Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:22 pm » wrote: You're an idiot who thinks a group of liberals agreeing with each other is "peer review scholarship."

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:22 pm » wrote: So tell me, Dim, then why do most historians make the ridiculous claim, for example, that FDR brought the country out of the Great Depression?

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:22 pm » wrote: Because most economists believe the opposite, as shows very basic Economics and common sense.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:22 pm » wrote: Ooops, there goes the peer review.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:22 pm » wrote:And why a Nobel Prize winner in Economics needs peer review? Because quite a number have been carried in the WSJ and other sources I cite.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:22 pm » wrote: You rejected them as unworthy of consideration.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 1:57 pm » wrote:As usual, what does little Miss Marxist babble about?
Wacky, wacky conspiracy theories that just happen to be Democrat Talking Point Lies.
But not about the many felonies that have indisputably been committed.

The Senate Intelligence Committee heard Thursday from a counter-terrorism expert who described a sophisticated Russian propaganda machine that specifically sought to bolster and influence President Donald Trump.

So who is Clint Watts?

Watts, who testified on a panel of experts as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the US election, has a military and intelligence background, largely in counter-terrorism.

Watts came to studying Russian cyber meddling almost by chance, when he noticed a pattern of social media trolls attacking him online for a 2014 article he wrote about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

He and two social media analyst colleagues began studying the patterns and suspicious pro-Russia WhiteHouse.gov petitions, leading them to study the Russian social media propaganda machine.

Watts has been a fellow on national security and the Middle East at the Foreign Policy Research Institute since 2011, and is a senior fellow at the Center For Cyber and Homeland Security at The George Washington University.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/ ... int-watts/

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 2:30 pm » wrote: Let me explain. When he took office, we were in a depression.

When he left office, we were not.

That is why historians make the "ridiculous claim" that FDR brought the country out of the Great Depression

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 2:32 pm » wrote: Watts cited very specific examples where Trump and Manafort used Russian propaganda FAKE News stories during the campaign.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:37 pm » wrote: Wow, Trump caused the sun to rise!

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 2:32 pm » wrote: Why don't you name some of those 'indisputable' felonies along with the evidence that they have been committed and who committed them?
(Let me guess....you have cited them many times before.)

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:42 pm » wrote:
Thanks for confirming that you haven't read one single word I've cited about all this.

And I'm supposed to name who committed them?

Anyone who has followed this overall issue knows that classified information was leaked to the press. That is a felony. Other leaks have shown other felonies, as many credible pundits have noted.

Given that it was done to hurt Trump and his officials, it obviously wasn't done by his officials.

What do you shriek and babble about? That as any reasonable person would know, some Trump officials will indirectly benefit from good economic policies.

That's why you follow good economic policies, duuuh.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 2:30 pm » wrote: Wall Street apparatchiks may disagree with HOW FDR brought the country out of the Great Depression. They do not retardedly doubt THAT he brought the country out of the Great Depression - you **** simpleton.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 2:43 pm » wrote:Oh, shut the **** up and make your case, instead of prattling that you already made it, somewhere else, another time - you **** clown.

Edit - sorry, saw the big red, assumed you were babbling about Clinton.

Carry on.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:42 pm » wrote:Thanks for confirming that you haven't read one single word I've cited about all this.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:42 pm » wrote:Anyone who has followed this overall issue knows that classified information was leaked to the press. That is a felony. Other leaks have shown other felonies, as many credible pundits have noted.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:46 pm » wrote:
What do you call a liberal Harvard Professor who was originally highly skeptical of Reagan's Supply Side tax cuts, but after studying them was convinced they worked even better than anticipated by those who proposed them?

"A Wall St. apparatchik."

And even going to your fictional "Wall St. Apparatchiks," no, they did not believe FDR did that; they believe he drove the country back into the Great Depression; that it ended only when he was so busy with WWII that he stopped his leftist meddling.

I'm getting really tired of your endless babbling bulls***.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 2:32 pm » wrote:Why don't you name some of those 'indisputable' felonies along with the evidence that they have been committed and who committed them?
(Let me guess....you have cited them many times before.)

What Devin Nunes Knows
Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSELMarch 30, 2017 6:53 p.m. ET
California Rep. Adam Schiff may not offer much by way of substance, but give him marks for political flimflam. The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was so successful at ginning up fake outrage over his Republican counterpart that he successfully buried this week’s only real (and bombshell) news.

Mr. Schiff and fellow Democrats spent this week accusing Chairman Devin Nunes of carrying water for President Trump, undermining the committee’s Russia investigation, and hiding information. The press dutifully regurgitated the outrage, as well as Mr. Schiff’s calls for Mr. Nunes to recuse himself from the investigation into possible Russian electoral meddling.

All this engineered drama served to deep-six the important information Americans urgently deserve to know. Mr. Nunes has said he has seen proof that the Obama White House surveilled the incoming administration—on subjects that had nothing to do with Russia—and that it further unmasked (identified by name) transition officials. This goes far beyond a mere scandal.

It’s a potential crime.

We’ve known since early February that a call by former national security adviser Mike Flynn to the Russian ambassador was monitored by U.S. intelligence. There’s nothing improper in tapping foreign officials. But it was improper that Mr. Flynn’s name was revealed and leaked to the press, along with the substance of his conversation. The media nonetheless excused all this by claiming one piece of Mr. Flynn’s conversation (sanctions) was relevant to the continuing investigation into Trump-Russia ties.

Around the same time, Mr. Nunes’s own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials. These documents aren’t easily obtainable, since they aren’t the “finished” intelligence products that Congress gets to see. Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn over said documents—with no luck, so far.

Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility. Here are the relevant details:

First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Second, the information these documents contained was not related to Russia. Third, while many reports did “mask” identities (referring, for instance, to “U.S. Person 1 or 2”) they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.

To sum up, Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.

...Hint to the press corps: If Mr. Nunes wanted to tip off the White House about his Russia probe, it’d be a lot easier to speed-dial Steve Bannon secretly from his office.

If Mr. Schiff wants to be trusted with important information, he might start by proving he is trustworthy—rather than rumor-mongering that there is “more than circumstantial evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion. He might voice some concern that a prior White House was monitoring its political opponents. He might ask whether Obama officials had been “reverse monitoring”—tracking foreign officials solely so they could spy on the Trump team.
Mr. Nunes has zero reason to recuse himself from this probe, because he is doing his job. It’s Mr. Schiff who ought to be considering recusal, for failing to do his own.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-devin ... 1490914396

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 2:51 pm » wrote:Yes, we know that Michael Flynn's name was leaked, for one example.
So are you accusing Obama of leaking classified info to the press?

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:54 pm » wrote:
I'm very, very reluctant to cite another source, because I know you'll magically go blind like you always do.

Hey, remember when Trump tweeted that the Obama administration had wiretapped him?

Which you lied was a lie?

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 3:06 pm » wrote:The real crime is the get tRump conspiracy - there's no doubt. But your source doesn't make a liar of her. You see, they are niggling that tRump's MEANING is not what matters - it's his WORD CHOICE.

To call them lairs, you have to prove Obama personally ordered the physical wiretapping of tRump tOwer - not gonna happen.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 2:30 pm » wrote: Yep, your OpEd mill is just as good or better than peer review, fool.

*** argument from false authority.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 3:38 pm » wrote: Thanks for making my point. Each should be considered on the merits, both logic and facts.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 3:38 pm » wrote: I don't reject Academic thought out of hand as a source, like you reject every opinion I cite.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 3:38 pm » wrote:You mean like you citing peer review? That's nothing but an appeal to false Group Authority.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 2:39 pm » wrote: That's false.
He cited example of BOTH tRump and alleged Russian apparatchiks quoting the SAME third party, and drew his own PERSONAL CONCLUSION that this means tRump "got it from the Russians."
It did not ORIGINATE with the Russians, and your statement pretends that it did.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 3:47 pm » wrote: Sputnik News and RT are both Russian controlled media outlets.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 1:42 pm » wrote:Oh, I see, oooh! Trump "picked up" Putin's themes!