Susan Rice is who we thought she was

[ivwshane]

Dude, why don't you diagram that sentence that I bolded and tell me what logical conclusion you get. Talking about losing your credibility.

If he doesn't understand that it's done outside of criminal investigations, he doesn't understand how it works.

Am I being gas-lighted?

For some reason, in this thread, he is stuck on stupid. I don't understand it myself as he is normally a very logical poster.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Dude, why don't you diagram that sentence that I bolded and tell me what logical conclusion you get. Talking about losing your credibility.

If he doesn't understand that it's done outside of criminal investigations, he doesn't understand how it works.

Am I being gas-lighted?

You aren't being gas-lighted, I'm just incredibly pedantic, which I feel is important when picking apart politicians and their ilk.

From Chiropteron:
I think you don't. [Useless quip]

If the CIA or NSA or FBI are doing an investigation, they would be the ones to do the unmasking, NOT a whitehouse staffer who reports directly to Obama. [Factually correct statement, as CIA/NSA/FBI investigation doesn't necessarily require a whitehouse staffer to do the unmasking, they can do it themselves. Note that this is irrelevant to anything we're talking about, which I'll get to in a minute]

The president is NOT an intelligence agency [Factually correct, and irrelevant], and would never be conducting a criminal investigation.[Factually correct, and also irrelevant]

Which pretty much leaves political sabotage as the only explanation. [Completely false, and weakly derived from previous statements].

His statement was wrong, which you pointed out, but not because he didn't understand the unmasking procedure (request by authorized individual to reveal the name of an otherwise obfuscated citizen), only WHY it's done. This may or may not have been done intentionally. I say that because as he may be ignorant, it's also not unusual for someone to attempt to derive a false conclusion from twisted 'evidence'.

 

[ivwshane]

I understand Mr. Pedantic. English is really hard and his intentionally putting these words in quotation marks can be so confusing. And I get it that you must completely disregard the quotes and take the quoted words literally in order to have anything resembling a coherent argument here. Once a weasel, always a weasel.

Hmm, I always pictured you with glasses dsf.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

there is no point in even attempting to interact or have a discussion with someone who constantly lies like you do.

Dude...you fucking misrepresented the context of those quotes you posted by completely ignoring the actual context provided in the previous tweets made minutes before the ones you posted. If anyone is lying here, it's you.

 

[fskimospy]

Dude...you fucking misrepresented the context of those quotes you posted by completely ignoring the context provided in the previous tweets made minutes before those you posted.

Dude, you fucking tried to use evidence from Nunes that said there was incidental collection after the election to say it validated accusations about before the election all while calling someone else a liar.

It seems that you lie so constantly that you might not even be aware that you're doing it.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand Mr. Pedantic. English is really hard and his intentionally putting these words in quotation marks can be so confusing. And I get it that you must completely disregard the quotes and take the quoted words literally in order to have anything resembling a coherent argument here. Once a weasel, always a weasel.

Says the guy who is trying to invent new meanings for wiretapping, is claiming that evidence Nunes said does not support Trump's claims supports Trump's claims, and who ignores that if Trump had a new meaning for wiretapping he could have said what it was at any time, but has refused.

Nobody is fooled. Like I said before, of course you won't admit to being wrong. Your pride is at stake.

 

[Chiropteran]

Says the guy who is trying to invent new meanings for wiretapping,

Who the fuck cares?

Seriously.

Nixon caught taping... oh but wait "those were not tapes, they were 8 track recordings, therefore your case is worthless!"

Quibbling over the terminology makes it obvious you lost the argument. Are you honestly saying it's perfectly okay to eavesdrop on political opponents, as long as they use the wrong word to describe the form of eavesdropping used?

 

[bshole]

Looks like they're getting their proof. Have you been in a coma for the last 2 weeks?

But cannot the exact same thing be said for Susan Rice? She lied about Benghazi to propagate a false political narrative. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit it's found that she used her power for political purposes.

Benghazi? The Republicans have been lying for half a decade about there being something worth investigating for 5 years on that. They started in hours after the attack started and are still milking that cow.

I kind of agree with your inference though... that the intelligence agencies/military serve no other purpose than nefarious doings for dirty politicians. If so, wouldn't you agree that it is time to gut the intelligence agencies and the military? Cut their finances by 90% and they won't have resources to gin up wars and conflicts around the world.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Who the fuck cares?

Seriously.

Nixon caught taping... oh but wait "those were not tapes, they were 8 track recordings, therefore your case is worthless!"

Quibbling over the terminology makes it obvious you lost the argument. Are you honestly saying it's perfectly okay to eavesdrop on political opponents, as long as they use the wrong word to describe the form of eavesdropping used?

If existing information is to be trusted (regarding what the agencies were actually monitoring), not only was the eavesdropping not requested by the existing white house staff (and thus couldn't be targeting 'political opponents'), but the eaves were being dropped on foreign entities, and any information obtained regarding US citizens was incidental as a result. Do you have proof/citations that a) this monitoring was done, on request by Obama administration officials, b) that the intended target was Trump/one of his staffers, or c) that one of the three-letter agencies complied to that request?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You know I wonder if many of us are closer together in understanding than it might appear. The internet is the worst modern medium for discussion of complex issues, and I suspect that perhaps we may be focusing on separate aspects that might be easily reconciled by normal human communications like hanging around in a bar getting beer.

Anyway. Back the your Bat Channel.

 

[fskimospy]

Who the fuck cares?

Seriously.

Nixon caught taping... oh but wait "those were not tapes, they were 8 track recordings, therefore your case is worthless!"

Quibbling over the terminology makes it obvious you lost the argument. Are you honestly saying it's perfectly okay to eavesdrop on political opponents, as long as they use the wrong word to describe the form of eavesdropping used?

You only think this is 'quibbling over terminology' because you have no clue as to what you're talking about. The people in Trump Tower were not targets of wiretapping, their conversations were collected because they were talking to people who WERE TARGETS of wiretapping.

As I've asked other people if the FBI wiretaps a mob boss as part of an investigation and the mob boss calls a pizza parlor to order lunch, if the FBI captures part of that conversation do you consider the FBI to have wiretapped the pizza place? If we are applying the same standard as you're trying to here then we have to. That means the FBI has wiretapped the pizza place without a warrant, violating the Constitution.

Now think for a minute as to why that definition might be wrong and/or stupid and get back to me?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Dude, you fucking tried to use evidence from Nunes that said there was incidental collection after the election to say it validated accusations about before the election all while calling someone else a liar.

It seems that you lie so constantly that you might not even be aware that you're doing it.

Wow...just wow. So you're actually going to defend what alien42 did? And you call me the liar here? That's rich. You're such a slimy little weasel boy. Normally I'd take the time to address your point regarding before/after election but I can no longer stand the weasel stench. My God, how do you stand it?

 

[bshole]

Who the fuck cares?

Seriously.

Nixon caught taping... oh but wait "those were not tapes, they were 8 track recordings, therefore your case is worthless!"

Quibbling over the terminology makes it obvious you lost the argument. Are you honestly saying it's perfectly okay to eavesdrop on political opponents, as long as they use the wrong word to describe the form of eavesdropping used?

They were eavesdropping on the Russians. Do you understand that? If they were spying on you and you talked to Doc Savage, that doesn't mean they were targeting Doc Savage, he just happened to be the guy their target talked to. Do you understand this concept or not? It appears you do not because it has been explained multiple times on this thread and it hasn't sunk in for you.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You know I wonder if many of us are closer together in understanding than it might appear. The internet is the worst modern medium for discussion of complex issues, and I suspect that perhaps we may be focusing on separate aspects that might be easily reconciled by normal human communications like hanging around in a bar getting beer.

Anyway. Back the your Bat Channel.

There's surprisingly few on this forum that actually support Trump and his ilk, a fairly large number that support whoever's against him, and somewhere in between are a mush of people that hate both sides, or don't have an overtly strong opinion either way... which is probably pretty close to national average.

 

[HomerJS]

Surveillance and "wires tapped" (notice the quotes used) are effectively equivalent terms and Nunes explicitly stated Trump was incidentally surveilled. If you believe Trump didn't use quotes to imply surveillance in general, what do you think was intended?

Do you remember Trump saying "Obama tapped my phones"?? and he didn't put tapped in quotes.

Tapped my phone is specific.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You only think this is 'quibbling over terminology' because you have no clue as to what you're talking about. The people in Trump Tower were not targets of wiretapping, their conversations were collected because they were talking to people who WERE TARGETS of wiretapping.

As I've asked other people if the FBI wiretaps a mob boss as part of an investigation and the mob boss calls a pizza parlor to order lunch, if the FBI captures part of that conversation do you consider the FBI to have wiretapped the pizza place? If we are applying the same standard as you're trying to here then we have to. That means the FBI has wiretapped the pizza place without a warrant, violating the Constitution.

Now think for a minute as to why that definition might be wrong and/or stupid and get back to me?

Some people use "it's just a matter of semantics" when "semantics matters" should apply. Context and a clear understanding of what is being discussed is always of prime importance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There's surprisingly few on this forum that actually support Trump and his ilk, a fairly large number that support whoever's against him, and somewhere in between are a mush of people that hate both sides, or don't have an overtly strong opinion either way... which is probably pretty close to national average.

I like being a misfit toy

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you remember Trump saying "Obama tapped my phones"?? and he didn't put tapped in quotes.

Tapped my phone is specific.

Somebody please shoot me.

 

[HomerJS]

Looks like they're getting their proof. Have you been in a coma for the last 2 weeks?

But cannot the exact same thing be said for Susan Rice? She lied about Benghazi to propagate a false political narrative. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit it's found that she used her power for political purposes.

You continue to spout off unproven accusations. I doubt we will find out Rice leaked Trumps name.

I do find it funny you will accept a POTUS constantly lying to your face. 99% of sane people know he's lying but that's ok with you. Hope you never have offspring. We'll have more talented liars in the country.

 

[fskimospy]

There's surprisingly few on this forum that actually support Trump and his ilk, a fairly large number that support whoever's against him, and somewhere in between are a mush of people that hate both sides, or don't have an overtly strong opinion either way... which is probably pretty close to national average.

Not really the case. Most people feel quite strongly about Trump one way or the other.

http://www.people-press.org/2017/02...p-are-already-strongly-felt-deeply-polarized/

 

[fskimospy]

Wow...just wow. So you're actually going to defend what alien42 did? And you call me the liar here? That's rich. You're such a slimy little weasel boy. Normally I'd take the time to address your point regarding before/after election but I can no longer stand the weasel stench. My God, how do you stand it?

Notice how you're trying to weasel out of your own dishonesty. Don't worry about alien42, worry about your own lies.

Again, you aren't fooling anyone so why do you bother?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Somebody please shoot me.

Na, not that kind

I'll go with wiretapped as "purposefully collecting intelligence on me". Substituting that back into the Tweets pretty much leaves things intact. Obama himself "tapped" Trump or intentionally caused another to target Trump. Note that Trump says that Obama was turned down by courts, which would of course be FISA. It would be childsplay to produce the request and I doubt the most partisan would seriously accuse FISA of intentionally destroying documentation but Trump having proof. It's logically inconsistent on the face of it.

It's an extraordinary claim with Trump producing nothing. Where is the FISA order? That's a completely unambiguous statement on the part of Trump.

 

[ivwshane]

Wow...just wow. So you're actually going to defend what alien42 did? And you call me the liar here? That's rich. You're such a slimy little weasel boy. Normally I'd take the time to address your point regarding before/after election but I can no longer stand the weasel stench. My God, how do you stand it?

Quite the contrary. Your M.O. is to take your ball and go home. You always make up some bullshit excuse why you can't be bothered to explain something and yet you seem to have an infinite amount of time repeating bullshit.

You are and continue to be one of the biggest weasels on this board.

 

[ivwshane]

Somebody please shoot me.

'Cause you are too much of a pussy to do it yourself?

 

[ivwshane]

You continue to spout off unproven accusations. I doubt we will find out Rice leaked Trumps name.

I do find it funny you will accept a POTUS constantly lying to your face. 99% of sane people know he's lying but that's ok with you. Hope you never have offspring. We'll have more talented liars in the country.

Sadly, he does have children. They don't appear to have his traits though.