US Republicans Had Urged Iran to Delay Prisoner Swap, Shamkhani Says

[JSt0rm]

Then why bother in the first place? Do you find some kind of twisted satisfaction in trolling people?

No I was just calling out your hypocrisy.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll tell you what's bullshit....unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Statement that Hillary may be charged with a crime within 60 days from some guy with no actual knowledge of the investigation?

"This will be interesting".

Statement that congressional Republicans may have engaged in sabotage of US diplomacy?

"I smell bullshit".

Both are dubious reports from non-credible sources. I wonder what the cause for such different reactions is...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No I was just calling out your hypocrisy.

And what hypocrisy is that?

 

[JSt0rm]

see the post above yours. Come on son. You have too much incriminating evidence on these boards over the last 10 years.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Statement that Hillary may be charged with a crime within 60 days from some guy with no actual knowledge of the investigation?

"This will be interesting".

Statement that congressional Republicans may have engaged in sabotage of US diplomacy?

"I smell bullshit".

Both are dubious reports from non-credible sources. I wonder what the cause for such different reactions is...

I see that you're butthurt once again after your failed attempt to lie your way out of your recent false statement regarding Snopes misinformation. Don't worry. It will pass.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

see the post above yours. Come on son. You have too much incriminating evidence on these boards over the last 10 years.

Then please do me a favor...address it when you see it instead of taking random bullshit pot shots. Deal?

 

[JSt0rm]

what are you talking about? I saw it and addressed it. You thought it was a pot shot but I was putting the mirror up for you to gaze upon. Do with that information what you will.

 

[fskimospy]

I see that you're butthurt once again after your failed attempt to lie your way out of your recent false statement regarding Snopes misinformation. Don't worry. It will pass.

lol. What I said about the Snopes article was perfectly reasonable, you are just desperate to avoid uncomfortable thoughts. I'm glad to see you're back to your usual accusations of dishonesty any time you feel threatened though. That's the DSF I know!

All that aside, can you explain your disparate reactions to those two pieces of seemingly equally non-credible information? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[72Threads]

I see nothing of this in the mainstream news, but if this were true people need to go to prison. Sadly I can imagine this being true, I don't even think it's unlikely.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's not treason. It won't even be prosecuted under the Logan Act (which is itself should probably be tossed on First Amendment grounds) and politicians of both parties have routinely talked to foreign governments to influence them in ways that might be against the policy of the sitting President. Nixon, McGovern, Reagan, the "El Commandante" letter writers, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, the list goes on and is deep. Politicians are always going to seek advantage over one another and I'd rather if this is going to happen anyway they should do it in the open and face the immediate political backlash (if any) for it.

Just curious as to how negotiating not to allow hostages and presumably American citizens, to be released sooner rather than later isn't treason?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol. What I said about the Snopes article was perfectly reasonable, you are just desperate to avoid uncomfortable thoughts. I'm glad to see you're back to your usual accusations of dishonesty any time you feel threatened though. That's the DSF I know!

You made a blatantly false statement and failed to own up. That's the eskimospy I know!

All that aside, can you explain your disparate reactions to those two pieces of seemingly equally non-credible information? Inquiring minds want to know.

What specifically bothers you about my reactions? That I made a couple innocuous comments based on a source that may or may not be the most credible? Wow...you really are butthurt aren't you!

 

[fskimospy]

You made a blatantly false statement and failed to own up. That's the eskimospy I know!

Absolutely not true, as covered in that thread. When I say something wrong, I own up to it.

What specifically bothers you about my reactions? That I made a couple innocuous comments based on a source that may or may not be the most credible? Wow...you really are butthurt aren't you!

I didn't say anything bothered me, I just found the disparity to be interesting! Don't you?

Trust me, you have no capacity to make me 'butthurt' so there's no point in trying.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Absolutely not true, as covered in that thread. When I say something wrong, I own up to it.

Denial is the first stage...only 4 more to go!

 

[DrPizza]

Denial is the first stage...only 4 more to go!

Deflecting, derailing, or whatever you're doing now - which stage is this that you're on where you refuse to answer why in one case, you're completely interested in the conspiracy garbage without a shred of evidence, and in the other case, you completely dismiss it.

Well, since you haven't answered, I guess I'll pull a Hillary and answer FOR you:
You ignore anything that paints Republicans in a bad light unless there's a ton of evidence, but you accept anything that paints Democrats in a bad light, regardless of the evidence, because you're a partisan hack unwilling to engage in honest discourse.

 

[Thebobo]

It wouldn't be the first time someone has tried to undermine US foreign policy. Ever read about how Nixon torpedoed peace in Vietnam under LBJ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668

Yes he should of been tried for treason

George Will Confirms Nixon's Vietnam Treason

 

[Moonbeam]

Deflecting, derailing, or whatever you're doing now - which stage is this that you're on where you refuse to answer why in one case, you're completely interested in the conspiracy garbage without a shred of evidence, and in the other case, you completely dismiss it.

Well, since you haven't answered, I guess I'll pull a Hillary and answer FOR you:
You ignore anything that paints Republicans in a bad light unless there's a ton of evidence, but you accept anything that paints Democrats in a bad light, regardless of the evidence, because you're a partisan hack unwilling to engage in honest discourse.

If we were to look at each thread in which a person posted, say DSF in this case, fresh and new and not with our assumptions of history, would you fault his comment to the thread as inappropriate in any way. I find myself to be quite skeptical of the claim and would also be very angry if it proved true. I'm OK with what he said.

 

[JSt0rm]

Deflecting, derailing, or whatever you're doing now - which stage is this that you're on where you refuse to answer why in one case, you're completely interested in the conspiracy garbage without a shred of evidence, and in the other case, you completely dismiss it.

Well, since you haven't answered, I guess I'll pull a Hillary and answer FOR you:
You ignore anything that paints Republicans in a bad light unless there's a ton of evidence, but you accept anything that paints Democrats in a bad light, regardless of the evidence, because you're a partisan hack unwilling to engage in honest discourse.

Owned

This is super serious sentence about some republicans doing a Benghazi.

 

[compuwiz1]

True or not, I'm sure the Iranians don't want another Repub Admin after all the bullshit the last one put them through.

Oh please. Fuck the Iranians and their death to America crap! They have been problematic, as a country, for as long as I can remember, regardless of who the president was.

 

[buckshot24]

Deflecting, derailing, or whatever you're doing now - which stage is this that you're on where you refuse to answer why in one case, you're completely interested in the conspiracy garbage without a shred of evidence, and in the other case, you completely dismiss it.

Well, since you haven't answered, I guess I'll pull a Hillary and answer FOR you:
You ignore anything that paints Republicans in a bad light unless there's a ton of evidence, but you accept anything that paints Democrats in a bad light, regardless of the evidence, because you're a partisan hack unwilling to engage in honest discourse.

Simply put, one is more believable than the other. If you find a perfectly objective person on these matters, please let us know who they are.

He said "this will be interesting" which is a far cry from "I am completely interested in this". How is dishonestly portraying his words an effort to engage in "honest discourse"?

And since you're talking about "honest discourse" why aren't you blasting dude's complete hack job about that snope claim he made? Hackery?

And what is this about requiring more evidence for one thing over the other? Do you mean to tell me that the way one sees the world doesn't paint the way one evaluates evidence? Of course it does.

Here is a news flash, we're all biased.

 

[buckshot24]

If GOP "rivals" really did this can we claim that these actions were "inappropriate"?

 

[buckshot24]

Absolutely not true, as covered in that thread. When I say something wrong, I own up to it.

Plenty of other ways to interpret those comments by Snopes.com founder.

 

[JSt0rm]

Oh please. Fuck the Iranians and their death to America crap! They have been problematic, as a country, for as long as I can remember, regardless of who the president was.

Yeah we ain't never did a thing to them. They better stop pickin' on a Childe of god who wouldn't even lay a finger on a flea.

 

[Darwin333]

Trust me, you have no capacity to make me 'butthurt' so there's no point in trying.

You aren't the first person that I've seen complain about his lack of, umm, "ability to make them butthurt".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And since you're talking about "honest discourse" why aren't you blasting dude's complete hack job about that snope claim he made? Hackery?

It's quite clear that he isn't interested in honest discourse. He appears to have an axe to grind.

 

[fskimospy]

It's quite clear that he isn't interested in honest discourse. He appears to have an axe to grind.

Surely you can see the irony present in talking to buckshot about honest discourse, haha.