And......its already been denied.

Prog filth tom, you can expect 9 neg rep points from now on everytime you post some fake crap.

This is your only warning

WHOOPS... Tom, you’re a joke.

(02-19-2020 08:14 PM)shere khan Wrote:  And......its already been denied.

Prog filth tom, you can expect 9 neg rep points from now on everytime you post some fake crap.

This is your only warning

the stupid fks wanted to play......JA!

#ourTurnBiatches

ignore what ya woke at your peril, mothertrucker.....

disclaimer: I neg rep, nor ignore anyone.....it's much more effective to toss their salad back in their feces when the obvious is req'd.....especially when on ignore.....lmmgdfao at tulips that tiptoe thru the stop 'sigh' [sic]

(02-19-2020 09:13 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  WHOOPS... Tom, you’re a joke.

hang around for the next few months.....it's going to get much mo' fonzies.....

They are truely this desperate. Sad.

OK, somebody help me out. It is my understanding that Assange publicly denied the Russian hack before this alleged "offer" took place. If that is the case, then this is a pretty normal litigation tactic. You've said something publicly, we want you to testify to that in court, so we will offer you something in return. It's really no different than a plea bargain, except in this case the potential witness is already on the record, just not in a form that makes compelling evidence.

The implication that the left seems to be trying to imply is that Assange was offered a pardon to lie. But if he was already on the record stating so before the time of any meeting, that argument pretty much falls flat.

I think I posted back when Assange first made the statement that if I were Trump, I would have offered him a pardon then in exchange for his agreeing to testify. If I didn't post it, I certainly thought it.

(02-20-2020 10:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, somebody help me out. It is my understanding that Assange publicly denied the Russian hack before this alleged "offer" took place. If that is the case, then this is a pretty normal litigation tactic. You've said something publicly, we want you to testify to that in court, so we will offer you something in return. It's really no different than a plea bargain, except in this case the potential witness is already on the record, just not in a form that makes compelling evidence.

The implication that the left seems to be trying to imply is that Assange was offered a pardon to lie. But if he was already on the record stating so before the time of any meeting, that argument pretty much falls flat.

I think I posted back when Assange first made the statement that if I were Trump, I would have offered him a pardon then in exchange for his agreeing to testify. If I didn't post it, I certainly thought it.

there's no other way to view such unless one has a bias going in....

again, Assange to date, has never lied, contradicted himself, or been proven wrong....that's tangible in any court of law....

Where is Tom to comment on his breaking news?

This is all fake news, lock the thread.

YAAAAAWWWWWWNNNNN!

(02-20-2020 10:16 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Where is Tom to comment on his breaking news?

Frantically searching MSNBC for his newest talking point.

(02-20-2020 10:16 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Where is Tom to comment on his breaking news?

I already did...in my first sentence in this thread

Quote:I'd like to see some more on this before buckling up.

Sorry, but I don't work for the Guardian. If they **** something up, how exactly is that my fault?

(02-20-2020 11:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 10:16 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Where is Tom to comment on his breaking news?

I already did...in my first sentence in this thread

Quote:I'd like to see some more on this before buckling up.

Sorry, but I don't work for the Guardian. If they **** something up, how exactly is that my fault?

You should know by now that 99% of the "BREAKING NEWS SCANDAL OMG" crap that comes out about Trump is horsesh*t.

You are a consumer and peddler of the fake news that your side claims doesn't exist.

(02-20-2020 11:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 10:16 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Where is Tom to comment on his breaking news?

I already did...in my first sentence in this thread

Quote:I'd like to see some more on this before buckling up.

Sorry, but I don't work for the Guardian. If they **** something up, how exactly is that my fault?

Says the guy who constantly questions other's sources?

YOU started the thread, not the Guardian. YOU thought it was newsworthy and even provided a follow-up as support.

YOU therefore own the backlash.

If you really doubted the information, you probably wouldn't have started the thread

(02-20-2020 11:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 10:16 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Where is Tom to comment on his breaking news?

I already did...in my first sentence in this thread

Quote:I'd like to see some more on this before buckling up.

Sorry, but I don't work for the Guardian. If they **** something up, how exactly is that my fault?

Becasue you religiously cite "unreliable sources" as justification for dismissing any reporting you dont like (Solomon for instance), but then are completely comfortable posting this kind of trash reporting when it offers some negative point of view about Trump. So basically---it reveals that you dont give a crap about reporting standards---what you really just want is an opportunity to say something negative about Trump/Republicans and need to manufacture false reasons to ignore information that doesnt support the fake news narrative you desperately want to be true.

(02-19-2020 07:42 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  It’s being reported that Trump wanted to offer Charles Manson a pardon because he didn’t actually kill anyone. Someone had to tell Trump that Manson had died. Trump immediately became highly irate and demanded to know where Richard Speck was.

Yeah, that's impeachable, get right on that Schiffy!

(02-20-2020 11:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 10:16 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Where is Tom to comment on his breaking news?

I already did...in my first sentence in this thread

Quote:I'd like to see some more on this before buckling up.

Sorry, but I don't work for the Guardian. If they **** something up, how exactly is that my fault?

In all honesty, you should know by now that stuff like this is going to be false. It woudl be prudent to not post it before it's known to be true, unless there are other motives in posting stuff like this.

(02-20-2020 12:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 11:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 10:16 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Where is Tom to comment on his breaking news?

I already did...in my first sentence in this thread

Quote:I'd like to see some more on this before buckling up.

Sorry, but I don't work for the Guardian. If they **** something up, how exactly is that my fault?

Says the guy who constantly questions other's sources?

YOU started the thread, not the Guardian. YOU thought it was newsworthy and even provided a follow-up as support.

YOU therefore own the backlash.

If you really doubted the information, you probably wouldn't have started the thread

A few things:

1. The Guardian isn't exactly WND or The Onion.
2. The follow-up post was only to show that in fact that Rohrabacher did meet with Assange.
3. Exactly how long is one supposed to wait to post anything before knowing whether the information provided in the story is true or not?
4. Lastly, again, I said from the top that I'd like to see more because I don't trust anything reportedly coming from Assange or his lawyers.

And spare me the questioning sources nonsense. You know full well how many times I've been chided over the years for posting stuff from HuffPo, Mother Jones, Salon, et. al.

(02-20-2020 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  A few things:

1. The Guardian isn't exactly WND or The Onion.
2. The follow-up post was only to show that in fact that Rohrabacher did meet with Assange.
3. Exactly how long is one supposed to wait to post anything before knowing whether the information provided in the story is true or not?
4. Lastly, again, I said from the top that I'd like to see more because I don't trust anything reportedly coming from Assange or his lawyers.

And spare me the questioning sources nonsense. You know full well how many times I've been chided over the years for posting stuff from HuffPo, Mother Jones, Salon, et. al.

1) The onion is comedy. It doesn't pretend to be true. You're implying that you've only questioned those two sources, which is false.
2) So you cared enough to research it, but somehow missed the obvious flaws?
3) As I suspect you know, it's about 'what' you choose to believe or not. This story is about Russia, which is now 3+ years old news. Let it GO, Tom.
4) You don't trust it, but you thought the 3 year long Federal investigation missed this and only the Guardian had it? Or that anyone still cared about unconfirmed reports about Trump, Russia and Assange? C'mon Tom. There are stupid people in the world, and a few on here... but don't try and attract them.

That's the problem with your response to it. That was your 'go-to' attack (attack the source) and it's now biting you in the butt. You intentionally gave up any pretense of 'the high ground' and now you're upset about it?

(02-20-2020 03:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  A few things:

1. The Guardian isn't exactly WND or The Onion.
2. The follow-up post was only to show that in fact that Rohrabacher did meet with Assange.
3. Exactly how long is one supposed to wait to post anything before knowing whether the information provided in the story is true or not?
4. Lastly, again, I said from the top that I'd like to see more because I don't trust anything reportedly coming from Assange or his lawyers.

And spare me the questioning sources nonsense. You know full well how many times I've been chided over the years for posting stuff from HuffPo, Mother Jones, Salon, et. al.

1) The onion is comedy. It doesn't pretend to be true. You're implying that you've only questioned those two sources, which is false.
2) So you cared enough to research it, but somehow missed the obvious flaws?
3) As I suspect you know, it's about 'what' you choose to believe or not. This story is about Russia, which is now 3+ years old news. Let it GO, Tom.
4) You don't trust it, but you thought the 3 year long Federal investigation missed this and only the Guardian had it? Or that anyone still cared about unconfirmed reports about Trump, Russia and Assange? C'mon Tom. There are stupid people in the world, and a few on here... but don't try and attract them.

That's the problem with your response to it. That was your 'go-to' attack (attack the source) and it's now biting you in the butt. You intentionally gave up any pretense of 'the high ground' and now you're upset about it?

Where did I say I was upset? I posted a story that the source may have been mistaken on what actually took place.

Clearly a first for this place.

But I have to take issue with saying the Onion is comedy...I think it's stupid as hell.