Inspector General Review of the Trump/Russia Investigation
sbenois said:
@janinedigi Replying to @paulsurovell @PublicOutcrySy and 2 others
Blocking you. I just can't read your idiocy anymore. It makes my blood boil at your ignorance. It's not about regime change. It's about saving civilian lives. If you can not see that, you are more moronic and complicit than those you support.
7:40 AM - 7 Jun 2019
Janine di Giovanni does great work exposing Israeli war crimes in Gaza and helping Gaza activists get that message out to the world. Why can't you join me in praising her?
paulsurovell said:
Klinker said:
Reading Paul's posts, I don't get the impression that he actually believes in "truth". The man practices a sort of intellectual nihilism that inevitably leads him down the rabbit holes of conspiracy.
Cite an "untruth" that I've posted.
You don't seem to care about truth or "untruth". From what I can see, for you, an idea is valid to the degree that it contradicts common consensus. The more absurd a concept is, the more credence you give it.
I have to admit that, when I first read your posts, I thought this sort of intellectual bankruptcy was astounding but, having seen it repeated ad nauseam, now it just bores me.
Klinker said:
paulsurovell said:
Klinker said:
Reading Paul's posts, I don't get the impression that he actually believes in "truth". The man practices a sort of intellectual nihilism that inevitably leads him down the rabbit holes of conspiracy.
Cite an "untruth" that I've posted.
You don't seem to care about truth or "untruth". From what I can see, for you, an idea is valid to the degree that it contradicts common consensus. The more absurd a concept is, the more credence you give it.
I have to admit that, when I first read your posts, I thought this sort of intellectual bankruptcy was astounding but, having seen it repeated ad nauseam, now it just bores me.
So now you say that what you mean by "untruth" is something that "contradicts the common consensus". That's the definition of group-think, which is dangerous, especially when your group relies on the censorship of the mainstream media.
paulsurovell said:
So now you say that what you mean by "untruth" is something that "contradicts the common consensus".
No, I am saying that you reject the common consensus without any regard for its validity. If someone published a poll saying that most Americans believe the world is round, you would insist that it is a cube and denounce the mainstream spherical conspiracy.
Klinker said:
paulsurovell said:
So now you say that what you mean by "untruth" is something that "contradicts the common consensus".
No, I am saying that you reject the common consensus without any regard for its validity. If someone published a poll saying that most Americans believe the world is round, you would insist that it is a cube and denounce the mainstream spherical conspiracy.
Once again, you can't give a single example to support your claim, which you have confirmed is in your imagination only.
With regard to the shape of the earth, I wouldn't say it's a cube, but I might recommend this article for a more accurate description than "it's round" -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/
jamie said:
And your wide attacks on the MSM aren’t groupthink ideas?
I've mentioned this before, but one major difference between followers of the MSM and dissenters from the MSM, is that the MSM censors dissenting views and information, while dissenting views generally start with the MSM views and information and explain why they think they are wrong.
I think what I've written and posted generally comports with this approach.
For example, take my OP on the collusion thread:
And my most-recent post on the collusion thread:
paulsurovell said:
For example, take my OP on the collusion thread:
You still believe this stuff? Could you call Dr. Hill and see what she think about that - oh yeah - she's a liar. lol I think she shut down a good deal of your narrative in about 2 paragraphs.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
For example, take my OP on the collusion thread:
You still believe this stuff? Could you call Dr. Hill and see what she think about that - oh yeah - she's a liar. lol I think she shut down a good deal of your narrative in about 2 paragraphs.
Really?
Did she say that Hillary didn't pay Steele (through Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Did she say that Ukrainian officials didn't help Chalupa get dirt on Manafort?
Edited to Add:
Is Hill going to shut down this?
Can you provide a link?
Do you ever think someone would go full defense mode heading into a summit?
jamie said:
Can you provide a link?
Do you ever think someone would go full defense mode heading into a summit?
Sure, but back to your earlier comment -- do you deny that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Here's the link to the Macron headline:
Nevermind - I see it. I highly recommend you read Crime in Progress so you can get why Trump and the Russian connection was looked into.
I'm trying to find this - did Trump ever say he didn't know who Sater was?
I really don't care who paid Fusion - glad there is someone out there trying to hold Trump to account.
Paul, I am not going to get into an argument with you, I was just trying to explain why your posts bore me.
jamie said:
Nevermind - I see it. I highly recommend you read Crime in Progress so you can get why Trump and the Russian connection was looked into.
I'm trying to find this - did Trump ever say he didn't know who Sater was?
He said something like he wouldn't recognize him if he was in the room.
jamie said:
I really don't care who paid Fusion - glad there is someone out there trying to hold Trump to account.
But they didn't hold him to account. They just packaged a bunch of lies that were debunked by Mueller and gave Trump a great weapon to energize his supporters.
Klinker said:
Paul, I am not going to get into an argument with you, I was just trying to explain why your posts bore me.
What matters is that you made an accusation about my truthfulness but it turns out you can't give a single example to back it up.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
Can you provide a link?
Do you ever think someone would go full defense mode heading into a summit?
Sure, but back to your earlier comment -- do you deny that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Here's the link to the Macron headline:
do you realize how much untruth is packed into this sentence?
do you deny that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Can you just please stop?
Please.Stop.
It's so embarrassing.
drummerboy said:
do you realize how much untruth is packed into this sentence?
do you deny that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Can you just please stop?
Please.Stop.
It's so embarrassing.
paul wanted examples of his repeating untruths. Here's the prime example. Probably been posted 100 times by now.
paulsurovell said:
Really?
Did she say that Hillary didn't pay Steele (through Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Did she say that Ukrainian officials didn't help Chalupa get dirt on Manafort?
Edited to Add:
Is Hill going to shut down this?
Dr. Hill's testimony shows how stupid and misleading those arguments are.
paulsurovell said:
Is Hill going to shut down this?
"Foreign Office sources suggested Mr Macron was trying to play to a domestic audience, as he is expected to urge allies to participate more in fighting the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the Sahel region of West Africa following the deaths of 13 French soldiers in a helicopter collision."
Also, it's 2019, and most people know not to use online headlines in order to support their arguments. One could call it "dishonest" to rely on the headline alone, just because you like it, instead of a more accurate, actual quote for the true meaning.
Here are some extended actual quotes of Macron (as translated, of course), which if one cares for actual facts can be found via the Google by any idiot (as demonstrated by the fact that I found them).
An unrepentant Macron said: “The questions I have asked are open questions, that we haven’t solved yet.”
He said: “Peace in Europe, the post-INF [intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty] situation, the relationship with Russia, the Turkey issue – who’s the enemy? So I say: as long as these questions are not resolved, let’s not negotiate about cost-sharing and burden-sharing or this or the other.”
Macron said he was glad he had lifted the lid on the ambiguities. “A wake-up call was necessary, I’m glad it was delivered and I’m glad everyone now thinks we should think about our strategic goals.”
"A wake-up call was necessary. I'm glad it was delivered, and I'm glad everyone now thinks we should rather think about our strategic goals," Macron told a joint news conference with Stoltenberg.
"Is our enemy today Russia, as I sometimes hear? Is it China? Is it the goal of NATO to designate them as enemies? I don't believe so. Our common enemy today is terrorism, which has hit each of our countries," he added.
“The questions I have asked are open questions, that we haven’t solved yet,” Macron said at a joint news conference with NATO’s secretary general.
“Peace in Europe, the post-INF (Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty) situation, the relationship with Russia, the Turkey issue, who’s the enemy? So I say: as long as these questions are not resolved, let’s not negotiate about cost-sharing and burden-sharing, or this or the other.”
“So we maybe needed a wake-up call. I’m glad it was delivered, and I’m glad everyone now thinks we should rather think about our strategic goals,” Macron said. “So I make absolutely no apology for having cleared up ambiguities.”
nohero said:
Dr. Hill's testimony shows how stupid and misleading those arguments are.
sbenois said:
Pauil can't help it. He's programmed to do these things.
Let's hope for Paul's sake they never meet, because that would make the public smack-down he got from war correspondent Janine DiGiovanni look like a love tap.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
Can you provide a link?
Do you ever think someone would go full defense mode heading into a summit?
Sure, but back to your earlier comment -- do you deny that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Here's the link to the Macron headline:
do you realize how much untruth is packed into this sentence?
do you deny that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Can you just please stop?
Please.Stop.
It's so embarrassing.
Please enlighten us as to what is "untrue" about that sentence.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Really?
Did she say that Hillary didn't pay Steele (through Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Did she say that Ukrainian officials didn't help Chalupa get dirt on Manafort?
Edited to Add:
Is Hill going to shut down this?
Dr. Hill's testimony shows how stupid and misleading those arguments are.
Please show us where Hill "rebutted" the fact that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
And likewise, where she "rebutted" the fact that DNC consultant Chalupa was helped by Ukrainian officials to get dirt on Manafort.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Is Hill going to shut down this?
"Foreign Office sources suggested Mr Macron was trying to play to a domestic audience, as he is expected to urge allies to participate more in fighting the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the Sahel region of West Africa following the deaths of 13 French soldiers in a helicopter collision."
Also, it's 2019, and most people know not to use online headlines in order to support their arguments. One could call it "dishonest" to rely on the headline alone, just because you like it, instead of a more accurate, actual quote for the true meaning.
Here are some extended actual quotes of Macron (as translated, of course), which if one cares for actual facts can be found via the Google by any idiot (as demonstrated by the fact that I found them).
An unrepentant Macron said: “The questions I have asked are open questions, that we haven’t solved yet.”
He said: “Peace in Europe, the post-INF [intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty] situation, the relationship with Russia, the Turkey issue – who’s the enemy? So I say: as long as these questions are not resolved, let’s not negotiate about cost-sharing and burden-sharing or this or the other.”
Macron said he was glad he had lifted the lid on the ambiguities. “A wake-up call was necessary, I’m glad it was delivered and I’m glad everyone now thinks we should think about our strategic goals.”"A wake-up call was necessary. I'm glad it was delivered, and I'm glad everyone now thinks we should rather think about our strategic goals," Macron told a joint news conference with Stoltenberg.
"Is our enemy today Russia, as I sometimes hear? Is it China? Is it the goal of NATO to designate them as enemies? I don't believe so. Our common enemy today is terrorism, which has hit each of our countries," he added.“The questions I have asked are open questions, that we haven’t solved yet,” Macron said at a joint news conference with NATO’s secretary general.
“Peace in Europe, the post-INF (Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty) situation, the relationship with Russia, the Turkey issue, who’s the enemy? So I say: as long as these questions are not resolved, let’s not negotiate about cost-sharing and burden-sharing, or this or the other.”
“So we maybe needed a wake-up call. I’m glad it was delivered, and I’m glad everyone now thinks we should rather think about our strategic goals,” Macron said. “So I make absolutely no apology for having cleared up ambiguities.”
From the passage you quoted:
Macron:
"Is our enemy today Russia, as I sometimes hear? Is it China? Is it the
goal of NATO to designate them as enemies? I don't believe so."
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
do you realize how much untruth is packed into this sentence?
do you deny that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Can you just please stop?
Please.Stop.
It's so embarrassing.
paul wanted examples of his repeating untruths. Here's the prime example. Probably been posted 100 times by now.
The statement is 100% factual.
Please explain why you disagree.
paulsurovell said:
Please show us where Hill "rebutted" the fact that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
And likewise, where she "rebutted" the fact that DNC consultant Chalupa was helped by Ukrainian officials to get dirt on Manafort.
She rebutted the interpretation and use of such factoids to smear the investigation of Russian interference, and of Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine. It's in her testimony.
paulsurovell said:
From the passage you quoted:
Macron:
"Is our enemy today Russia, as I sometimes hear? Is it China? Is it the
goal of NATO to designate them as enemies? I don't believe so."
If the topic of discussion is Russian interference, then Paul's use of "from the passage" excerpts is misleading.
If some other topic is the purpose of using the excerpt, then Paul can explain what that is.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Cite an "untruth" that I've posted.