(11-06-2017 01:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:21 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 12:56 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 12:47 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Most well-read intelligent people would think that using about a Wikipedia article which has clear sources one can reference for a discussion on an internet messageboard is absolutely acceptable, and that someone complaining about said article without a specific complaint is clearly a troll without anything to add to the discussion.

It's got to be tough on you continually trying to catch me slipping up and thoroughly being rebuked time and time again.

Like many libs, you're very bright and also almost totally lacking in shame. I suspect it's genetic. Perhaps an extra hypocrite chromosome or something.

I have plenty of shame when the situation arises. For instance, when I'm wrong I will quickly apologize and correct myself as many users here can attest. But I'm not wrong here, and he's being a child, so I responded similarly.

You do a better job of supporting your beliefs than many libs I've seen here, I'll give ya that.

I just don't get all the breathlessness, indignation, and feigned national security fears about Trump campaign people having conversations with the Russians when it is as obvious as the nose on one's face that Hillary Clinton openly peddled her position as Sec of State to enrich herself and her family at the country's expense.

Actually, I do get it. (D)

You mean high ranking members of the Trump campaign actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

Does that really not matter to you?

Has anyone been charged with, indicted for, or convicted of, actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

A simple yes or no will do.

(11-06-2017 01:37 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:21 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 12:56 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Like many libs, you're very bright and also almost totally lacking in shame. I suspect it's genetic. Perhaps an extra hypocrite chromosome or something.

I have plenty of shame when the situation arises. For instance, when I'm wrong I will quickly apologize and correct myself as many users here can attest. But I'm not wrong here, and he's being a child, so I responded similarly.

You do a better job of supporting your beliefs than many libs I've seen here, I'll give ya that.

I just don't get all the breathlessness, indignation, and feigned national security fears about Trump campaign people having conversations with the Russians when it is as obvious as the nose on one's face that Hillary Clinton openly peddled her position as Sec of State to enrich herself and her family at the country's expense.

Actually, I do get it. (D)

You mean high ranking members of the Trump campaign actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

Does that really not matter to you?

Has anyone been charged with, indicted for, or convicted of, actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

A simple yes or no will do.

NO

But I don't think anyone would say that it didn't happen.

The issue now becomes whether or not they can prove it in court.

(11-06-2017 01:37 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:21 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 12:56 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Like many libs, you're very bright and also almost totally lacking in shame. I suspect it's genetic. Perhaps an extra hypocrite chromosome or something.

I have plenty of shame when the situation arises. For instance, when I'm wrong I will quickly apologize and correct myself as many users here can attest. But I'm not wrong here, and he's being a child, so I responded similarly.

You do a better job of supporting your beliefs than many libs I've seen here, I'll give ya that.

I just don't get all the breathlessness, indignation, and feigned national security fears about Trump campaign people having conversations with the Russians when it is as obvious as the nose on one's face that Hillary Clinton openly peddled her position as Sec of State to enrich herself and her family at the country's expense.

Actually, I do get it. (D)

You mean high ranking members of the Trump campaign actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

Does that really not matter to you?

Has anyone been charged with, indicted for, or convicted of, actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

A simple yes or no will do.

You don't seem nearly as concerned about the fact Hillary has not been charged with any crimes, why is that?

(11-06-2017 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:37 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:21 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I have plenty of shame when the situation arises. For instance, when I'm wrong I will quickly apologize and correct myself as many users here can attest. But I'm not wrong here, and he's being a child, so I responded similarly.

You do a better job of supporting your beliefs than many libs I've seen here, I'll give ya that.

I just don't get all the breathlessness, indignation, and feigned national security fears about Trump campaign people having conversations with the Russians when it is as obvious as the nose on one's face that Hillary Clinton openly peddled her position as Sec of State to enrich herself and her family at the country's expense.

Actually, I do get it. (D)

You mean high ranking members of the Trump campaign actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

Does that really not matter to you?

Has anyone been charged with, indicted for, or convicted of, actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

A simple yes or no will do.

NO

But I don't think anyone would say that it didn't happen.

The issue now becomes whether or not they can prove it in court.

The issue now is getting more people to turn, and gathering even more evidence. Flynn, Flynn Jr, and Kushner seem to be the next round of indictments from what I've read.

(11-06-2017 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:37 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Has anyone been charged with, indicted for, or convicted of, actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

A simple yes or no will do.

NO

But I don't think anyone would say that it didn't happen.

The issue now becomes whether or not they can prove it in court.

Prove it in court? Wouldn't someone first have to be charged with and indicted for the "crime" laid out by UCF?

(11-06-2017 02:01 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:37 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Has anyone been charged with, indicted for, or convicted of, actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

A simple yes or no will do.

NO

But I don't think anyone would say that it didn't happen.

The issue now becomes whether or not they can prove it in court.

Prove it in court? Wouldn't someone first have to be charged with and indicted for the "crime" laid out by UCF?

UCF? I don't know what crimes those are but people are being indicted.

(11-06-2017 01:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:37 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:21 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I have plenty of shame when the situation arises. For instance, when I'm wrong I will quickly apologize and correct myself as many users here can attest. But I'm not wrong here, and he's being a child, so I responded similarly.

You do a better job of supporting your beliefs than many libs I've seen here, I'll give ya that.

I just don't get all the breathlessness, indignation, and feigned national security fears about Trump campaign people having conversations with the Russians when it is as obvious as the nose on one's face that Hillary Clinton openly peddled her position as Sec of State to enrich herself and her family at the country's expense.

Actually, I do get it. (D)

You mean high ranking members of the Trump campaign actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

Does that really not matter to you?

Has anyone been charged with, indicted for, or convicted of, actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

A simple yes or no will do.

You don't seem nearly as concerned about the fact Hillary has not been charged with any crimes, why is that?

I've grown numb with the fact that DC insiders appear to be above the laws of common folks.

(11-06-2017 02:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 02:01 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:37 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Has anyone been charged with, indicted for, or convicted of, actively pursuing illegally procured harmful information on their political opponent while discussing possible changes to sanctions currently in place in return?

A simple yes or no will do.

NO

But I don't think anyone would say that it didn't happen.

The issue now becomes whether or not they can prove it in court.

Prove it in court? Wouldn't someone first have to be charged with and indicted for the "crime" laid out by UCF?

UCF? I don't know what crimes those are but people are being indicted.

As I understand the charges, Manafort is being charged with money laundering from a few years ago and Papadoc is charged with lying to the FBI.

Ham Sammiches?

(11-06-2017 01:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You don't seem nearly as concerned about the fact Hillary has not been charged with any crimes, why is that?

No, she wasn't charged with any crimes, but then there's this:

Quote:In a highly unusual public statement Tuesday morning, FBI director James Comey said Hillary Clinton and her aides may have violated the law in using a private email server when she was Secretary of State, but that their actions didn’t warrant criminal charges. In its year-long investigation of how government secrets got onto the server, Comey said, the FBI found “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” but he said, “we are expressing to [the] Justice [department] our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”

Over the course of the investigation, the agents found thousands of emails that contained information that should have been treated as government secrets, Comey said Tuesday, including eight messages that had Top Secret information in them. All those messages had been sent or received through unsecure, unclassified channels on Clinton’s private e-mail network. And while agents found no direct evidence that the network was hacked, the FBI thinks it is possible some “hostile actors” may have done so. That combination of facts led Comey to declare Tuesday that Clinton and her aides had been “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

http://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-...stigation/

Now, explain to me again why I should be all twisted off about a meeting on opponent dirt and sanctions between Trump people and the Ruskis when we let the above shyt slide.

(11-06-2017 02:14 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You don't seem nearly as concerned about the fact Hillary has not been charged with any crimes, why is that?

No, she wasn't charged with any crimes, but then there's this:

Quote:In a highly unusual public statement Tuesday morning, FBI director James Comey said Hillary Clinton and her aides may have violated the law in using a private email server when she was Secretary of State, but that their actions didn’t warrant criminal charges. In its year-long investigation of how government secrets got onto the server, Comey said, the FBI found “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” but he said, “we are expressing to [the] Justice [department] our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”

Over the course of the investigation, the agents found thousands of emails that contained information that should have been treated as government secrets, Comey said Tuesday, including eight messages that had Top Secret information in them. All those messages had been sent or received through unsecure, unclassified channels on Clinton’s private e-mail network. And while agents found no direct evidence that the network was hacked, the FBI thinks it is possible some “hostile actors” may have done so. That combination of facts led Comey to declare Tuesday that Clinton and her aides had been “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

http://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-...stigation/

Now, explain to me again why I should be all twisted off about a meeting on opponent dirt and sanctions between Trump people and the Ruskis when we let the above shyt slide.

Because one was bad judgement, possibly criminal, whereas the other is a concerted effort to work with a foreign government to alter the outcome of the presidential election while also discussing changing current sanctions? I don't know why you people keep bringing up these emails like they somehow negate what Trumps campaign did, or the danger of allowing candidates to openly court foreign governments intelligence agencies for support in an election.

(11-06-2017 03:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Because one was bad judgement, possibly criminal, whereas the other is a concerted effort to work with a foreign government to alter the outcome of the presidential election while also discussing changing current sanctions? I don't know why you people keep bringing up these emails like they somehow negate what Trumps campaign did, or the danger of allowing candidates to openly court foreign governments intelligence agencies for support in an election.

How do you KNOW this is what happened?

I'm guessing though that you somehow see a difference in the Hillary Campaign and the DNC's payment for dirt on Trump, which ultimately was shown to have originated with the same Russians, as being something different. Am I right?

Quote:In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person's performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values.

If I believed in alternate reality, I might think the Steele dossier had something to do with the Russians as well.

(11-06-2017 04:06 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  If I believed in alternate reality

If?!?!

(11-06-2017 04:01 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 03:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Because one was bad judgement, possibly criminal, whereas the other is a concerted effort to work with a foreign government to alter the outcome of the presidential election while also discussing changing current sanctions? I don't know why you people keep bringing up these emails like they somehow negate what Trumps campaign did, or the danger of allowing candidates to openly court foreign governments intelligence agencies for support in an election.

How do you KNOW this is what happened?

I'm guessing though that you somehow see a difference in the Hillary Campaign and the DNC's payment for dirt on Trump, which ultimately was shown to have originated with the same Russians, as being something different. Am I right?

Quote:In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person's performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values.

How do I know that? Because we have the emails and admission of Trump Jr doing that? You guys need to leave your little safe space more often.

(11-06-2017 06:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:01 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 03:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Because one was bad judgement, possibly criminal, whereas the other is a concerted effort to work with a foreign government to alter the outcome of the presidential election while also discussing changing current sanctions? I don't know why you people keep bringing up these emails like they somehow negate what Trumps campaign did, or the danger of allowing candidates to openly court foreign governments intelligence agencies for support in an election.

How do you KNOW this is what happened?

I'm guessing though that you somehow see a difference in the Hillary Campaign and the DNC's payment for dirt on Trump, which ultimately was shown to have originated with the same Russians, as being something different. Am I right?

Quote:In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person's performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values.

How do I know that? Because we have the emails and admission of Trump Jr doing that? You guys need to leave your little safe space more often.

Ah okay, I see what you did there..............to work with a foreign government to change the outcome of an election............is different than Hillary and the DNC paying a British spy to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials, which somehow is NOT working with a foreign government to change the outcome of an election. Not to mention that EVERY campaign these days loves to get dirt on their opponent from whatever source possible. It's what campaigns do.

UCF, the problem I'm having with all of this is that the "outrage" expressed by you and others on the subject appears feigned for the level of the supposed crimes committed and honestly is nothing compared to the deafening silence on the left's part while it was shown repeatedly over the decades that Hillary Clinton was a wheeler-dealer in all sorts of dirty businesses and influence peddling.

Show us where Trump broke some laws and we can discuss it. Comey's already said that Hillary et al probably broke laws (I think you did as well), but since no one decided to charge her and take her to trial, we just don't even mention it any longer.

Get me some proof of the horrendous, treasonous crimes committed by His Orangeness and I'll see if I can muster some outrage for ya. Until then, your schtick is getting old.

(11-06-2017 01:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't know why but when I saw this thread I immediately thought of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples.

What would Jesus have done?

He probably would have bowed.

Fit, answer me this... Why did Jesus wash their feet? why was that appropriate and what was he trying to communicate?

Please stop using God as some political foil to win arguments with.

(11-06-2017 04:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:06 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  If I believed in alternate reality

If?!?!

(11-06-2017 08:09 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:06 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  If I believed in alternate reality

If?!?!

I always imagined CB like this: