I'm so sick of democrats blaming Russia for all their failings. They failed on their own. Anyway we shouldn't be demonizing Russia all the time. I'm not a fan of Russia and many of Russias faults exist in our country too but we should be aware by now that we can't change the world. I'm 100% for more dialogue with Russia. Transparent above board dialogue.

Yeah, it’s pretty pathetic.

I love how 2017 has been so far- one year WITHOUT Hillary, all the gropers and molesters and other vermin are being held up to the light.

The libtards are all wringing their hands, hoping that Trump gets busted for his actions, but he never really hid the fact that he is who he is. And he STILL got elected. And it STILL kills them.

Yay!
Let the scum in power fall from ALL sides.

2017 has been pretty AWESOME, as far as I’m concerned.

Sad when folks pass, but that’s part of life...


And North Korea has been an issue for decades.

And so has illegal immigration and the ridiculous debt.

And bacon is yummy.

Cry me a river.

[This message has been edited by TheDigitalAlchemist (edited 12-01-2017).]

Funny, because democrats and liberals are most like the Russia, they allegedly hate.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Funny, because democrats and liberals are most like the Russia, they allegedly hate.

And they were besties with the "Russian reset" and uranium one... all of a sudden they're the evil empire again, how convinient...

Joe

quote Originally posted by motoracer838: And they were besties with the "Russian reset" and uranium one... all of a sudden they're the evil empire again, how convinient... Joe

What they say to the masses that are @$$e$ don't mean a thing, what they say behind closed doors does.. They are still buddy buddy, it's all smoke and mirrors..
They also know, claiming Russia /trump link will get their sheep in a twist..
And sadly they were not wrong.. but what do we expect the "triggered"{tm} to do.

Anyone who thinks the race of conyers acussers invalidates their claims, does not value any equal measure of equality.

Liberals are only anti-capitalism when they are not the ones capitalizing.

[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 12-01-2017).]

quote Originally posted by jmclemore: Anyone who thinks the race of conyers acussers invalidates their claims, does not value any equal measure of equality. Liberals are only anti-capitalism when they are not the ones capitalizing.

The entire Conyers family is showing to be criminals. They destroyed Michigan by way of Coleman A. Young.

" CNN: White House claims Obama admin approved Flynn calls with Russian ambassador "

http://thehill.com/homenews...n-calls-with-russian

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-02-2017).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: " CNN: White House claims Obama admin approved Flynn calls with Russian ambassador " http://thehill.com/homenews...n-calls-with-russian

That is what I quoted. I hid nothing.

Edit: I did not link, but I even referenced the tabloid. I can only do so much work for you lefties. I sense that you believe that you have a gotcha moment on me.

[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 12-02-2017).]

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: That is what I quoted. I hid nothing.

of course not, just happened to "forget" this part, and "accidentally" left it out of your post..

quote James Clapper, who served as the Director of National Intelligence under Obama, said that the claim that the Obama administration authorized Flynn's contacts with Kislyak was "absurd," adding that the administration was concerned by the communications at the time.

Oh, the Liberals/Democrats are far worse than the Russians. They can just sit over there and watch the US self destruct. Another point to me is why is it supposedly illegal to talk to another country if you expect to/ or win an election ? Seems to me the deal making should start as soon as possible, getting ahead of the 8 ball sounds like a good idea. On that, dont I remember Obama telling Russia that they could expect more friendly relations when HE got elected or something to that effect ?

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: That is what I quoted. I hid nothing.

That's because just like in his "ai graded essay" post, he is assuming the entire forum is too stupid to recognize it and it's up to him to point it out.

[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 12-02-2017).]

quote Originally posted by Jonesy:

I still hid nothing, nor was I nefarious. Not in the least. I absolutely did not "forget" or "accidentally" do anything.

I have pointed out to you in the past that you are adding stuff to my posts. Once again, here we are. You can assume whatever you like. I cannot stop you from misreading my posts.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: That is what I quoted. I hid nothing. Edit: I did not link, but I even referenced the tabloid. I can only do so much work for you lefties. I sense that you believe that you have a gotcha moment on me.

Flynn had risen through the ranks of the armed services, starting long before Obama's first day as President. He was appointed as the director of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) on Obama's watch, but he was also forced out of the DIA, or perhaps "accepted a suggestion to resign from his post as the director of the DIA", during 2014.

I don't have that exact date, but even if it was at the very end of 2014, there is clearly some real separation between the last day when Flynn was serving under the Obama administration, and the first day that Flynn emerged as part of the Trump election campaign.

So, for anyone to say (as Pennock's Tony K just said) "Let us not forget that Flynn is Obama's pick," is a fairly misleading statement. True in a literal sense, but not particularly relevant. It's a Deflection.

Flynn was definitely not Obama's pick to become the Trump administration's National Security Advisor.

It's been widely reported that during his last days in office, President Obama offered two Helpful Hints to the President-elect.

1. Keep a close eye on North Korea
   
2. Do not select Mike Flynn as the next National Security Advisor

I have never seen it reported where anyone has said otherwise. I have never seen it reported that Trump or anyone speaking for Trump has contradicted this reporting.

Is the conspiratorial look on Obama's face in that photograph (from Tony K) because Obama thought that the best way to guarantee that Flynn would become the new National Security Advisor would be for him to advise President-elect Trump not to elevate Flynn to that position?

Now, that thought is really "out there."


Thanks to jmbishop for adding some more dumb to the conversation.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-02-2017).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: " CNN: White House claims Obama admin approved Flynn calls with Russian ambassador "

Come to think of it, rinselberg not only misquoted me, but he highlighted what he felt I said incorrectly, and misquoted the media.

If you and Jonesy are going to attempt a charge at me, then do so truthfully. There really is no defense against the lies of others. You will not paint me into a corner here.

No. I copied and pasted those exact words from The Hill. That is the banner statement or title for the reporting about this in The Hill.

I was not deflecting. I posted what I read this morning.

I am ****ing done with you Ronald. Absolutely trying to be civil to you, but you misquote me, put words into my mouth, and are just being an ass. Disappointing.

I think people need time to go back and process what has just been posted. One post coming in after another, almost like a Real Time Chat Room.

I thought that you (Tony K) were getting carried away with that report from The Hill. As if you were about to grasp at something that is only a straw. Anyone might be excused for misinterpreting the meaning of what you posted, because of the way that you packaged it. Crickets. Let's not forget that Flynn was Obama's pick. That photograph of Obama.

I was trying to act in your best interests. To keep you from trying to jump onboard what you thought was a waiting subway car, but was actually an unoccupied subway track. It would have been a nasty fall. Possibly even fatal.

"It's been widely reported...."

That makes it real, right?

🙄

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 12-02-2017).]

There were other warning signs about Mike Flynn that President-elect Trump and his transition team could have taken into account, before appointing General Flynn as the new White House National Security Adviser.

There was a letter about Mike Flynn, from Congressman Elijah Cummings. I think it was addressed directly to members of the Trump transition team.

The text of that letter, is, I believe, in the public domain. It might make for some interesting reading for you. Unless you are already familiar with it.

I don't feel like trying to find it online, at this moment. To paraphrase Tony Kania, "I can't do everything for you Righties."

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: That is what I quoted. I hid nothing. Edit: I did not link, but I even referenced the tabloid. I can only do so much work for you lefties. I sense that you believe that you have a gotcha moment on me.

Just like you already observed with Ronald LYING about the book "How the Right Lost It's Mind", a book that Ronald DIDN'T READ by an author he knows nothing about, Ronald is only concerned with one singular word in the headline of that article. The word "claimed".

He lied stating that a forum member he doesn't like was one of the reasons the aforementioned book was written, which is really pathetic and hypocritical coming from the same jackwipe that, more than once, tried to lecture all of us about *context*

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: jmbishop remains jmbishop [sarcasm]He has such insight into the workings of my mind. A veritable clinical psychologist.[/sarcasm] Just another example of why Charlie Sykes authored the recently published book title, How The Right Lost Its Mind.

Then we find out that not only does Ronald not know why the book was written, he doesn't even know what's in it.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: The book title, all by itself, is a message that I am glad to display here. I haven't read the book.

Like a lot of faux-intellectual leftist liars, Ronald only pays attention to book covers and headlines.

.......

By the way, I wouldn't mention James Clapper when it comes to the truth either, especially as he is the same Obama administration boot licker that LIED UNDER OATH to Congress back in March 2013

There is an operative term in the law for people who commit perjury like James Clapper: Falsus in uno, falsis in omnibus
(False in one, false in all).

That applies to Ronald as well.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Thanks to jmbishop for adding some more dumb to the conversation.

There is a huge difference between some occasional benign "dumb" by someone and the malicious deceit that Ronald brings.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-02-2017).]

I like what you all are talking about and all but can we talk about this to?

ABC News' Brian Ross suspended four weeks without pay for botched Flynn report

quote Brian Ross, a longtime investigative reporter at the network, reported Friday morning during a special report that Flynn had been directed to contact Russian officials by then-candidate Donald Trump during the presidential campaign.

And what happened as a result of this?

quote The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled more than 300 points following Ross' report, which was not matched by other major news organizations.

How many people lost money because of this guy? From what I saw, the DJIA hadn't recovered by the close of trading and I do not know if it has fully recovered yet at all. But this guy gave this story to ABC who ran with it based solely of this one report from this one guy and caused this. Will ABC or this reporter be held responsible for this? Doubtful as ABC at least threw the guy under the bus even though they themselves didn't wait for a confirming report. My guess is that this guy's report fit the agenda they wanted to report and ran with it like salivating dogs after a stuffed rabbit.

What was this correction?

quote Flynn prepared to testify that President-elect Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians *during the transition* -- initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria

Trump wasn't a candidate, he had already won the election and directed it during his transfer into office. Two completely different things.

Want to see some more fun antics? How about The View? What was their reaction?



Yeah... and people wonder why some feel there is a bias in the news and in Hollywood.

quote Originally posted by Khw: I like what you all are talking about and all but can we talk about this to? ABC News' Brian Ross suspended four weeks without pay for botched Flynn report Trump wasn't a candidate, he had already won the election and directed it during his transfer into office. Two completely different things.

There is a lot of very good, and non-hysterical legal analysis going on about this.

Some decent starting material here: http://www.nationalreview.c...russia-investigation

https://ntknetwork.com/leon...th-russian-contacts/


The left thinks that every little thing is a "gotcha moment".

This has been going on since the recount demands after the election and will probably only taper off after the midterm elections next year when the left is "shocked and surprised" once again.

Oh and by the way, if there were any lingering doubts about why Hillary Clinton wasn't indicted, this should help:

Mueller Removed Top Agent in Russia Inquiry Over Possible Anti-Trump Texts

"Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton had mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump’s campaign and Russia."

https://www.nytimes.com/201...nti-trump-texts.html

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-02-2017).]

quote Originally posted by randye: Just like you already observed with Ronald LYING about the book "How the Right Lost It's Mind", a book that Ronald DIDN'T READ by an author he knows nothing about, Ronald is only concerned with one singular word in the headline of that article. The word "claimed".

You just said a lot. But this part--about my only being concerned with the world "claimed", with respect to the report from The Hill that Tony Kania was talking about--this is total Bullshit.

I was not obsessing over the one word of "claimed", without considering the full context of that report (from The Hill) at the same time. And here's the proof. It's what I already said:


Flynn had risen through the ranks of the armed services, starting long before Obama's first day as President. He was appointed as the director of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) on Obama's watch, but he was also forced out of the DIA, or perhaps "accepted a suggestion to resign from his post as the director of the DIA", during 2014.

I don't have that exact date, but even if it was at the very end of 2014, there is clearly some real separation between the last day when Flynn was serving under the Obama administration, and the first day that Flynn emerged as part of the Trump election campaign.

So, for anyone to say (as Pennock's Tony K just said) "Let us not forget that Flynn is Obama's pick," is a fairly misleading statement. True in a literal sense, but not particularly relevant. It's a Deflection.

Flynn was definitely not Obama's pick to become the Trump administration's National Security Advisor.

It's been widely reported that during his last days in office, President Obama offered two Helpful Hints to the President-elect.

1. Keep a close eye on North Korea
   
2. Do not select Mike Flynn as the next National Security Advisor

I have never seen it reported where anyone has said otherwise. I have never seen it reported that Trump or anyone speaking for Trump has contradicted this reporting.

Is the conspiratorial look on Obama's face in that photograph (from Tony K) because Obama thought that the best way to guarantee that Flynn would become the new National Security Advisor would be for him to advise President-elect Trump not to elevate Flynn to that position?

Now, that thought is really "out there."
Click to show

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-02-2017).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: You just said a lot.

...and you just spewed another garrulous pile of steaming butt hurt.

You're still not an intellectual, but you are still a liar.

YOU are the one that posted the word "claimed" in large red font Ronald. Not me and not anyone else.

The obsession is manifestly all yours.

The bullshit is clearly all yours as well.

The LIES are still all yours.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-05-2017).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Thanks to jmbishop for adding some more dumb to the conversation.

I stated must you think we are stupid and posted a meme quoting your words, my point is proven.

quote Originally posted by jmbishop: I stated must you think we are stupid and posted a meme quoting your words, my point is proven.

You don't have a point. Not here. The randye might or might not have some valid points, but since he is way more about trying to insult me, than he is about making his points, I really don't care about any of his points. Even on the matter of this book title that I have used, How the Right Lost It's Mind (Charlie Sykes), he's the one that's being ridiculous about it.

I never said that I had read any of that book. When the randye called me out on that point, I said that I had been exposed to a fair amount of commentary from Charlie Sykes, in the form of his on-air interviews and guest appearances on CNN and MSNBC. I think that entitles me to connect some of what I disagree with, in terms of how a jmbishop or a randye presents himself, on this forum, with some of what I would expect to see being discussed in that book.

That's just an opinion about what I think connects this forum with that book, but I would have expected almost anyone to take it that way--as an opinion. I cannot (nor can anyone else) label every single opinion that I offer with an explicit declaration of This Is Only My Opinion. It's just not practical to carry on any kind of conversation in that way.

Unless the randye exhibits any capacity to make his points here with a modicum of restraint and courtesy, he is doing far more damage to this forum than any other single participant. I thought this was supposed to be a free-ranging discussion forum, not a Trump campaign rally. Am I mistaken about that?

I have consulted the Posting Guidelines, and the very first guideline is Keep It Civilized. Mr Bishop has been on the wrong side of that guideline recently, and the randye has completely shredded that guideline on every single occasion within recent memory when he has turned his conversation around something that I have posted, or something he has in his mind about me.

There's a big difference between someone (me) being Misinformed, and someone being a Liar.

No one can fairly say that I have told any lies about the Charlie Sykes book. I offered an opinion about it, in connection with this forum. It's an opinion that I am still pleased to express. Fully respecting the fact that I admit that I have not read even a single page of it. My opinion is based on what I have seen of Charlie Sykes on cable TV.

I've been kind of rude myself of late, especially towards randye, and even towards jmbishop (less so, I think), but I am only being Reactive. I thought it was time for a change. A time to transition from my longstanding policy of Strategic Patience towards an attitude that is more Proactive. Just to give it a try. Respecting that Insanity has been so famously described as repeating the same thing but expecting a different result.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-02-2017).]

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: I was not deflecting. I posted what I read this morning. I am ****ing done with you Ronald. Absolutely trying to be civil to you, but you misquote me, put words into my mouth, and are just being an ass. Disappointing.

I was never sure why anybody would want to try to have a conversation with anybody that thinks like that numbnut.

Now that's funny. Nice one, Mr Furgal.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I have consulted the Posting Guidelines, and the very first guideline is Keep It Civilized. Mr Bishop has been on the wrong side of that guideline recently, and the randye has completely shredded that guideline on every single occasion within recent memory when he has turned his conversation here around something that I have posted, or something he has in his mind about me.

Lol well, now we know even if you had read the book, you have poor reading comprehension skills. Also when referencing a book, there is an implication that you've read it.

You don't understand that rule or the rule that clearly tells you not to try to bypass the swear filter as well as various other rules.

[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 12-02-2017).]

The swear filter. Oh, please. I've just been referred to as a "jackwipe" (a few posts back, from randye) and you are bringing up the swear filter.

Is there something wrong with the swear filter? I have just been typing in a few instances of Bullshit and "ass". As in a "kissing of Al Gore's ass." A figurative expression, indeed. But I did not try to sneak anything past the swear filter. I just thought hey, let the filter do whatever it's supposed to do.

As far as this Book thing, it's a good thing that randye called me out on it. It gives me a chance to explain about how I have seen Charlie Sykes on cable television. But it's a bad thing that he called me out on it in a distinctly Uncivilized way. That's pretty much always a bad thing. I think I'd be hard put to think of an example where it would be a good thing, to violate the Keep It Civilized guideline, which as I already said (but sometimes repetition is helpful) is the first of the listed guidelines for this forum.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-02-2017).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I thought this was supposed to be a free-ranging discussion forum, not a Trump campaign rally. Am I mistaken about that? There's a big difference between someone (me) being Misinformed, and someone being a Liar. No one can fairly say that I have told any lies about the Charlie Sykes book.

Yes, "one" can absolutely say that you told LIES about the Sykes book.

You specifically said:

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: jmbishop remains jmbishop [sarcasm]He has such insight into the workings of my mind. A veritable clinical psychologist.[/sarcasm] Just another example of why Charlie Sykes authored the recently published book title, How The Right Lost Its Mind.

LIE 1. At no point did you ever claim that was your "opinion". You stated it as a objective "fact".

LIE 2. You intentionally tried to mislead people into believing that you had read the book by brandishing the title around. You did that TWICE Ronald.

LIE 3. You knew that you have no idea what is in the book and consequently you have no idea *why* the book was written, but that didn't stop you from making the claim that "jmbishop" was an "example" of why it was written.

LIE 4.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: This "Snowflake" crap is just the latest symptom of a condition that was explored in this recently published book: You are free to select (click) this thumbnail image to enlarge it.

We have already established the fact that you have no damn idea what is in that book, but that didn't stop you from telling everyone here what was supposedly "explored" in it.

You are serial, compulsive LIAR Ronald.

Falsus in uno, falsis in omnibus

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-02-2017).]

Randye didn't reference the rules, that would be you and I could(I'm not going to) quote many of the times you've broken the rules.

[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 12-02-2017).]

I'm not sure what that last one from jmbishop was about. But just to be on the safe said, I will say, you can BOTH kiss Al Gore's ass, as far I'm concerned.

There's never been such a thing as Discussion with randye, and there never will be.

But thanks, at least I have done my best to hold up my end of things, here. It's a pleasure to have been granted such an opportunity.

And don't forget, this is yet another clear example of how (in my opinion) The Right Has Lost Its Mind. Based on what I have seen on cable TV of Charlie Sykes. Everyone who has a book out talks about it some when they are on cable TV.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I have consulted the Posting Guidelines, and the very first guideline is Keep It Civilized. Mr Bishop has been on the wrong side of that guideline recently, and the randye has completely shredded that guideline on every single occasion within recent memory when he has turned his conversation around something that I have posted, or something he has in his mind about me.

Now THAT is seriously hypocritical and twisted CRAP coming from the very same jackwipe that STARTED AN ENTIRE THREAD to attack a forum member and claim it as a "beatdown".

You are sick Ronald. Get help.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I thought this was supposed to be a free-ranging discussion forum, not a Trump campaign rally. Am I mistaken about that?

As with nearly everything else, YES Ronald, you are 100% WRONG.

Calling you the LIAR that you are doesn't somehow magically make this a "Trump campaign rally", but your attempt to misdirect again is duly noted.

I have not mentioned the name of the President even once in this thread, although I'm sure that just to prove what a pedantic little prig your are, you will attempt to claim that the name Trump being mentioned in an article I referenced somehow equates to *me* mentioning his name.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: There's never been such a thing as Discussion with randye, and there never will be.

There is a reason for that Ronald.

I do not hold "discussions" with documented LIARS, and you are a LIAR.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-05-2017).]