(11-14-2017 04:20 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Sara Carter is hot

be the ball.....be the ball.....etc......

(11-14-2017 02:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:55 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  How can you be upset about Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch (rightfully so), and not feel anything about for Trump jr. coordinating with a Russian cutout?

Can you describe this coordination?

There simply is no 'there' there.

This is more like Hillary meeting with reporters before they're going to break a story or asking for comment/rebuttal on the story they're about to print.... or the DNC asking the press to use specific language favorable to their campaign, which of course happens with regularity.

It is NOTHING like the husband of someone under subpoena/investigation having a private meeting with the investigator.

Not even close

Wait, you're comparing lying about being in contact with Wikileaks and Russia with the aim of gaining illegally procured negative information about your political opponent to sending preferred nomenclature to the press?

Hambone, what the hell happened to you?

(11-14-2017 02:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:55 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  How can you be upset about Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch (rightfully so), and not feel anything about for Trump jr. coordinating with a Russian cutout?

Can you describe this coordination?

There simply is no 'there' there.

This is more like Hillary meeting with reporters before they're going to break a story or asking for comment/rebuttal on the story they're about to print.... or the DNC asking the press to use specific language favorable to their campaign, which of course happens with regularity.

It is NOTHING like the husband of someone under subpoena/investigation having a private meeting with the investigator.

Not even close

It's equally inappropriate. Don jr was communicating with the same foreign entity that makes a habit of publishing classified US material the very same that everyone deemed Manning a traitor for. Julian Assange is wanted by our government and was used as a Russian cutout. CIA director Pompeo, a Trump appointee, called Wikileaks a "hostile non-state foreign actor". Jr was retweeting links from Wikileaks that were sent directly to him, and was asked by Wikileaks to leak them something so that it didn't look like Wikileaks in fact did have a bias. There are other examples as well, but I'm not going to go posting everything. It's simple Wikileaks=bad, Manning=traitor, don jr coordinating Twitter responses with wikileaks= nothing to see?

(11-14-2017 04:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 02:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 01:55 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  How can you be upset about Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch (rightfully so), and not feel anything about for Trump jr. coordinating with a Russian cutout?

Can you describe this coordination?

There simply is no 'there' there.

This is more like Hillary meeting with reporters before they're going to break a story or asking for comment/rebuttal on the story they're about to print.... or the DNC asking the press to use specific language favorable to their campaign, which of course happens with regularity.

It is NOTHING like the husband of someone under subpoena/investigation having a private meeting with the investigator.

Not even close

Wait, you're comparing lying about being in contact with Wikileaks and Russia with the aim of gaining illegally procured negative information about your political opponent to sending preferred nomenclature to the press?

Hambone, what the hell happened to you?

trump. Perfect example of what happens to you when you try to defend him. He taints you.

(11-14-2017 04:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Wait, you're comparing lying about being in contact with Wikileaks and Russia with the aim of gaining illegally procured negative information about your political opponent to sending preferred nomenclature to the press?

Hambone, what the hell happened to you?

So you can't describe the coordination other than to use the word 'foreign' to imply a problem. Talk about 'whataboutism'. Press is press, so long as they're reporting facts and not making them up. 'Illegally acquired' is actually a protection of the press. They don't have to name their source, or how their source got its information... so long as the evidence is truthful.

Nobody has ever disputed the veracity of the emails.

The US press using language that promotes one parties agenda over another is absolutely a violation of 'freedom of the press'. I don't fault the DNC for asking for it... I fault the US press for going along with the request. What wikileaks did is nothing more than what Woodward and Bernstein did that brought down Nixon.

The only thing that has happened to me is that I don't buy this 'deflection' from what Hillary did, working directly against the will of the people, manipulating the process... and onto the entity that caught her.... and especially onto the party that beat her by using such weak and ridiculous claims like any contact with such a group whatsoever somehow constitutes collusion against the process, but we're just going to ignore ACTUAL collusion against the process.

Hillary screwed over Bernie... and we all know it

THAT was collusion by the DNC against the country.

(11-14-2017 04:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  It's equally inappropriate. Don jr was communicating with the same foreign entity that makes a habit of publishing classified US material the very same that everyone deemed Manning a traitor for. Julian Assange is wanted by our government and was used as a Russian cutout. CIA director Pompeo, a Trump appointee, called Wikileaks a "hostile non-state foreign actor". Jr was retweeting links from Wikileaks that were sent directly to him, and was asked by Wikileaks to leak them something so that it didn't look like Wikileaks in fact did have a bias. There are other examples as well, but I'm not going to go posting everything. It's simple Wikileaks=bad, Manning=traitor, don jr coordinating Twitter responses with wikileaks= nothing to see?

No, not close at all. "guilt by association' is all you're implying. You aren't implying anything substantial whatsoever, and of course ignoring the factual substance of what was released.

In your comparison, Manning is Russia, and I think that's a fair comparison. They're both the ones that collected and released the information using WikiLeaks. In the comparison, Trump is (not good but best comparison) 'the people who otherwise might have been killed as collateral damage in a US strike'. They're the only benefactors I can see with Manning, other than arguably 'the truth'. Hillary is the victim... the US military and their reputation.

Obama, Commander in Chief of the US Military... the 'victim' of the release... commuted Manning's sentence.

You're implying that Trump collected the information like Manning did and gave it to Wiki. That isn't a fact.

The difference is (and this is a big one) is that as an intelligence officer, Manning was given access to US information under a promise of silence. Russia signed no such deal with Hillary, and Hillary isn't a 'national interest'.

The 'national interest' is the truth, and while we may not have the WHOLE truth... Hillary's emails certainly seem to be the truth.

Let me get this straight.

Russians give the Clinton Foundation a gazillion dollars - no problem.

Presidents son tweets wikil leaks- treason

Makes sense. Lol

(11-14-2017 05:20 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Let me get this straight.

Russians give the Clinton Foundation a gazillion dollars - no problem.

Presidents son tweets wikil leaks- treason

Makers sense. Lol

my kiinda makers???.....drinkin' a five finger right this moment.....

(11-14-2017 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 04:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Wait, you're comparing lying about being in contact with Wikileaks and Russia with the aim of gaining illegally procured negative information about your political opponent to sending preferred nomenclature to the press?

Hambone, what the hell happened to you?

So you can't describe the coordination other than to use the word 'foreign' to imply a problem. Talk about 'whataboutism'. Press is press, so long as they're reporting facts and not making them up. 'Illegally acquired' is actually a protection of the press. They don't have to name their source, or how their source got its information... so long as the evidence is truthful.

Nobody has ever disputed the veracity of the emails.

The US press using language that promotes one parties agenda over another is absolutely a violation of 'freedom of the press'. I don't fault the DNC for asking for it... I fault the US press for going along with the request. What wikileaks did is nothing more than what Woodward and Bernstein did that brought down Nixon.

The only thing that has happened to me is that I don't buy this 'deflection' from what Hillary did, working directly against the will of the people, manipulating the process... and onto the entity that caught her.... and especially onto the party that beat her by using such weak and ridiculous claims like any contact with such a group whatsoever somehow constitutes collusion against the process, but we're just going to ignore ACTUAL collusion against the process.

Hillary screwed over Bernie... and we all know it

THAT was collusion by the DNC against the country.

(11-14-2017 04:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  It's equally inappropriate. Don jr was communicating with the same foreign entity that makes a habit of publishing classified US material the very same that everyone deemed Manning a traitor for. Julian Assange is wanted by our government and was used as a Russian cutout. CIA director Pompeo, a Trump appointee, called Wikileaks a "hostile non-state foreign actor". Jr was retweeting links from Wikileaks that were sent directly to him, and was asked by Wikileaks to leak them something so that it didn't look like Wikileaks in fact did have a bias. There are other examples as well, but I'm not going to go posting everything. It's simple Wikileaks=bad, Manning=traitor, don jr coordinating Twitter responses with wikileaks= nothing to see?

No, not close at all. "guilt by association' is all you're implying. You aren't implying anything substantial whatsoever, and of course ignoring the factual substance of what was released.

In your comparison, Manning is Russia, and I think that's a fair comparison. They're both the ones that collected and released the information using WikiLeaks. In the comparison, Trump is (not good but best comparison) 'the people who otherwise might have been killed as collateral damage in a US strike'. They're the only benefactors I can see with Manning, other than arguably 'the truth'. Hillary is the victim... the US military and their reputation.

Obama, Commander in Chief of the US Military... the 'victim' of the release... commuted Manning's sentence.

You're implying that Trump collected the information like Manning did and gave it to Wiki. That isn't a fact. No I'm not implying that

The difference is (and this is a big one) is that as an intelligence officer, Manning was given access to US information under a promise of silence. Russia signed no such deal with Hillary, and Hillary isn't a 'national interest'.

The 'national interest' is the truth, and while we may not have the WHOLE truth... Hillary's emails certainly seem to be the truth.

There is no consistency on the right when defending Trump and I wouldn't say Obama was the victim of Manning's release but rather our national security. So if there's no impropriety here, why would Trump even bother communicating between Wikileaks? Not suggesting anything here, just curious as to why you would think there's a line for communication.
I agree, Hillary and the DNC seemed to stack the deck against Bernie for the sake of funding according to Brazille (who gave Clinton town hall questions). They're all dirty, and frankly I believe they all deserve jail time or at least be barred from public office. I'm not saying one or the other doesn't exist, I'm saying they both do.

(11-14-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 03:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:12 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:11 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Oliver probably tucks his junk and dances nude in front of his mirror when he gets worked up over this stuff.

What an odd criticism.

And again...hits all three points Oliver made. It tries to delegitimize him, tries to claim his behavior excuses other behavior, and it's a troll post.

They just can't help themselves. Sad.

LOL. I've been enjoying this room so much more since I've just started to call out the whataboutism instead of really responding to it.

Just more proof that everyone trump touches in any way gets ruined. Even a normally high quality poster like HB has succumb to it. It's sad really.

It’s become rather remarkable the level of concern our resident socialists have for Republicans or conservative posters and who/ what they may think or support.

Wonder why that is all of the sudden? Somethings got them a wee uncomfy in their jimmies.

Quite sure its heartfelt, though...

Tom and the rest of the looney left these days...

(11-14-2017 05:25 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 05:20 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Let me get this straight.

Russians give the Clinton Foundation a gazillion dollars - no problem.

Presidents son tweets wikil leaks- treason

Makers sense. Lol

my kiinda makers???.....drinkin' a five finger right this moment.....

Damnnnnn......


10 in the AM and that already looks mighty fine... Makers may well be on the weekend agenda.

(11-14-2017 05:43 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

Quote:You're implying that Trump collected the information like Manning did and gave it to Wiki. That isn't a fact. No I'm not implying that

There is no consistency on the right when defending Trump and I wouldn't say Obama was the victim of Manning's release but rather our national security. So if there's no impropriety here, why would Trump even bother communicating between Wikileaks? Not suggesting anything here, just curious as to why you would think there's a line for communication.
I agree, Hillary and the DNC seemed to stack the deck against Bernie for the sake of funding according to Brazille (who gave Clinton town hall questions). They're all dirty, and frankly I believe they all deserve jail time or at least be barred from public office. I'm not saying one or the other doesn't exist, I'm saying they both do.

Actually you are saying what you claim you aren't... you just apparently aren't smart enough to follow your own analogy.... nor to read.

I never said Obama was the victim.... I said Obama, Commander in Chief of the US military, the victim in this.... commuted him

You called the right hypocrites for their response to Manning, so why isn't the left hypocrites for THEIR response to Manning (commuting him)

The US military is the victim, dude. Obama is the CIC of the victim. I also said Hillary is the victim of Russia's hacking and the US military and their reputation were the victim of Manning. I really don't know how to be more clear.

YOU made the comparison between the situations.... I'm simply pointing out where your comparison fails. The left is clearly trying to say Trump is complicit in the collusion, hence he IS in the same situation as Manning. This you cannot prove.

We can PROVE that Hillary colluded against Bernie. We can PROVE that Manning colluded against the US government.

You treat unproven allegations the same as proven facts for political reasons.

If you'd like to point out where I defended Trump, I'll listen. The only thing I'm defending is the clear difference between facts and allegations.

As to the 'why would Trump talk to them?' the answer seems obvious. First, in general he didn't. Your own author of the article calls the correspondence mostly one sided. Second, because Wiki clearly has produced accurate and verifiable information.

As I said, You're suggesting that if wiki had evidence given to them by a Russian spy of Trump's collusion, that the left wouldn't listen.

That's ridiculous.

I'm more than happy to admit that the left and right are all incredibly bad actors, and I'm more than happy to admit that Trump is at least as bad as any of them and probably HAS done lots of things that are 'actionable'....

But I still don't equate 'probable' with 'proven'... and neither should you.

I suspect you're doing it because he's a Republican and she's a Democrat. If you were doing it because she's a woman and he's a man, you'd be labeled a sexist. If you were doing it because of race, you'd be a racist.

None of those things are good things... so why is it okay to do it because of their party?

Support or not people on actual policy and on their personal verifiable faults of which Trump has NUMEROUS! Collusion with Russia isn't demonstrably one of them. It is AT BEST the same as what Hillary did with them as SOS, something that MAY look bad, but isn't demonstrably a violation of laws... which of course your side denies is a problem

I dislike most Democrats based on policy. I dislike a few of them based on the clear lies they're willing to tell to people to enact those policies (you can keep your doctor etc). The right lies, too.. and I dislike many of them. I just don't equate (and you can look me up on this) lying about the size of his inauguration (which means nothing) to lying about how much something is going to cost me (which means something). I don't really care that Bill lied about Monica.... I only care when the left then hypocritically makes a big deal about Trump's COMMENT. If talk is bad, action is worse... and Trump's opponent was the woman who facilitated Bills actions.