FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe fired

[carpedm9587]

The fact that you only apply this to the left explains quite a lot...

My point exactly...

MM seems to feel the right can do no wrong, and the left can only do wrong.

That tells us a great deal about MM.

[Mountain Man]

I didn't just read this blog, MM. Unlike you, I read across the entire political spectrum - from Brietbart/Blaze to Mother Jones/Jezebel (though I spend far less time on the faer right and left than I sepnd on the more centrist sites). I think I'm a bit better at seeing "talking points" (from right OR left) than you will probably ever concede.

And yet you presented the Lawfare blog, with its soft-sell conspiracy theory peddling, as being particularly "balanced" and "highly accurate". Now it seems like you're suddenly trying to distance yourself from it after I pointed out how they quietly suckered you in to buying into the latest liberal talking point.

[carpedm9587]

And yet you presented the Lawfare blog, with its soft-sell conspiracy theory peddling, as being particularly "balanced" and "highly accurate". Now it seems like you're suddenly trying to distance yourself from it after I pointed out how they quietly suckered you in to buying into the latest liberal talking point.

Actually - I found the blog rather well balanced. I'm not sure how you think I "distanced myself."

I offered it here as a reasonably well-balanced view. I continue to see it that way, and suggest others read it.

[Mountain Man]

The fact that you only apply this to the left explains quite a lot...

Gotta pay attention to context, you doofus. We were explicitly discussing "left-leaning" sources.

[myth]

And frankly, the idea that they set up a meeting on the tarmac to do a shady, let alone carefully coordinated a meeting, as if neither of them had phones, would embarrass Alex Jones.

Phones can be tapped and hacked. Emails and text messages create written documentation that can be copied or intercepted. Ever wonder why the security conscious insist on face-to-face meetings for sensitive topics? Think of Edward Snowden and his meetings with reporters. Additionally, a phone call creates a record which may be discovered, and would have looked suspicious. A phone call on a burner would look even more suspicious, if it was ever linked to either of them (and yes, I'm aware of multiple cases where this has been done before).

However, an in-person meeting which appears on the surface to be coincidence offers the opportunity for plausible deniability of foul play -- essentially, doing the met in person gives them the opportunity to provide the excuse you're using. When you play the game at their level, you can do something that looks stupid and then use that as a defense later: "I'm way too smart to do something stupid like that if I was doing something wrong, so why would I?"

I may be wrong here, but it's the assessment I've made with the limited information that's available in the public sphere.

[Mountain Man]

Actually - I found the blog rather well balanced. I'm not sure how you think I "distanced myself."

I offered it here as a reasonably well-balanced view. I continue to see it that way, and suggest others read it.

Because after I pointed out their sleight-of-hand, you suddenly started promoting your credentials as a "citizen of the media world". I just found it a curious deflection.

[carpedm9587]

Because after I pointed out their sleight-of-hand, you suddenly started promoting your credentials as a "citizen of the media world". I just found it a curious deflection.

You are seeing things, MM....

[Mountain Man]

My point exactly...

MM seems to feel the right can do no wrong, and the left can only do wrong.

That tells us a great deal about MM.

Not nearly as much as tells us about your inability to understand the context in which a comment is made. We were explicitly discussing the liberal media.

[Mountain Man]

You are seeing things, MM....

You're right. I am seeing things. Or more accurately seeing through you.

[Charles]

Gotta pay attention to context, you doofus. We were explicitly discussing "left-leaning" sources.

Which by no means rules out the possibility that you could present it as a general principle if you wanted to present it and apply it as such. In fact that is the way you usually present general principles.

[carpedm9587]

Not nearly as much as tells us about your inability to understand the context in which a comment is made. We were explicitly discussing the liberal media.

Actually - I wasn't. I was pointing to a relatively centrist source. Of course, when you are far enough to the right, everything looks "liberal," so I guess I can understand your confusion...

[carpedm9587]

You're right. I am seeing things. Or more accurately seeing through you.

Right!



(is there a sarcasm emoji for the sarcastically impaired? )

[carpedm9587]

OK - I confess. I am trolling MM just a bit. But he's so EASY to troll.

(I'll stop now.... apologies MM.... but I'm guessing you're writing your next response at the same time I type this... )

[Mountain Man]

Actually - I wasn't. I was pointing to a realtively centrist source. Of course, when you are far enough to the right, everything looks "liberal," so I guess I can understand your confusion...

I guess "left-leaning" is the new centrist.

The problem with describing something as "left-leaning" is that the phrase deliberately obscures just how far to the left they really lean.

[Mountain Man]

OK - I confess. I am trolling MM just a bit. But he's so EASY to troll.

I'm reminded of this:

troll censored.jpg