Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 3:43 pm » wrote:
On their merits, IN THEIR PROPER MILIEU, *******.

I reject opinions as sources, *** hat.

There are opinion based editorials I agree with - I do not use them to source my facts, you prattling fool. I go to THEIR source.

The only time I cite peer reviewed sources is when I'm in an argrument which is debating peer reviewed science, maroon. I don't pretend that having been peer reviewed in some journal means an author's POLITICAL OPINIONS PIECES have the weight of peer reviewed science, tard.

Government websites - not the WSJ Op/Ed page, fool - is where I get my official statistics.

Your childish insistence that we must all respect the authority of "whoever agrees with clemtard" as legitimate sources grows old, infant.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:13 pm » wrote: WTF does that mean?

Likely some new psychotic bulls*** to reject common sense.



Translated into honest English; you babble stupidly and ignorantly about raw numbers without the slightest consideration to what more knowledgeable people might offer.

You as usual have retreated into self induced ignorance and idiocy. I offer opinions to consider on the basis of their logic, their chosen facts and how they analyze those facts.

You babble stupidly that they're "Wall St. Propandists" or whatever and refuse to even consider them.

Subject closed. Go live in your moonbat world of self non-understanding.

A lie, but you're the one who claimed Peer Review as an authority, Dim.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 4:06 pm » wrote:Yes.
About 25 seconds in:
The idea that the election could be rigged was the number 1 theme pushed by RT and Sputnik News outlets.

And both Manafort and Trump quoted FAKE News stories from Sputnik News and RT.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 4:06 pm » wrote: Yes.
About 25 seconds in:
The idea that the election could be rigged was the number 1 theme pushed by RT and Sputnik News outlets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moo67wRDsVU

And both Manafort and Trump quoted FAKE News stories from Sputnik News and RT.

C-Span VIDEO of that part of Mr. Watts' testimony.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 4:15 pm » wrote:Translated into honest English: I won't responsibly source my wild claims and you can't make me.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 4:18 pm » wrote:He eventually admits that tRump quoted Newsweek - not Pravda.

He uses sleaze sales tactics and innuendo which you would call out immediately if someone used it on hillary.

There is nothing in that video which ties tRump to russia - there's just a sleaze merchant pursuing an agenda.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:19 pm » wrote:
Great, great job at ignoring every bit of common sense I expressed.

Really, you're being utterly stupid. They're called ideas, logic, reason, analysis of facts and rejection of flawed logic; pitfalls that other opinion writers make.

"I can't risk reading an oped from a highly praised economist carried in National Review! He's propagandizing for Wall St!"

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 3:48 pm » wrote:Is Newsweek?
That was the origin of the article cited.
Newsweek.
Is Newsweek Russian controlled?

DEAR DONALD TRUMP AND VLADIMIR PUTIN, I AM NOT SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL
BY KURT EICHENWALD

I am Sidney Blumenthal.

At least, that is what Vladimir Putin—and, somehow, Donald Trump—seems to believe.

And that should raise concerns not only about Moscow’s attempts to manipulate this election but also about how Trump came to push Russian disinformation to American voters.

An email from Blumenthal—a confidant of Hillary Clinton and a man, second only to George Soros, at the center of conservative conspiracy theories—turned up in the recent document dump by WikiLeaks.

At a time when American intelligence believes Russian hackers are trying to interfere with the presidential election, records have recently been fed to WikiLeaks out of multiple organizations of the Democratic Party.

But now that I have been brought into the whole mess—and transformed into Blumenthal—there is even more proof that the Russians are not only orchestrating this act of cyberwar but also really, really dumb.

The latest emerged thanks to the incompetence of Sputnik—the Russian online news and radio service established by the government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya—which took words written by me and attributed them to Blumenthal.

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin- ... nik-508635

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 4:23 pm » wrote: Jackass, I reversed my position on the Keystone XL because of an opposition editorial.

I SIMPLY DO NOT ACCEPT THE OPINION PAGE AS A LEGITIMATE SOURCE FOR CLAIMED FACTS. Do your **** work, lazy asshat.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:16 pm » wrote:The same people who slept through the dire threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War are now babbling in idiocy bout how Trump and officials spread Russian Fake News.
You can't make stuff like this up.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:16 pm » wrote:Your source is a Beltway hack, moonbat.

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 4:36 pm » wrote: The same people who always saw Russia as a threat are now cozying up to Russia/Putin.

The only hack is you, ****.
Why would Senator Burr call a beltway hack as a witness?
You didn't answer that.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 4:36 pm » wrote: The only hack is you, ****.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:20 pm » wrote: Oh my, someone else has seen through little Miss Marxists's silly propaganda.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:31 pm » wrote: Oh, so you considered the logic in that opinion piece, but refuse to consider the logic in the ones I cite.

No, I will not and never will waste my time doing hours of research for an ignorant babbling, paranoid, dishonest wackjob.

Make any ridiculous claims you want about Carter or FDR from raw numbers as you ignore the very basics of Economics and common sense.

I mean, what kind of imbecile would offer an opinion about an economic matter without understanding the very basics of Economics?

Why don't you look at the raw numbers about particle physics and babble about that?

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:37 pm » wrote:Just as I predicted; little Miss Marxist insinuates that I don't cite sources, then magically goes blind when I do.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 4:45 pm » wrote:You've never once asked me to read and respond to an opinion piece. All you've done is use them as authorities to legitimize disputed proffers of fact.

The proper source for government statistics is the appropriate government source, not hearsay about those sites.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 4:26 pm » wrote: I'm assuming you're talking about the Sydney Blumenthal, Kurt Eichenwald email thing?
Sydney Blumenthal had attached a Newsweek article by Kurt Eichenwald in an email he sent to John Podesta.
Trump read the email at a rally and attributed Eichenwald's words to Blumenthal.
The misconstrued “email” that Trump was reading had appeared in an article on a Russia-funded website called Sputnik.

Huey » 31 Mar 2017 4:48 pm » wrote:It seems that one's faux "outrage" at taking money from a foreign sources depends on one's political leanings.

Pretty sad.