Your entire belief system is based on politics instead of any logic. You even ignore clear logical contradictions in order to support your beliefs.
I find this funny, because since you've come on here, you've been the most partisan person I think I've ever run into on Pennocks except for that other guy who's name I keep forgetting that we all voted off. I've always prided myself on thinking critically... and I've changed my political ideologies over the past 2 decades. On the other hand, you're entire family has been Democrat since the Civil War. Just because YOU are clouded by your party-belief system, does not mean that everyone else lacks logic simply because you tell yourself that you're logical. You're ideologies are quite literally the opposite of logical.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I find this funny, because since you've come on here, you've been the most partisan person I think I've ever run into on Pennocks except for that other guy who's name I keep forgetting that we all voted off. I've always prided myself on thinking critically... and I've changed my political ideologies over the past 2 decades. On the other hand, you're entire family has been Democrat since the Civil War. Just because YOU are clouded by your party-belief system, does not mean that everyone else lacks logic simply because you tell yourself that you're logical. You're ideologies are quite literally the opposite of logical.
Here is the difference between me and you.
You make baseless subjective comments without any facts to back them up.
My allegations about your judgement being based on partisan politics is not subjective. It is based on the objective FACT that you only distrust the FBI when it finds something negative against Republicans, but consider the FBI reliable when they say something that supports the right.
The fact that you pride yourself on critical thinking is completely meaningless. Most people have positive opinions of themselves. That is why I don't waste everyone's time with my own subjective opinions. I go straight to the stuff I can back up with objective FACTS.
Originally posted by fredtoast: Here is the difference between me and you.
You make baseless subjective comments without any facts to back them up.
My allegations about your judgement being based on partisan politics is not subjective. It is based on the objective FACT that you only distrust the FBI when it finds something negative against Republicans, but consider the FBI reliable when they say something that supports the right.
Look, Fred... I'm going to try to be nice about it. You basically don't know very much outside your little world.
That's literally... JUST on the FISA 702... which they've used to repeatedly wiretap U.S. persons.
There are dozens, and dozens of other examples. Show me articles that say the FBI didn't violate the 702 FISA... go ahead. You're so silly it's comical...
EDIT: I trust the FBI to basically do anything that has absolutely NOTHING to do with politics. If it's even remotely political, the seniors in that organization assign very specific people to those tasks / assignments that are collectively in agreement ideologically.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-20-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Look, Fred... I'm going to try to be nice about it. You basically don't know very much outside your little world.
That's literally... JUST on the FISA 702... which they've used to repeatedly wiretap U.S. persons.
There are dozens, and dozens of other examples. Show me articles that say the FBI didn't violate the 702 FISA... go ahead. You're so silly it's comical...
EDIT: I trust the FBI to basically do anything that has absolutely NOTHING to do with politics. If it's even remotely political, the seniors in that organization assign very specific people to those tasks / assignments that are collectively in agreement ideologically.
None of this has to do with what I was talking about. Here is the post I am discussing.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: On the contrary. If you believe the FBI is willing to lie for Democrats, but in this case, they've actually stated there was no Russia Collussion, then this only emphasizes how much more truthful that is.
In this post you abandon all logic in order to accept contradictory positions.
Basically if someone asks you if the FBI can be believed you can't answer until they tell you the political party of the individual involved and the results of the investigation. if the FBI is clearing a Republican like Trump then they have to be believed, but if they are clearing a Democrat then they are lying. There is no clearer example of a person who abandons logic and makes all decisions based on party affiliation.
I admit that I am partisan, but I have not gone over the edge like you have. I have not abandoned logic and accepting contradictory positions just based on party affiliation. I believed the FBI when they said they did not have enough evidence to charge Trump with collusion, and I believe them when they say they don't have evidence to charge Joe Biden with any act of corruption. I don't flip my opinion based on party affiliation like you.
In this post you abandon all logic in order to accept contradictory positions.
This sentence should literally be applied to you. You state that FBI is trustworthy... and I show you FACT that they are not... and then you say it doesn't count.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This sentence should literally be applied to you. You state that FBI is trustworthy... and I show you FACT that they are not... and then you say it doesn't count.
Hahah... come on Fred... don't be ridiculous.
Improper investigative techniques have nothing to do with "politicizing" or "weaponizing" the FBI. The abuse of the FISA court was not used for criminal or political purposes. They were not fabricating false evidence. They were not hiding legitimate evidence. They were not trying to frame anyone. They were seeking the truth.
Here is an example of what I mean. I had a case where an officer improperly searched through school student records to try and solve a crime. That was wrong of him, but it was totally different from officers who plant false evidence or lie under oath. I would 100% believe the findings of the officer who accessed the school records. Even though he used improper techniques his investigation was seeking the truth. On the other hand I will never believe the ones who lie under oath or plant evidence.
That is how I feel about the FBI. They used improper techniques, but they were not trying to deceive.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-21-2023).]
Improper investigative techniques have nothing to do with "politicizing" or "weaponizing" the FBI. The abuse of the FISA court was not used for criminal or political purposes. They were not fabricating false evidence. They were not hiding legitimate evidence. They were not trying to frame anyone. They were seeking the truth.
Here is an example of what I mean. I had a case where an officer improperly searched through school student records to try and solve a crime. That was wrong of him, but it was totally different from officers who plant false evidence or lie under oath. I would 100% believe the findings of the officer who accessed the school records. Even though he used improper techniques his investigation was seeking the truth. On the other hand I will never believe the ones who lie under oath or plant evidence.
That is how I feel about the FBI. They used improper techniques, but they were not trying to deceive.
Pretty much skipping most of your response because it's all blah blah... but responding to the part where you say none of it was political...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Pretty much skipping most of your response because it's all blah blah... but responding to the part where you say none of it was political...
Another post from you that proves the limits of knowledge in the right-wing echo chamber. So let me educate you.
Rosen was only one of dozens of reporters that the FBI investigated regarding national security leaks. Only people who just hear one-side of the story would cite this as an example of a "politicized" investigation because it included ONE reporter from FoxNews.
And of course you are completely clueless of Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe being fired for allowing FBI officials to leak information to the media surrounding the Clinton Foundation investigation and then misleading investigators about the incident. No news like that ever entered your echo chamber.
Also clueless about DOJ inspector General Michael E. Horowitz report regarding the investigation into misconduct at the DOJ and FBI over its probe of Hillary Clinton's private email server. Horowitz faulted James Comey, FBI Director at the time of the email server investigation, for deviating from bureau and Justice Department protocol, which damaged the agencies’ image of impartiality, according to the watchdog report.
Comey handed the 2016 election to Trump by opening up the Hillary email investigation 10 days before the election and then clearing her after the election.
You really need to find some way to get some balance in your sources of information.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-22-2023).]
Another post from you that proves the limits of knowledge in the right-wing echo chamber. So let me educate you.
Rosen was only one of dozens of reporters that the FBI investigated regarding national security leaks. Only people who just hear one-side of the story would cite this as an example of a "politicized" investigation because it included ONE reporter from FoxNews.
And of course you are completely clueless of Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe being fired for allowing FBI officials to leak information to the media surrounding the Clinton Foundation investigation and then misleading investigators about the incident. No news like that ever entered your echo chamber.
Also clueless about DOJ inspector General Michael E. Horowitz report regarding the investigation into misconduct at the DOJ and FBI over its probe of Hillary Clinton's private email server. Horowitz faulted James Comey, FBI Director at the time of the email server investigation, for deviating from bureau and Justice Department protocol, which damaged the agencies’ image of impartiality, according to the watchdog report.
Comey handed the 2016 election to Trump by opening up the Hillary email investigation 10 days before the election and then clearing her after the election.
You really need to find some way to get some balance in your sources of information.
Translation ... you're right Todd, this is all an example of FBI being political, but I don't like your answers because it doesn't fit my narrative, so let me say some stuff that's irrelevant.
Communications records indicate Weiss was preparing to close his years-long investigation, during which he’d inexplicably allowed statues of limitations to expire on what people familiar with the probe say were clear-cut felonies, to end without so much as a single guilty plea from Hunter Biden. On anything. He would have faced no justice on his tax evasion crimes, or the open-and-shut gun felony, or any possible FARA violations and other illegal activity that may have arisen over the course of the process. A total walk. Only when IRS agents blew the whistle on how the investigation was being handled, alleging special treatment and improper interference, did Weiss “suddenly” decide that some sort of guilty plea would be required. This strongly points to a thoroughly and unacceptably politicized process.
Shapley and another IRS employee, Joe Ziegler, have testified to Congress that there was a pattern of “slow-walking investigative steps” and delaying enforcement actions in the Hunter Biden case, including during the Trump administration, in the months before the 2020 election.
Translation ... you're right Todd, this is all an example of FBI being political, but I don't like your answers because it doesn't fit my narrative, so let me say some stuff that's irrelevant.
Sorry you don't get the point, but it is really quite simple.
I agree that the FBI sometimes oversteps its boundaries and uses improper investigative techniques. But since I see them do it against BOTH SIDES, I don't consider their motives to be "political."
How does that "not fit my narrative"?
How is it "irrelevant"?
I suggest that next time you wish to comment on one of my posts you read it all instead of "Skipping the rest because it is all blah blah". It might keep you from looking so clueless when you try to answer.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-22-2023).]
Communications records indicate Weiss was preparing to close his years-long investigation, during which he’d inexplicably allowed statues of limitations to expire on what people familiar with the probe say were clear-cut felonies, to end without so much as a single guilty plea from Hunter Biden. On anything. He would have faced no justice on his tax evasion crimes, or the open-and-shut gun felony, or any possible FARA violations and other illegal activity that may have arisen over the course of the process. A total walk. Only when IRS agents blew the whistle on how the investigation was being handled, alleging special treatment and improper interference, did Weiss “suddenly” decide that some sort of guilty plea would be required. This strongly points to a thoroughly and unacceptably politicized process.
.
This story is nothing but right-wing spin. A perfect example of the type of information you rely on in the echo chamber.
First of all if Weiss wanted to dismiss all charges against Hunter he would not have required a judges signature. So while the the agreement might not have required a guilty plea, it would have involved diversion which would have required Hunter to complete certain requirements and serve a period of probation. That was what he was going to do on the gun charge all along. Completly different from what this story tries to claim.
They also claimed that Weiss changed his mind "within days" but it was actually almost a month from the time Shapley testified (May 26) to the time the deal with Hunter was announced June 20.
It is crazy how the right was first claiming that Hunter was getting a special "sweetheart deal" on June 20, but now they have reversed course completely and are claiming that he LOST the special sweetheart deal in May. So which is it? Seems like another classic case of Republicans doing mental gymnastics to justify accepting two contradictory positions as both being true.
This story is nothing but right-wing spin. A perfect example of the type of information you rely on in the echo chamber.
First of all if Weiss wanted to dismiss all charges against Hunter he would not have required a judges signature. So while the the agreement might not have required a guilty plea, it would have involved diversion which would have required Hunter to complete certain requirements and serve a period of probation. That was what he was going to do on the gun charge all along. Completly different from what this story tries to claim.
They also claimed that Weiss changed his mind "within days" but it was actually almost a month from the time Shapley testified (May 26) to the time the deal with Hunter was announced June 20.
It is crazy how the right was first claiming that Hunter was getting a special "sweetheart deal" on June 20, but now they have reversed course completely and are claiming that he LOST the special sweetheart deal in May. So which is it? Seems like another classic case of Republicans doing mental gymnastics to justify accepting two contradictory positions as both being true.
Translation, "blah blah blah, why do you keep coming up with articles that prove me wrong?"
Translation, "blah blah blah, why do you keep coming up with articles that prove me wrong?"
This tactic does not really work when you are actually engaged in a debate with someone. It is only effective when someon drops in out of the blue and makes comments that are just personal insults instead of addressing the topic of the thread.
Please explain how you possibly think that you proved me wrong by posting examples of FBI misconduct when I have already admitted that the FBI is guilty of misconduct? How can you not even understand what I am saying? I feel like I am debating a small child.
File photo. Ty Cobb was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, 1981–86. He has been a partner at Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C. From July 2017 until May 2018 he was a member of the Trump administration's legal team. He is not currently representing Donald Trump in any litigation.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-05-2023).]
In recognition of the forum's compelling public interest in this case, I have copied the text of the report in its entirety.
quote
A Mar-a-Lago IT worker struck a cooperation deal with prosecutors investigating former President Trump’s handling of classified records at his Florida home, according to a filing from his former attorney.
It was already known Yuscil Taveras had flipped in the case after prosecutors working with special counsel Jack Smith pushed the IT worker to speak with an outside attorney.
But the filing from his former attorney makes explicit that Taveras will not face prosecution on perjury charges after initially giving false information to investigators.
The filing from attorney Stanley Woodward comes as prosecutors are again asking the court to hold a so-called Garcia hearing to evaluate his representation of Walt Nauta, Trump’s co-defendant in the case.
Taveras — whose testimony led to a superseding indictment accusing Trump, Nauta and the Mar-a-Lago property manager of attempting to delete security footage at the property — is expected to testify in the case.
Woodward, however, has argued his testimony should be barred, complaining about Justice Department dealings with Taveras.
Woodward wrote in the filing that he played “no role” in the Taveras decision, and he lashed out at the Justice Department (DOJ) for offering immunity only once the IT worker consulted with a court-appointed public defender.
“It is telling that the Non-Prosecution Agreement it ultimately offered Trump Employee 4 was not offered before the District Court had agreed to appoint ‘conflict counsel,’” Woodward wrote, using the identifier DOJ assigned Taveras.
Woodward, whose services have been paid for by Trump, is battling an effort by the Justice Department to hold a similar hearing with Nauta.
Prosecutors are likewise seeking a Garcia hearing with Carlos De Oliveira, the third co-defendant in the Mar-a-Lago case.
You know all. You could have used the "search" function and see all of your posts. Did you thank rinselberg for bringing up this old topic?
What did [fredtoast] do to get banned? He acted like you.
The forum search function does not include the Politics & Religion section. You cannot select the Politics & Religion section as an option, and searching of All Active Forums does not search the Politics & Religion section. I have never PM'd Cliff Pennock about this. I've just tried to live with it. It's challenging to live this way, but I've made it this far.
Former forum member fredtoast was banned because other forum members used the rating system to "neg" him. I thought it was ridiculous, but according to the "grapevine," forum member fredtoast was too brash and too abrasive in arguing his points. Or maybe just too persistent. The people who "negged" him would likely say that he was not just persistent, but insistent.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-18-2024).]
Originally posted by cliffw: What did he do to get banned ? He acted like you.
What exactly d you mean? I don't post misinformation and I post way fewer personal insults than most of you.
I do see that in this specific thread that, like me, he was able to see BOTH SIDES of the issue. He could see that the FBI had acted improperly regarding BOTH political parties.
Does being able to see both sides really get you banned?
Originally posted by BingB: What exactly do you mean? I don't post misinformation and I post way fewer personal insults than most of you.
That's two things at once.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: I do see that in this specific thread that, like me, he was able to see BOTH SIDES of the issue. He could see that the FBI had acted improperly regarding BOTH political parties.
Also two things at once.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Does being able to see both sides really get you banned?
Yet again, two things at once.
"TWO THINGS AT ONCE"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-03-2024).]
Ever wonder about the history of Mar-a-Lago? It's a rich and vibrant tapestry (so to speak) that goes all the way back to 1923, when the construction of the estate first commenced. Trump is not the only famous person to be connected with Mar-a-Lago—far from it!
By the way, what do you think of the speculation that Team Trump isn't all that negative about the idea of the Mar-a-Lago documents case going to trial, even before the presidential election in early November, because that would provide another obstacle to the 2020 election interference case against him going to trial before the election. It's not like there can be TWO THINGS AT ONCE, when it comes to criminal trials.
Even if you imagine the Mar-a-Lago documents case resulting in a felony conviction of Donald Trump before the election, what's the worst that you could imagine the famously Trump-friendly federal judge Aileen Cannon coming up with in the way of a sentence for the 45th President of the United States? A weekend confined to Mar-a-Lago under house arrest? A day of community service in Palm Beach with the former president clad in an orange jumpsuit and a matching orange MAGA cap and equipped with tools to deal with any litter that might be visible at one of the beaches or parks? A ludicrously small monetary fine? Having Trump write out an apology letter by hand? Making Trump agree not to post anything on his Twitter-like "Truth" social media platform for 48 consecutive hours?
What if Trump were sentenced to put on wading boots and retrieve golf balls from the water hazards at the Trump International Golf Club West Palm Beach? The Secret Service could wade in first, to deal with any lurking alligators.
Better that, from Trump's perspective, than being convicted on the federal election interference case which would be tried in the District of Columbia, and then being sentenced by Judge Tanya Chutkan before the election in the fall.
What do you think?
------------------ Viva la revolución del 15 de agosto
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-03-2024).]
Protestants from slaveholding states settled in northern Mexico where slavery was illegal and you had to be a Catholic to own property. The settlers all claimed they had converted to Catholicism and their slaves were just indentured servants.
Once they got enough settlers, they decide that they wanted to be Protestant slave owners again so they went to war over "freedom".
BingB may have overshot a small ways, using descriptors like "all" instead of "many" or "most," but he is not posting misinformation about the early history of Texas.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it:
quote
Many Americans who migrated to Texas at the invitation of the Mexican government did not completely shed their identity or loyalty to the United States. They brought American traditions and expectations with them (including, for many, the right to own slaves). For instance, the majority of these new settlers were Protestant, and though they were not required to attend the Catholic mass, Mexico’s prohibition on the public practice of other religions upset them and they routinely ignored it.
Accustomed to representative democracy, jury trials, and the defendant’s right to appear before a judge, the Anglo-American settlers in Texas also disliked the Mexican legal system, which provided for an initial hearing by an alcalde, an administrator who often combined the duties of mayor, judge, and law enforcement officer. The alcalde sent a written record of the proceeding to a judge in Saltillo, the state capital, who decided the outcome. Settlers also resented that at most two Texas representatives were allowed in the state legislature.
Their greatest source of discontent, though, was the Mexican government’s 1829 abolition of slavery. Most American settlers were from southern states, and many had brought slaves with them. Mexico tried to accommodate them by maintaining the fiction that the slaves were indentured servants. But American slaveholders in Texas distrusted the Mexican government and wanted Texas to be a new U.S. slave state. The dislike of most for Roman Catholicism (the prevailing religion of Mexico) and a widely held belief in American racial superiority led them generally to regard Mexicans as dishonest, ignorant, and backward.
Protestants from slaveholding states settled in northern Mexico where slavery was illegal and you had to be a Catholic to own property. The settlers all claimed they had converted to Catholicism and their slaves were just indentured servants.
Once they got enough settlers, they decide that they wanted to be Protestant slave owners again so they went to war over "freedom".
You do not see both sides and you do insult.
I don't see any misinformation or insults there, Cliff.
Could you point them out for me? What is your opinion on what caused the Texas war for independence?
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 03-04-2024).]
Judge refuses to dismiss case based on Trumps claim that he had unlimited authority to decide which records he could take or keep in his possession. Judge did not say that he could not make that argument at trial, but it was not a basis for dismissal as a matter of law.
As I have said before. Trump will probably get in more trouble for trying to hide these documents and lie about having them than he would for just possessing them. And if he really did think he had the authority to possess them he would not have tried to hide them or lie about having them.
