, you can't understand anything.
You have a good day.
- Precious_b
- 03-05-2022, 09:13 PM
Ive already supplied you with the facts ( I won't be doing it again ) and you even agreed that at some point, the Republicans stopped oppo research on Trump when he became the nominee. It was other Republicans trying to keep him from getting the nomination and when he did get it THEY stopped. Then Democrats decided to up the ante and hire a foreign agent to get information from a foreign source, illegal to do and that is when the Steele dossier came to be. The Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with the Steele dossier but this tells me a lot more about the way you think or in this case, the inability to think. I won't be wasting my time any more on trying to educate you. You just proved to be un-educateable. If you can't understand this, you can't understand anything.And i've stated my value for that piece of paper multiple times.
You have a good day. Originally Posted by HedonistForever
I don't know why you are fixated on telling me all about something whose value to me is only to get a rise out of people.
- 1blackman1
- 03-06-2022, 08:57 AM
P_b, you have the patience of Job.
- VitaMan
- 03-06-2022, 10:15 AM
That is the standard operating procedure of this member. Bloviating to the max, asking ridiculous questions and then saying if they are not answered, the other poster is dumb and can't debate. Then going to the "you are not educated" line, "uneducable", " can't understand anything".
He is an older member that likes to belittle other members, all the time claiming he has superior intelligence. I guess we have to cut him some slack.
He is an older member that likes to belittle other members, all the time claiming he has superior intelligence. I guess we have to cut him some slack.
- Precious_b
- 03-06-2022, 02:38 PM
P_b, you have the patience of Job. Originally Posted by 1blackman1Hey, I have the courtesy to respond to those that address me. I will say it has been difficult to reply to all since, of late, there have been so many post that I know i've probably missed a few directed at me. Especially if they do it in an open and dignified manner. It is easy to spot those that do not have those interest. Expletives and insults on their end are the key identifying indicators. And their inability to supply a source for what they say that is credible. I don't know your thinking or feelings with HF, blackman, but he doesn't qualify (to me) as being in that latter group.
And I like it when they spot something i've posted that is not factual. Keeps me honest
And my memory ain't the best. But I will always strive to support what I say with vetted sources. Read that is in I don't use social media for citations. And the funny thing, there has been a few times i've been challenged and I supply the proof of what I stated, the challenger just slinks away (and possibly challenges something else later.) Just had one where waco caught me on an incorrect budget statement where I was wrong about last surplus but I found that the time I referenced the budget was both in a surplus AND the deficit was being addressed. I know that had to hurt him. He never responded back
- HedonistForever
- 03-06-2022, 04:13 PM
And i've stated my value for that piece of paper multiple times.
I don't know why you are fixated on telling me all about something whose value to me is only to get a rise out of people. Originally Posted by Precious_b
So you'll say things that aren't true, you know they aren't true, just to get a rise out of people. That's why I won't waste any more time with a person willing to mis-inform hoping to get a "rise out of people".
- the_real_Barleycorn
- 03-06-2022, 07:05 PM
Using the analogy of the helpful neighbor, FDR lent 50 old destroyers to the British during the Battle of the Northern Atlantic. He did that to get around isolation legislation. We could the same. Our national guard planes are functional but somewhat less than our frontline aircraft. We could easily ferry over 50-100 fighters, bombers, or electronic warfare planes to be picked up in Poland by Ukrainian pilots. Since the Air Guard would have fewer planes, they could even give up all the supporting equipment for them including munitions and repair parts. That could be done immediately.
And like those 50 destroyers, the federal government could start replacing what was given away.
Hell, a private person could probably go buy a lot of weapons from the Taliban and ship them to Ukraine. The Taliban has no love for Russia.
And like those 50 destroyers, the federal government could start replacing what was given away.
Hell, a private person could probably go buy a lot of weapons from the Taliban and ship them to Ukraine. The Taliban has no love for Russia.
- Precious_b
- 03-06-2022, 08:11 PM
And i've stated my value for that piece of paper multiple times.
I don't know why you are fixated on telling me all about something whose value to me is only to get a rise out of people. Originally Posted by Precious_b
So you'll say things that aren't true, you know they aren't true, just to get a rise out of people. That's why I won't waste any more time with a person willing to mis-inform hoping to get a "rise out of people". Originally Posted by HedonistForeverHF, you need to answer 2 questions before I can proceed.
1.) Was the inception of the Steele Dossier funded by a conservative group?
2.) Have I ever used this document to support any argument other than who initially funded it? If so, supply the link.
If I have to say this again it'll be ad nauseum. My *ONLY* interst in mentioning it is that it was started by the right....Unless, as i've asked you in the past to prove that is wrong.
So, if you can prove my first sentence false, ANY use of that document is null and void to me.
If you hate me bringing it up to get a tussle out of people (and it seems especially you) for the reason I stated than the righties who originally funded it should have paid up and did a catch and kill like donny did do hide his extra marital infidelities.