(08-29-2024 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 03:44 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 03:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 03:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Have you even read the letter, sparkles?

I mean, such an astute person who demands hard copy of a statement from the Army *must* have read the letter, right? Lolz. Its pretty fing obvious that you havent from your comments.

Tell you what, sparkles, read the letter. Come back to us and say where they say that. Should be easy.

Oh. I forgot. You're doing the lawyer thing. This is where you say that they "had reason to believe it was russian disinfo", but they never said it was 100%. Just really likely. When they KNEW it was a lie.

When we say that you are a complete phony, this is what we're talking about. You are not to be taken seriously, as much as you may crave to be, more than anything else.

Have you read the letter? You keep avoiding that question.

Yes. Now, I do I get to read your post filled with legal gymnastics explaining it away?!? I hope so. I need another good laugh at you!

Glad you read it.

I guess you did not understand the parts, like -- "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement". Apparently not.

The worst they say is that they are "suspicious" of the issue.

But apparently in your mind that is them saying the laptop is disinformatiot.

Not a legal question at all. Merely one of reading basic English and the comprehension that comes from that reading.

Not 'legal gymnastics' at all. Just some nincompoop not necessarily understanding the message in the letter, and blanket repeating what it expressly does not say.

One thing I've learned in this life is that when I'm in the middle of a circle of people who are pointing at me and laughing at what I'm saying, I need to STFU and sit down.

Are you truly so dense as to not see that is exactly where you are right now? Or, are you so desperate for attention that you'll take even negative attention? If so, I'm genuinely sorry for you, if not then you're just a putz.

(08-29-2024 07:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 06:24 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-28-2024 08:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-28-2024 07:51 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-28-2024 06:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I always like the morons who rail and whine about everyone else, yet when comments are thrown their way the immediate response is "You dont know jack about me".

Fing brilliant there, sparky. Just mind boggling brilliant. Lolz.

Ill stick with my 'one track pinhead' as being on point. Have fun there TB4E.

OK genius, why don't you tell me all about myself?

Absolutely.

You rant and rave about everyone else's past, present, and all sorts of other rhetoric rich, fact thin garbage that you make up out of thin air.

The *millisecond* a comment equally as rude is directed back at you, you jump like youve been hit by an electric eel, and squeal "you dont jack **** about me".

All the while throwing the exact style of **** out in that manner like a dude hopped up on Mexican eight ball and throwing confetti out into the crowd in Times Square at midnite on New Year's.

Given that -- yeah, Im absolutely comfortable with my 'one track pinhead' comment to you.

Fuqn idiot, with me you get what you give, and you just described yourself perfectly. So.Much.Projection.

I guess you dont quite understand the hilarity in your 'make stuff up and sling it' mode when contrasted to your 'YOU DONT KNOW JACK ABOUT ME' shot out like youve been jabbed with an electric eel when something rolls your way.

You be you, My Friend.

And no, with you it sure ISNT 'you get what you give'. I really havent interacted with you -- that is until you jumped into a thread and started slobbering your 'Fuqn idiot' -style lines.

Not able to adduce cause and effect very well? Honestly, I dont give flip what you say outside your ranting garbage 7th grade **** to me. I guess it didnt enter that thickened occipital plate on the timing of stuff. Tends to happen to some.

Have a great day, night, wee My Friend. Or however long it is before you aim another mongloid rant my way.

Yeah, you're broken.

Hey Tanq, I'm not quoting all that word salad from Post #253 above.

1. You are malevolently disingenuous, Counselor. If they weren't trying to influence people to believe that the laptop could be bogus, then why the hell did they say anything at all?

They sure as hell weren't trying to convince anybody that the laptop was real.

From the House Judiciary Committee:

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the...med-hunter

2. The FBI knew the laptop was genuine BEFORE the letter went out on October 19, 2020.

From the same Committee:

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-...about-hack

(08-29-2024 08:00 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Hey Tanq, I'm not quoting all that word salad from Post #253 above.

1. You are malevolently disingenuous, Counselor.

Im impressed that you correctly denoted my comment on your exclusive use of tweets negatively, and then decided to go on with the above. <slow clap>. (as a side note, you might note I even omitted that snide aside kind of right at your response to me on it..... Just saying..... )

I wont focus on that. Ill do what you did not do, and actually answer your questions.

Quote: If they weren't trying to influence people to believe that the laptop could be bogus, then why the hell did they say anything at all?

To explicitly people that sometimes the initial viewpoint is *not* the correct one, and to not go off half-cocked. The way that some did with Russiagate, to our detriment, mind you.

Quote:They sure as hell weren't trying to convince anybody that the laptop was real.

And *what* they said is 'be suspicious'. Kind of what the mantra is on this board, funnily.

Quote:From the House Judiciary Committee:

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the...med-hunter

Can you point out in the first link what exactly is pertinent? All the article details is questioning the listed positions of some signers of the letter. And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China in our discussion here?

Quote:2. The FBI knew the laptop was genuine BEFORE the letter went out on October 19, 2020.

From the same Committee:

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-...about-hack

A few issues.

Who exactly in the FBI was noting the issues about the laptop in the FBI/Twitter conversation ?

The Facebook conversation?

Can you point to *any* evidence *when* the FBI made any determination from that post?

Can you point to *any* on the Congressional Record testimony as to that issue?

Sorry, nothing in your post really looks or seems determinative, aside from some unnamed person being referenced in a transcript.

Second, as to the drafters of the letter, can you point to *any* evidence that the drafters of the letter had such knowledge before the date of the letter? Not some unnamed person at the FBI that is being denoted in an oblique manner, mind you.

The issue isnt even what the FBI might have known, the issue at hand is the intent of the authors of the letter.

(08-29-2024 07:51 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 03:44 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 03:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  Oh. I forgot. You're doing the lawyer thing. This is where you say that they "had reason to believe it was russian disinfo", but they never said it was 100%. Just really likely. When they KNEW it was a lie.

When we say that you are a complete phony, this is what we're talking about. You are not to be taken seriously, as much as you may crave to be, more than anything else.

Have you read the letter? You keep avoiding that question.

Yes. Now, I do I get to read your post filled with legal gymnastics explaining it away?!? I hope so. I need another good laugh at you!

Glad you read it.

I guess you did not understand the parts, like -- "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement". Apparently not.

The worst they say is that they are "suspicious" of the issue.

But apparently in your mind that is them saying the laptop is disinformatiot.

Not a legal question at all. Merely one of reading basic English and the comprehension that comes from that reading.

Not 'legal gymnastics' at all. Just some nincompoop not necessarily understanding the message in the letter, and blanket repeating what it expressly does not say.

One thing I've learned in this life is that when I'm in the middle of a circle of people who are pointing at me and laughing at what I'm saying, I need to STFU and sit down.

Are you truly so dense as to not see that is exactly where you are right now? Or, are you so desperate for attention that you'll take even negative attention? If so, I'm genuinely sorry for you, if not then you're just a putz.

Nah, I really dont care if a bunch of half baked turd mushes are in circle and laughing thinking it cool to act and talk like Beavis and Butthead.

Some of them exclusively in that manner. Like you, My Friend. Have a good evening, good sir.

Tanq, too tired to debate the subject any more tonight. Maybe later.

But I think it's pretty obvious in the committee notes they are saying the FBI verified the laptop, and the 51 Intel guys knew it was real. I'm just not going to look at it again until later, if then. Neither of us is ever going to change his mind. I think it's clear. You won't.

Doesn't matter.

(08-29-2024 09:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq, too tired to debate the subject any more tonight. Maybe later.

But I think it's pretty obvious in the committee notes they are saying the FBI verified the laptop, and the 51 Intel guys knew it was real. I'm just not going to look at it again until later, if then. Neither of us is ever going to change his mind. I think it's clear. You won't.

Doesn't matter.

There may be other spots where the idea that FBI knew, *and* the authors knew, is supported.

There is nothing in there that indicates anything about the authors' knowledge (our subject, mind you).

And the items in the second link arent horribly specific about *who* and *when* those *who* at the FBI knew for sure. (which isnt horribly pertinent to the authors, you might note)

Those links really dont do that.

What a fing creep.

Trump quote, on the Arlington National Cemetery Staff:

Quote:'These are bad people we're dealing with,' he said of the Arlington National Cemetery staff.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...etery.html

You still whining about this?

(08-29-2024 11:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  You still whining about this?

Nope, a new current comment from your guy.

Again --- Trump, talking about the ANC staff:

Quote:'These are bad people we're dealing with'

Losers and suckers.

Yep, he's still whining.

He's been whining for months and months.

(08-29-2024 09:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq, too tired to debate the subject any more tonight. Maybe later.

But I think it's pretty obvious in the committee notes they are saying the FBI verified the laptop, and the 51 Intel guys knew it was real. I'm just not going to look at it again until later, if then. Neither of us is ever going to change his mind. I think it's clear. You won't.

Doesn't matter.

He knows where he errs. He just hates Trump that much. The big lie, you know. He would be doing the exact same thing as Jack Smith right now if he had been well known enough to get that gig.

Clarence is the lawyer in court who knows he’s on the losing side. The one that will pull out all the bullchit to win. But on top of all of that he’s just an asswhole. Besides, what’s a great lawyer doing here, on this little message board, trying to convince a bunch of laymen of his law prowess? Seems such a waste of billing hours to me.

(08-29-2024 11:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What a fing creep.

Trump quote, on the Arlington National Cemetery Staff:

Quote:'These are bad people we're dealing with,' he said of the Arlington National Cemetery staff.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...etery.html

Maybe they are bad people. I mean, we've got bad people in congress, the supreme court, the WH, FBI, DOJ, the media, & this message board. Maybe there are bad people at ANC.

(08-30-2024 10:37 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 11:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What a fing creep.

Trump quote, on the Arlington National Cemetery Staff:

Quote:'These are bad people we're dealing with,' he said of the Arlington National Cemetery staff.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...etery.html

Maybe they are bad people. I mean, we've got bad people in congress, the supreme court, the WH, FBI, DOJ, the media, & this message board. Maybe there are bad people at ANC.

According to these dufasses if they hate Trump to the point of psychosis they can’t be bad people.

(08-30-2024 10:40 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-30-2024 10:37 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 11:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What a fing creep.

Trump quote, on the Arlington National Cemetery Staff:

Quote:'These are bad people we're dealing with,' he said of the Arlington National Cemetery staff.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...etery.html

Maybe they are bad people. I mean, we've got bad people in congress, the supreme court, the WH, FBI, DOJ, the media, & this message board. Maybe there are bad people at ANC.

According to these dufasses if they hate Trump to the point of psychosis they can’t be bad people.

And if everyone else is the “bad” person then most likely they are not the problem.

(08-30-2024 10:37 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 11:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What a fing creep.

Trump quote, on the Arlington National Cemetery Staff:

Quote:'These are bad people we're dealing with,' he said of the Arlington National Cemetery staff.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...etery.html

Maybe they are bad people. I mean, we've got bad people in congress, the supreme court, the WH, FBI, DOJ, the media, & this message board. Maybe there are bad people at ANC.

Suckers and losers.

(08-30-2024 12:04 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(08-30-2024 10:40 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-30-2024 10:37 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-29-2024 11:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What a fing creep.

Trump quote, on the Arlington National Cemetery Staff:

Quote:'These are bad people we're dealing with,' he said of the Arlington National Cemetery staff.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...etery.html

Maybe they are bad people. I mean, we've got bad people in congress, the supreme court, the WH, FBI, DOJ, the media, & this message board. Maybe there are bad people at ANC.

According to these dufasses if they hate Trump to the point of psychosis they can’t be bad people.

And if everyone else is the “bad” person then most likely they are not the problem.

Even the local reporter who interviewed Trump last night was a "bad person". As is Rex Tillerson, Pompeo, Kelly, Milley, Bolton, Pence, Barr, Mattis, Esper, Haley, McMaster, DeVos, Chao, Bossert, Cobb, Farah Griffin, Matthews, Hutchinson, and I would guess about 5/6 of the WH staff from his tenure.

Now add the whole of the Arlington National Cemetery staff. Who woulda thunk.....

Add Kevin Carroll to that list. He served as a senior counselor to US secretary of homeland security John Kelly, and as a CIA and US army officer.

Here's a snippet of his opinion. But what does he know. He probably doesn't get it, after all what was in it for him?

Quote:trump sees the armed services as yet another entity to be misused for his personal benefit, damaged and then discarded just as he has with his bankrupt businesses, the evangelical Christian churches and the Republican party. Beyond that, his boorish statements and bad behavior regarding the military almost certainly come from a place of self-loathing. trump dodged the Vietnam war draft by claiming – probably falsely – to suffer from bone spurs. A gnawingly insecure man, trump is self-conscious of his lack of the virtues towards which the military strives: as the US army puts it, loyalty to the constitution, dutiful fulfillment of responsibilities, respect for others, selfless service to both the country and subordinates, honor, integrity and personal courage.

His poor form at Arlington this week therefore shocks but does not surprise, as the idea of serving others, much less giving one’s life for others, is anathema to trump. This attitude would be a sad commentary about any man, but ought to disqualify someone seeking to serve as commander-in-chief.

The trump campaign’s conduct at Arlington is shocking but not surprising

(08-30-2024 12:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Add Kevin Carroll to that list. He served as a senior counselor to US secretary of homeland security John Kelly, and as a CIA and US army officer.

Here's a snippet of his opinion. But what does he know. He probably doesn't get it, after all what was in it for him?

Quote:trump sees the armed services as yet another entity to be misused for his personal benefit, damaged and then discarded just as he has with his bankrupt businesses, the evangelical Christian churches and the Republican party. Beyond that, his boorish statements and bad behavior regarding the military almost certainly come from a place of self-loathing. trump dodged the Vietnam war draft by claiming – probably falsely – to suffer from bone spurs. A gnawingly insecure man, trump is self-conscious of his lack of the virtues towards which the military strives: as the US army puts it, loyalty to the constitution, dutiful fulfillment of responsibilities, respect for others, selfless service to both the country and subordinates, honor, integrity and personal courage.

His poor form at Arlington this week therefore shocks but does not surprise, as the idea of serving others, much less giving one’s life for others, is anathema to trump. This attitude would be a sad commentary about any man, but ought to disqualify someone seeking to serve as commander-in-chief.

The trump campaign’s conduct at Arlington is shocking but not surprising

Well, if a deep state guy wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian, then who am I to argue. I mean, he must (like you and Tanq) have all of the information and is just stating facts.