Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I’m just asking you to support your statement. You haven’t done it yet, and saying that two authors think that there is a 50/50 chance of something is an example of their opinion of the odds. 

Just because some moron thinks that there is a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor with no basement, does not make it a fact.  Opinion is not fact, unless it is supported.  For example, my opinion that you are a rampant bullshitter is supported on these pages on a nearly daily basis, enough that it is arguably a fact (but that’s just my opinion).  

Isikoff and Corn may be right, but they don’t know. You made a statement that you cannot support. Again. 

Fuck me...It's not  Isikoff and Corn's opinion, it's what they report, which is that Steele himself thinks the probability that the sex claims in the dossier are true is about 50-50.

As reported in Vox

"However, there are also many reasons to think the pee tape story could be complete bullshit.

For one, we have actually learned more about Steele’s sourcing for the tale, and it doesn’t inspire a ton of confidence. Then, of course, there was the revelation that Steele’s research was ultimately funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, which raises some obvious questions about the project’s objectivity.

Perhaps most revealingly, though, even Steele and his allies have confessed some doubts about the “pee tape” tale to reporters they trust — a new book claims that Steele’s business partner says his dossier’s claims were “not meant to be definitive,” and that Steele himself has said there’s only a “fifty-fifty” chance this particular claim is correct. Yet still, we’re talking about it, once again".

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/15/17233994/comey-interview-trump-pee-tape-russia

Get it yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VhmSays said:

Like the FBI, they are investigating the allegations right?

Dude....you said "The dossier is considered legit with the spooks". I have pointed out that even the dossier's author has his doubts so where does this claim of yours come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:

Fuck me...It's not  Isikoff and Corn's opinion, it's what they report, which is that Steele himself thinks the probability that the sex claims in the dossier are true is about 50-50.

As reported in Vox

"However, there are also many reasons to think the pee tape story could be complete bullshit.

For one, we have actually learned more about Steele’s sourcing for the tale, and it doesn’t inspire a ton of confidence. Then, of course, there was the revelation that Steele’s research was ultimately funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, which raises some obvious questions about the project’s objectivity.

Perhaps most revealingly, though, even Steele and his allies have confessed some doubts about the “pee tape” tale to reporters they trust — a new book claims that Steele’s business partner says his dossier’s claims were “not meant to be definitive,” and that Steele himself has said there’s only a “fifty-fifty” chance this particular claim is correct. Yet still, we’re talking about it, once again".

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/15/17233994/comey-interview-trump-pee-tape-russia

Get it yet?

Hearsay. You have no idea what Steele thinks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Fuck me...It's not  Isikoff and Corn's opinion, it's what they report, which is that Steele himself thinks the probability that the sex claims in the dossier are true is about 50-50.

As reported in Vox

"However, there are also many reasons to think the pee tape story could be complete bullshit.

For one, we have actually learned more about Steele’s sourcing for the tale, and it doesn’t inspire a ton of confidence. Then, of course, there was the revelation that Steele’s research was ultimately funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, which raises some obvious questions about the project’s objectivity.

Perhaps most revealingly, though, even Steele and his allies have confessed some doubts about the “pee tape” tale to reporters they trust — a new book claims that Steele’s business partner says his dossier’s claims were “not meant to be definitive,” and that Steele himself has said there’s only a “fifty-fifty” chance this particular claim is correct. Yet still, we’re talking about it, once again".

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/15/17233994/comey-interview-trump-pee-tape-russia

Get it yet?

I see "confidence " "questions " "doubts" " claim"

Nothing about "facts".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I see "confidence " "questions " "doubts" " claim"

Nothing about "facts".

 

Facts are a Liberal thing. Dog’s not a Liberal, give the guy a break. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sean said:

Facts are a Liberal thing. Dog’s not a Liberal, give the guy a break. :huh:

Vox is a liberal thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I see "confidence " "questions " "doubts" " claim"

Nothing about "facts".

 

Do you see any corroboration for the claim that "The dossier is considered legit with the spooks"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Do you see any corroboration for the claim that "The dossier is considered legit with the spooks"?

that consideration would kind of fly in the face of the spooks claims that it wasn't used in the fisa applications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hermetic said:

that consideration would kind of fly in the face of the spooks claims that it wasn't used in the fisa applications

Excellent! ... I was just about to think of that myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dog said:

Do you see any corroboration for the claim that "The dossier is considered legit with the spooks"?

Nice change of subject, but we were discussing whether you could support your statement with facts.  If you could, you would not have to change the subject.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Nice change of subject, but we were discussing whether you could support your statement with facts.  If you could, you would not have to change the subject.  

Back up a bit and read it again very slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

Back up a bit and read it again very slowly.

An ad hominem won't avoid reality that you still have provided no facts.  Just opinion in the form of [double] hearsay. Got any facts to support your statement?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

An ad hominem won't avoid reality that you still have provided no facts.  Just opinion in the form of [double] hearsay. Got any facts to support your statement?  

Fuck off bullshitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

An ad hominem won't avoid reality that you still have provided no facts.  Just opinion in the form of [double] hearsay. Got any facts to support your statement?  

Fuck off bullshitter

Uh oh

Looks like Dog has been caught lying again

I don't put people on "ignore" although maybe I should. Especially ones who are 110% Dogmatic liars with nothing to contribute.

It's sad really, Dog used to have a sense of humor............. sometimes. Dog, what went so very wrong in your life? Did you get tired of "winning" already, or is it something deeper, darker? If you could stop being such an asshole..... or even slow it down......... we'd be here for you bro

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dog said:
28 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

An ad hominem won't avoid reality that you still have provided no facts.  Just opinion in the form of [double] hearsay. Got any facts to support your statement?  

Fuck off bullshitter

check into gorbarev  v  orbis business intelligence   (london)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

"However, there are also many reasons to think the pee tape story could be complete bullshit.

 

Wouldn't that be even worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Uh oh

Looks like Dog has been caught lying again

I don't put people on "ignore" although maybe I should. Especially ones who are 110% Dogmatic liars with nothing to contribute.

It's sad really, Dog used to have a sense of humor............. sometimes. Dog, what went so very wrong in your life? Did you get tired of "winning" already, or is it something deeper, darker? If you could stop being such an asshole..... or even slow it down......... we'd be here for you bro

-DSK

Ditto.

There’s nothing so sad as an unlikeable dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Uh oh

Looks like Dog has been caught lying again

I don't put people on "ignore" although maybe I should. Especially ones who are 110% Dogmatic liars with nothing to contribute.

It's sad really, Dog used to have a sense of humor............. sometimes. Dog, what went so very wrong in your life? Did you get tired of "winning" already, or is it something deeper, darker? If you could stop being such an asshole..... or even slow it down......... we'd be here for you bro

-DSK

He was in a three way with Warbird and Malarkey, and they all made eye contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ewwwww

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lifted Tack said:

He was in a three way with Warbird and Malarkey, and they all made eye contact.

ewwwww.  Never cross swords

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Ditto.

 

Well then maybe you can cite the lie....Actually, no you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lifted Tack said:

He was in a three way with Warbird and Malarkey, and they all made eye contact.

... and realized they knew each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

How old are you guys?

There are other websites for dating and hook ups. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's the latest security problem for the Trumpians? Who should they start gearing up the distract & attack machine to avoid negative press for an appointee caught with his fingers in the till?

Well, it starts with some rich old friends of ours. Yep, the same bilionaire from the old Yanukovych days, Akhmetov who hired our newest senior Trump Campaign felon Manafort back in the day was doing the dirty on yet another Trump acolyte. 

The Ukrainian oligarch was apparently busy subverting oil&gas expert and civil servant William Bryan four years ago, when the US sent him over to help the Ukranian government deal with oncoming winter and incoming Russian tanks. These relationships paid of later, according to a whistle-blowing partner, when Bryan actively did government work involving questions in which he had a vested financial interest.

Although Bryan claims he didn't make much money consulting/lobbying/whoring for the billionaire, there must have been some reason to send government dollars his way. And during that time he was some sort of quasi-government employee who was financially involved with a consulting firm working for the Billionaire at the time, dealing in oil and gas infrastructure, most of it counter to US stated policy goals at the time.

Why is Bryan in the news now? Trump has appointed him to be our new Homeland Security undersecretary for science and technology. I'm sure he'll be back on the phone, just like Manafort, to please his old bosses.

But that won't stop "patriots" like Nailing mockery and woof boy from saying this is a misunderstanding; Bryan worked for the government while Obama was in office! Why didn't Hussein Barrack put on his tweed hat and investigate the sherlock out of this?

Let's go, boys, we've another issue for y'all to deny, distort and say "Clinton" about. Have fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dog said:

Fuck me...It's not  Isikoff and Corn's opinion, it's what they report, which is that Steele himself thinks the probability that the sex claims in the dossier are true is about 50-50.

As reported in Vox

"However, there are also many reasons to think the pee tape story could be complete bullshit.

For one, we have actually learned more about Steele’s sourcing for the tale, and it doesn’t inspire a ton of confidence. Then, of course, there was the revelation that Steele’s research was ultimately funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, which raises some obvious questions about the project’s objectivity.

Perhaps most revealingly, though, even Steele and his allies have confessed some doubts about the “pee tape” tale to reporters they trust — a new book claims that Steele’s business partner says his dossier’s claims were “not meant to be definitive,” and that Steele himself has said there’s only a “fifty-fifty” chance this particular claim is correct. Yet still, we’re talking about it, once again".

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/15/17233994/comey-interview-trump-pee-tape-russia

Get it yet?

I get it, Dog. Isikoff/Corn wrote some hearsay in their book (they are saying unnamed colleagues heard Steele say it) and for you that's a solid gold citation. However, when the same principle is applied to Kavanaugh, Trump, or anyone really such that it makes Republicans look bad - such unsubstantiated, anonymous hearsay is garbage and cannot be used.

Kind of the point Sol's been making and you just keep digging the hole deeper. You're really not that good at this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I see "confidence " "questions " "doubts" " claim"

Nothing about "facts".

 

  The Party game in this stuff is to pretend the Dossier was a vetted intelligence brief. It was not, it was raw intelligence from an old MI-6 guy. 

 Intelligence agents for are trained to pass EVERYTHING along for analysis. Editing is a strict no-no. Nearly all intelligence agencies put a fire wall between collection and analysis, that is because the collector is usually motivated to advocate for what he or she has collected.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mark K said:

  The Party game in this stuff is to pretend the Dossier was a vetted intelligence brief. It was not, it was raw intelligence from an old MI-6 guy. 

 Intelligence agents for are trained to pass EVERYTHING along for analysis. Editing is a strict no-no. Nearly all intelligence agencies put a fire wall between collection and analysis, that is because the collector is usually motivated to advocate for what he or she has collected.  

 

Agree.

There's collectors and then there's analysts. And analysts generally have more than one collector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

I get it, Dog. Isikoff/Corn wrote some hearsay in their book (they are saying unnamed colleagues heard Steele say it) and for you that's a solid gold citation. However, when the same principle is applied to Kavanaugh, Trump, or anyone really such that it makes Republicans look bad - such unsubstantiated, anonymous hearsay is garbage and cannot be used.

Kind of the point Sol's been making and you just keep digging the hole deeper. You're really not that good at this.

These pages are full of second hand and anonymously sourced citations about which you said nothing. Your objection is not on principle.

You can assign whatever value you want to it but it remains a citation, I think you believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Who's the latest security problem for the Trumpians? Who should they start gearing up the distract & attack machine to avoid negative press for an appointee caught with his fingers in the till?

Well, it starts with some rich old friends of ours. Yep, the same bilionaire from the old Yanukovych days, Akhmetov who hired our newest senior Trump Campaign felon Manafort back in the day was doing the dirty on yet another Trump acolyte. 

The Ukrainian oligarch was apparently busy subverting oil&gas expert and civil servant William Bryan four years ago, when the US sent him over to help the Ukranian government deal with oncoming winter and incoming Russian tanks. These relationships paid of later, according to a whistle-blowing partner, when Bryan actively did government work involving questions in which he had a vested financial interest.

Although Bryan claims he didn't make much money consulting/lobbying/whoring for the billionaire, there must have been some reason to send government dollars his way. And during that time he was some sort of quasi-government employee who was financially involved with a consulting firm working for the Billionaire at the time, dealing in oil and gas infrastructure, most of it counter to US stated policy goals at the time.

Why is Bryan in the news now? Trump has appointed him to be our new Homeland Security undersecretary for science and technology. I'm sure he'll be back on the phone, just like Manafort, to please his old bosses.

But that won't stop "patriots" like Nailing mockery and woof boy from saying this is a misunderstanding; Bryan worked for the government while Obama was in office! Why didn't Hussein Barrack put on his tweed hat and investigate the sherlock out of this?

Let's go, boys, we've another issue for y'all to deny, distort and say "Clinton" about. Have fun!

Here's one BS....Go to work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

These pages are full of second hand and anonymously sourced citations about which you said nothing. Your objection is not on principle.

 

Your are correct. My objection to your claim has nothing to do with principle. It is based on facts; as in you are making claims that are unsupported by said facts. 

Your inability to honestly engage with those facts might be a matter of principle (or lack thereof), but I'm simply pointing out you are wrong because that's the truth of the matter - regardless of which principles you claim to hold. 

 

3 hours ago, Dog said:

You can assign whatever value you want to it but it remains a citation, I think you believe it.

It is not a citation of what you claimed (Steele having stated the pee-pee tapes have a 50/50 chance of being true). They are a citation of hearsay aboit Steele saying that.

Unsubstantiated accusations are acceptable to Dog. Sometimes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

 

Your are correct. My objection to your claim has nothing to do with principle. It is based on facts; as in you are making claims that are unsupported by said facts. 

Your inability to honestly engage with those facts might be a matter of principle (or lack thereof), but I'm simply pointing out you are wrong because that's the truth of the matter - regardless of which principles you claim to hold. 

 

It is not a citation of what you claimed (Steele having stated the pee-pee tapes have a 50/50 chance of being true). They are a citation of hearsay aboit Steele saying that.

Unsubstantiated accusations are acceptable to Dog. Sometimes. 

 

Bullshit, A lot of contributors post things here that cannot be considered cast in stone facts and about which you don't say shit. Your objection is not based on fact, you singled me out because you differ with me politically and because you're one of Sol's lemmings.

Unsubstantiated accusations are acceptable to you. Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dog said:

Bullshit, A lot of contributors post things here that cannot be considered cast in stone facts and about which you don't say shit.

If they tell me something is a cite in a discussion I am following, and it is not, I do say something. I don't follow every conversation, open every thread, or even read everyone's posts in the threads I do open. I have never claimed to catch everyone talking shit & comment on it. Just the one's that catch my eye. The prevalence of your bullshit makes it hard to miss.

 

8 hours ago, Dog said:

Your objection is not based on fact, you singled me out because you differ with me politically and because you're one of Sol's lemmings.

The facts are you were called for a cite to back up Steele saying the pee-pee tapes had a 50/50 chance of being real. All you provided was hearsay that Steele made that claim. You did not provide a cite to what was asked. That is the basis of my objection and those are facts. Take your "people are picking on me cos of my politics" whining two doors over, they're having a snowflake convention and could use a star act. 

 

8 hours ago, Dog said:

 Unsubstantiated accusations are acceptable to you. Sometimes.

Actually, I never accept them. I just don't have the time to comment on every single one in PA. Hell, it's a full-time job for folks like Sol to call you on yours here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 5:15 PM, Ease the sheet. said:

No need to be so hard on the doggie. He's an architect.  A dreamer who draws pictures.  He leaves the reality stuff for the smart people.

He claims to be an architect.

 I've never seen any indication that he's anything more than a draftsman...... And actually...... I've never even seen that proof....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

He claims to be an architect.

 I've never seen any indication that he's anything more than a draftsman...... And actually...... I've never even seen that proof....

He does struggle to draw fact based conclusions......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glen Simpson would rather not..............

"Congressional Republicans are collecting evidence to show an extensive, election year, anti-Trump conspiracy between Hillary Clinton operatives such as Fusion GPS and Barack Obama appointees at the Justice Department and the FBI.

 The investigation took a new turn last week. Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson decided to invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than testify under subpoena before a special House Republican task force".

 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/14/hillary-clinton-glenn-simpson-anti-trump-conspirac/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Glen Simpson would rather not..............

"Congressional Republicans are collecting evidence to show an extensive, election year, anti-Trump conspiracy between Hillary Clinton operatives such as Fusion GPS and Barack Obama appointees at the Justice Department and the FBI.

 The investigation took a new turn last week. Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson decided to invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than testify under subpoena before a special House Republican task force".

 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/14/hillary-clinton-glenn-simpson-anti-trump-conspirac/

Just so I can be clear on this - Is invoking the 5th a good thing or a bad thing? 

I know the Faithful have taken both positions.  Why, even the President has openly mused that only guilty people invoke the 5th.  But, that isn't a consistent principle (as if he HAS any consistent principles).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Glen Simpson would rather not..............

"Congressional Republicans are collecting evidence to show an extensive, election year, anti-Trump conspiracy between Hillary Clinton operatives such as Fusion GPS and Barack Obama appointees at the Justice Department and the FBI.

 The investigation took a new turn last week. Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson decided to invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than testify under subpoena before a special House Republican task force".

 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/14/hillary-clinton-glenn-simpson-anti-trump-conspirac/

Why would anyone subject themselves to such a partisan enterprise? I wouldn't testify in front of 8 variations of Devin Nunes either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Just so I can be clear on this - Is invoking the 5th a good thing or a bad thing? 

I know the Faithful have taken both positions.  Why, even the President has openly mused that only guilty people invoke the 5th.  But, that isn't a consistent principle (as if he HAS any consistent principles).

Invoking the 5th is not necessarily good or bad, but it does raise interesting questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dog said:

Glen Simpson would rather not..............

"Congressional Republicans are collecting evidence to show an extensive, election year, anti-Trump conspiracy between Hillary Clinton operatives such as Fusion GPS and Barack Obama appointees at the Justice Department and the FBI.

 The investigation took a new turn last week. Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson decided to invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than testify under subpoena before a special House Republican task force".

 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/14/hillary-clinton-glenn-simpson-anti-trump-conspirac/

Who in their right mind would testify to a group of partisan goobers from one side of the aisle, who have roughly the integrity of, well, for lack of a better way of putting it, you?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dog said:

Invoking the 5th is not necessarily good or bad, but it does raise interesting questions.

Nice non-answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now