The Media Industry

Garmel said:
First of all, no one was admonished.

Second of all:

"After a brief recess, the judge walked-back the incendiary question, saying "I wasn't suggesting he committed treason!"

"There are a lot of conspiracy theorists out there. I am not taking the elements of any of the uncharged offenses under consideration at the time of sentencing,” he said."

Read the second paragraph with the first one in mind. They are in the correct order. You're wrong.
Click to expand...

You're really trying to find a grain of sand to convince me of the existence of a beach. I mispoke above, it was Flynn that was admonished.
 
Seattle Husker said:
You're really trying to find a grain of sand to convince me of the existence of a beach. I mispoke above, it was Flynn that was admonished.
Click to expand...

This is what you said, "Then the judge admonished Flynn's lawyer for insinuating entrapment at which point the lawyer completely reversed course. That's what occurred even if inconvenient for the narrative one wants to believe."

Normally, I wouldn't care because all of us are wrong on occasion but your snark causes so many confrontations on here. You instigated this.
 
Seattle Husker said:
All the deep state conspiracy crap , silent coup, fraudulent investigation that will ultimately exonerate most that have been charged and end in many in the intelligence community facing charges. Mchammer has been espousing this for months starting with the Flynn was framed.

QAnon is a play to Trump supporters to bolster all his witch hunt claims inferring Trump is playing 4D Chess.
Click to expand...

So I'm not clear on the jump between believing that Obama and Hillary (or their underlings) conspired to spy on the Trump camp and interfere with the election and believing all the different theories out there floated by some internet group. I'm pretty sure I believed at least one or two things about this country that were also believed by either the far right or the far left. So I guess I'm linked to anyone with whom I share some belief? How does that work exactly? I believe just like the Westboro Baptist church that people who reject Jesus won't be saved, so does that mean that I need to be labeled a supporter of a hate group? I also think that people are littering the oceans with their trash and it needs to stop, so I guess I'm also in league with the eco-terrorist movement.

This whole thing where you get to condemn someone and belittle their idea by finding the most extreme group out there that shares the belief, point out other stuff they believe that's crazy, and make the case that it means the person you're attacking is just as crazy as that group. It's dishonest, but I guess that's how we have discussions now.

Seattle Husker said:
Do you believe Russia interfered in the 2016 election?
Click to expand...

This seems to be where the disconnect happens. You claim (and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt) to be honestly assuming that the Mueller probe was completely apolitical with the sole intent on uncovering Russian interference in the election. They - and let's be honest, most who have been watching this - are now saying that the vast majority of the point of this investigation was to try and tie this to the Trump campaign. (Which is why no one seems curious at all about the connections of Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign, and the Russians involved in these meetings.) It's not conspiracy theory crap to think that clearly there was political motivations from inside and outside the beltway to pin something on Trump - especially given that all the interference happened on Obama's watch, while he was dismissing it as a non-issue and telling Medvedev on a hot mike about all the flexibility he would have in a second term. So if some random tinfoil hat wearing guy thinks this is suspicious, that means that anyone who thinks it's suspicious must be crazy like him?

Seattle Husker said:
Hacking the DNC and attempted hack of voting apparatus (successfully accessed 2 FL county voter rolls) is pretty serious.
Click to expand...

What out of the investigation has allowed us to address any of this? Since apparently there has been no connection made to the Trump campaign and either of these things - in fact have they even shown there was any sort of coordination by anyone? (Let alone "collusion.")

I don't think anyone wants the Russians to hack voter roles or anything else. But is it ridiculous to point out that none of you cared one bit about this until Hillary lost? And that it doesn't seem like there was any serious effort to look anywhere outside of Trump's campaign for connections? Or are we just not hearing about those investigations? I know Mueller fingered a bunch of Russian organizations that don't care and will never stand trial. So are we celebrating that as some sort of win?
 
ProdigalHorn said:
So I'm not clear on the jump between believing that Obama and Hillary (or their underlings) conspired to spy on the Trump camp and interfere with the election and believing all the different theories out there floated by some internet group. I'm pretty sure I believed at least one or two things about this country that were also believed by either the far right or the far left. So I guess I'm linked to anyone with whom I share some belief? How does that work exactly? I believe just like the Westboro Baptist church that people who reject Jesus won't be saved, so does that mean that I need to be labeled a supporter of a hate group? I also think that people are littering the oceans with their trash and it needs to stop, so I guess I'm also in league with the eco-terrorist movement.

This whole thing where you get to condemn someone and belittle their idea by finding the most extreme group out there that shares the belief, point out other stuff they believe that's crazy, and make the case that it means the person you're attacking is just as crazy as that group. It's dishonest, but I guess that's how we have discussions now.



This seems to be where the disconnect happens. You claim (and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt) to be honestly assuming that the Mueller probe was completely apolitical with the sole intent on uncovering Russian interference in the election. They - and let's be honest, most who have been watching this - are now saying that the vast majority of the point of this investigation was to try and tie this to the Trump campaign. (Which is why no one seems curious at all about the connections of Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign, and the Russians involved in these meetings.) It's not conspiracy theory crap to think that clearly there was political motivations from inside and outside the beltway to pin something on Trump - especially given that all the interference happened on Obama's watch, while he was dismissing it as a non-issue and telling Medvedev on a hot mike about all the flexibility he would have in a second term. So if some random tinfoil hat wearing guy thinks this is suspicious, that means that anyone who thinks it's suspicious must be crazy like him?



What out of the investigation has allowed us to address any of this? Since apparently there has been no connection made to the Trump campaign and either of these things - in fact have they even shown there was any sort of coordination by anyone? (Let alone "collusion.")

I don't think anyone wants the Russians to hack voter roles or anything else. But is it ridiculous to point out that none of you cared one bit about this until Hillary lost? And that it doesn't seem like there was any serious effort to look anywhere outside of Trump's campaign for connections? Or are we just not hearing about those investigations? I know Mueller fingered a bunch of Russian organizations that don't care and will never stand trial. So are we celebrating that as some sort of win?
Click to expand...
Very nice Prodigal!
 
Seattle Husker said:
I'm still quaking in my boots at fear of the Flynn entrapment you promised. I missed your mea culpa on that one. Will you redeem yourself with the Papadopolous prediction or simply move on predicting other conspiracies without ever reflecting on previous claims?

I've had a few mea culpa myself over the 20yrs here but posters that admit they were wrong is rare on the West Mall.
Click to expand...
Flynn is still not sentenced. We know Flynn was slimed by the media and the IC accusing of him having an affair with a Russian spy (who is suing the media). The whole thing stinks.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
I'm still quaking in my boots at fear of the Flynn entrapment you promised. I missed your mea culpa on that one. Will you redeem yourself with the Papadopolous prediction or simply move on predicting other conspiracies without ever reflecting on previous claims?

I've had a few mea culpa myself over the 20yrs here but posters that admit they were wrong is rare on the West Mall.
Click to expand...
Read Barr’s interview (last half) regarding the investigation of the investigators. I will be proven right. Why else name a prosecutor who is probably 10x better than Mueller could dream of being?

William Barr interview: Read the full transcript
 
The self-described extremely stable genius POTUS typed "with Russia helping me to get elected" isn't twisting words.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Again, it's EXACTLY the same as the "My Muslim faith" - someone was denying something and worded their denial awkwardly. Obama was obviously trying to say "They were wrong about me having Muslim faith" and Trump was obviously trying to say "They were wrong about Russia helping me". Claiming otherwise makes no sense whatsoever - why would they intentionally admit to something that they were trying to deny? And if your claim is that it was accidental, then you just agreed with my point.
 
Republicans maybe haven't read the Bible but they have heard their pastor preach it. Democrats smoke pot and do mushrooms while they try to imagine what it says.
 
Monahorns said:
Republicans maybe haven't read the Bible but they have heard their pastor preach it. Democrats smoke pot and do mushrooms while they try to imagine what it says.
Click to expand...
My opinion of Dem/Rep on moral issues...We all come up short with respect to historical and biblical values from time to time...The republican/conservative response is to say the rules/values were right and I was wrong and/or weak and failed to live up to the standard and I need to do better. The democrat/liberal response is to say the rules/values must be wrong because I don't want, or can't, live up to them so we must change/ignore the rules.
 
Shooter was a gun show loving, jackboot fed hatin' Texan who loved govt conspiracies and sucked at life so he shot a revolving door of a Fed courthouse. Crazy? Naturally.
 
LongestHorn said:
Shooter was a gun show loving, jackboot fed hatin' Texan who loved govt conspiracies and sucked at life so he shot a revolving door of a Fed courthouse. Crazy? Naturally.
Click to expand...

More violence comes from left leaning Chicago in a weekend than what comes from crazed right-wingers in a year.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Yet the source and fuel of the violence couldn't be more different thus need to be treated as unique problems.
Click to expand...

Isn't the general source of 99.9% of all shootings due to being mentally unstable or at the very least out of touch with reality combined with anger toward something or someone specifically? There's really no difference other than demographics and location. Blame the out of control shooter not the "fuel".
 
“It’s really remarkable. Asian media (and people interviewed) are optimistic, thankful, happy, and overjoyed at the possibility of peace. US media is angry, pessimistic, and arguing for the goal of nuclear conflict.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top