Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWith you, it's been an obsession.
I'll gladly take the risk of taking this issue too seriously rather than run the risk of taking it too lightly. The worst betrayal of those in uniform by a president of all time.
Unconstitutionally vague, so, no. All you're doing is ranting. I've provided a list earlier of all kinds of action Trump has taken against Russia.
Trump asked Russia into the G7 in the past couple of months. Trump announced plans to pull troops out of Germany in the past couple of weeks. Recency matters.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostYou're welcome to stay as long as you like. You helped open my eyes about RWNJs so I appreciate it.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostAm I being obnoxious if I point out that you didn't answer the question I was asking?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostDO, buddy, calling something a scandal doesn't make it a scandal. Horrific proportions or not. You are expressing opinions, and very biased ones at that.
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostWhat word do you think better describes the situation then? Are you really telling me you don't consider either of my two points as "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage"?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWith you, it's been an obsession.
Question answered.
Your "two points" are simply your own opinions.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYou asked what word better describes the situation - I had called you out for referring to it as a "scandal", and told you it was, for you, an obsession.
Question answered.
Your "two points" are simply your own opinions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostPoint one consists of two parts: 1) That the intelligence was made available to Trump on or before February 27th
THEN, based on that, you go off on Nutty Boulevard...
2) That after February 27th Trump publicly asked Russia to be readmitted to the G7.
At least one of those must be opinion and not a statement of fact. Which one(s)?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThat may or may not be true, and you keep ignoring (even though you posted it thinking it helped your case) "with medium confidence" and "falling short of near certainty".
And yes, it fell short of near certainty. You know what else fell short of near certainty? OBL's compound.
So? In your weird little world, this is supposed to be - what - a "reward" for the alleged "bounty"? That's just nutty.
Rewarding a country who encourages murder upon Americans is a betrayal in the extreme. Just like when SA is rewarded for the same.
It's you in your OBSESSION trying to build a case that the whole rest of the world seems to have abandoned.Last edited by DivineOb; 07-06-2020, 06:37 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostPelosi confirmed that the intelligence was in the PDB.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
As laid out here Ratfink is dishonestly representing the Russian bounty intelligence.
And that narrative would basically be a form of propaganda that would make Soviets blush. That’s because the gaps and discrepancies within the underlying intelligence — if accurately reported, including those contained in the SOCM — are basically an everyday occurrence when it comes to the process of analyzing sensitive intelligence on important national security topics and presenting policymakers with the information they need to make decisions and pursue courses of action. In other words, the characterizations above could be, in a narrow sense, accurate; but the takeaways that the White House intends to draw and disseminate from them could still be wildly misleading.
Much more in that in depth article. Funny how both CP and MM fell for Ratfink's spin.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostNo problem.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]46375[/ATTACH]
Plus, you already tried that in post... 554 or something.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
112 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
307 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
111 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
196 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
357 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment