Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

I’m still interested in the numerous false statements made on security clearance forms and also in the Russian money trail that predated Putin’s support for DJT and his appointees. I think any true patriot would be concerned by these glaring breaches in our national security. 

Anyone wishing to excuse these crimes and personal vulnerabilities are high could have serious impact on our nation’s course should be prepared to explain their rationale. This is especially true given this administration’s friendly posture towards Russia and dissolution of numerous international treaties and threats to our steadfast alliances. 

Share this post


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

I didn't say it did, I said the collusion fiction was the impetus for this thread. As for the investigation it's still not clear what prompted it. We do know the FBI's Papadopoulos explanation is bullshit.

Umm, no. This is what started the thread:

“If it’s what you say, I love it.”

Share this post


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

Umm, no. This is what started the thread:

“If it’s what you say, I love it.”

Dog is focused on an "alternative impetus".

Kellyanne would be impressed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Umm, no. This is what started the thread:

“If it’s what you say, I love it.”

That's about Russian collusion is it not?

Share this post


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

HAPPY BIRTHDAY 

Today is the Drip drip drip threads birthday. One year and 91 pages later does anyone here still believe the Russian collusion fiction that started it? No matter, the haters still deem Trump to be guilty without knowing what it is he is guilty of. The search for a crime goes on.

If it were Hillary you would have wrapped yourself in a flag and burned her at the stake for 1/10th of the shady contacts, so as the biggest troll in this thread says 

blah blah blah

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's about Russian collusion is it not?

I thought it was about adopting Russian kids. Silly me.

Share this post


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

That's about Russian collusion is it not?

e-mail is bad if you are a democRAT, good if you are real american. that's doggiestylin'

now more blah blah blah from Dog

Share this post


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

I thought it was about adopting Russian kids. Silly me.

At one point, it was about adoptions.  Then, Junior "amended" his statement.  

Share this post


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

I’m still interested in the numerous false statements made on security clearance forms and also in the Russian money trail that predated Putin’s support for DJT and his appointees. I think any true patriot would be concerned by these glaring breaches in our national security. 

Anyone wishing to excuse these crimes and personal vulnerabilities are high could have serious impact on our nation’s course should be prepared to explain their rationale. This is especially true given this administration’s friendly posture towards Russia and dissolution of numerous international treaties and threats to our steadfast alliances. 

RWNJs like Dog are not patriots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

At one point, it was about adoptions.  Then, Junior "amended" his statement.  

That must be the "fiction" Dog is talking about.

Share this post


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

I’m still interested in the numerous false statements made on security clearance forms and also in the Russian money trail that predated Putin’s support for DJT and his appointees. I think any true patriot would be concerned by these glaring breaches in our national security. 

Anyone wishing to excuse these crimes and personal vulnerabilities are high could have serious impact on our nation’s course should be prepared to explain their rationale. This is especially true given this administration’s friendly posture towards Russia and dissolution of numerous international treaties and threats to our steadfast alliances. 

You are not doubt aware that the then president of the United States knew about Russian efforts to meddle in our election and did nothing. He obviously didn't want to taint an election everyone believed would be won by a Democrat.

Share this post


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

You are not doubt aware that the then president of the United States knew about Russian efforts to meddle in our election and did nothing. He obviously didn't want to taint an election everyone believed would be won by a Democrat.

Dude. Whataboutism sucks as an argument. I guess you are ducking the glaring issues. You refuse to confront the national security breaches that took at least a year to be somewhat understood and incompletely resolved. Certainly the majority, except for Flynn, have gone unpunished.

We’re it a Dem, you’d be screaming bloody murder. 

Partisan hacks are easy to spot. Why should we respect any of your opinions if you cannot recognize and condemn these vulnerabilities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Dude. Whataboutism sucks as an argument. I guess you are ducking the glaring issues. You refuse to confront the national security breaches that took at least a year to be somewhat understood and incompletely resolved. Certainly the majority, except for Flynn, have gone unpunished.

We’re it a Dem, you’d be screaming bloody murder. 

Partisan hacks are easy to spot. Why should we respect any of your opinions if you cannot recognize and condemn these vulnerabilities?

Oh...and you're not a partisan hack. Whatboutism is a perfectly reasonable response to a partisan hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Oh...and you're not a partisan hack. Whatboutism is a perfectly reasonable response to a partisan hack.

Shouldn't you be looking for more right wing blogs?  Maybe you can find one that finally explains the Adobe layers of Obama's birth certificate.

Share this post


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

Shouldn't you be looking for more right wing blogs?  Maybe you can find one that finally explains the Adobe layers of Obama's birth certificate.

Bla...bla...bla.   Shouldn't you be looking for some dead conservative's grave to dance on.

Share this post


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

Bla...bla...bla.   Shouldn't you be looking for some dead conservative's grave to dance on.

Funny. It's not clear what you ARE, but it's clearly not Conservative...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Funny. It's not clear what you ARE, but it's clearly not Conservative...

Bla...bla..bla...

Share this post


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

Oh...and you're not a partisan hack. Whatboutism is a perfectly reasonable response to a partisan hack.

Fine. You are unconcerned about falsified national security documents. You think it is merely a partisan topic. Noted  

The other problem with your argument was that Obama knew about the communications with the Russians “and did nothing about it.”

The only thing Obama didn’t do was to use the information for partisan advantage. He did not spread it all over the news cycle the way your leader would have done. He did not call Trump a Russian agent, nor did he create a chant to “lock him up” at a campaign rally. 

In fact, he left national security to the professionals. The DHS, the NSA, the CIA and the FBI as well as the national security advisor and the Atty General knew, because they needed to know. Obama’s reticence to publicize the information was based on a reluctance to adversely politicize our national security apparatus and to inject incomplete and incompletely confirmed, but highly prejudicial information into the public sphere as an election season was in full swing.

The proper agencies knew all about the potential and actual contacts, they reported it, shouted it from the rooftops, and GOP partisan hacks, like you, continue to ignore the warnings.

The sort of behavior Obama’s displayed used to be the standard of which Anerica was proud. Now you try and show it as a weakness. The Trump standard has made anything acceptable to you, but only if perpetrated by a Republican. Obama’s circumspection was admirable; you’ve sold your principles. 

To recap: you don’t give a shit about national security breaches nor our president’s financial vulnerability to manipulation. Your only counter arguments are whataboutism, and your regard for political dignity has been completely lost to partisan desires. 

Three strikes, bitch. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

HAPPY BIRTHDAY 

Today is the Drip drip drip threads birthday. One year and 91 pages later does anyone here still believe the Russian collusion fiction that started it? No matter, the haters still deem Trump to be guilty without knowing what it is he is guilty of. The search for a crime goes on.

Your efforts to distract and change the conversation account for about 90 pages of it.  

In other news, the Campaign Manager got some relief today, and got transferred from the jail outside of Richmond to the one in Alexandria, so he doesn't have to pay his attorneys' travel time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

Fine. You are unconcerned about falsified national security documents. You think it is merely a partisan topic. Noted  

The other problem with your argument was that Obama knew about the communications with the Russians “and did nothing about it.”

The only thing Obama didn’t do was to use the information for partisan advantage. He did not spread it all over the news cycle the way your leader would have done. He did not call Trump a Russian agent, nor did he create a chant to “lock him up” at a campaign rally. 

In fact, he left national security to the professionals. The DHS, the NSA, the CIA and the FBI as well as the national security advisor and the Atty General knew, because they needed to know. Obama’s reticence to publicize the information was based on a reluctance to adversely politicize our national security apparatus and to inject incomplete and incompletely confirmed, but highly prejudicial information into the public sphere as an election season was in full swing.

The proper agencies knew all about the potential and actual contacts, they reported it, shouted it from the rooftops, and GOP partisan hacks, like you, continue to ignore the warnings.

The sort of behavior Obama’s displayed used to be the standard of which Anerica was proud. Now you try and show it as a weakness. The Trump standard has made anything acceptable to you, but only if perpetrated by a Republican. Obama’s circumspection was admirable; you’ve sold your principles. 

To recap: you don’t give a shit about national security breaches nor our president’s financial vulnerability to manipulation. Your only counter arguments are whataboutism, and your regard for political dignity has been completely lost to partisan desires. 

Three strikes, bitch. 

Strike one:  I have not commented on erroneously fillled out national security documents. Any conclusions you have drawn as to my attitude wrt that is the product of your imagination.

Strike two: During the campaign it was Trump who was expressing concern about election integrity and it was Obama dismissing the threat out of hand all the while knowing Russia was meddling.

 “‘There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." President Obama.

Obama knew the Russians were meddling and did and said nothing. He didn't want to tarnish Hillary's inevitable election.

Finally, spare me the sanctimonious shit. After all it was Obama himself caught on a hot mike actually colluding with Medvedev. "Space" during the campaign in return for "flexibility" on the sale of missiles to Eastern Europe after. (The sale of which has resumed under Trump)

You're out bitch

Share this post


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

Strike one:  I have not commented on erroneously fillled out national security documents. Any conclusions you have drawn as to my attitude wrt that is the product of your imagination.

Strike two: During the campaign it was Trump who was expressing concern about election integrity and it was Obama dismissing the threat out of hand all the while knowing Russia was meddling.

 “‘There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." President Obama.

Obama knew the Russians were meddling and did and said nothing. He didn't want to tarnish Hillary's inevitable election.

Finally, spare me the sanctimonious shit. After all it was Obama himself caught on a hot mike actually colluding with Medvedev. "Space" during the campaign in return for "flexibility" on the sale of missiles to Eastern Europe after. (The sale of which has resumed under Trump)

You're out bitch

Your an idiot. Obama was correct. His statement regarding rigged elections is factual.  He did misjudged, which is opinion,  the intelligence of his fellow Americans and the ease at which they got sucked in by the Russian propaganda machine. More accurately, the election wasn't hacked, the voters were.

I'm sure an interaction with you would have given his opinion an extra data point and improved its accuracy.

 

Share this post


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

Your an idiot. Obama was correct. His statement regarding rigged elections is factual.  He did misjudged, which is opinion,  the intelligence of his fellow Americans and the ease at which they got sucked in by the Russian propaganda machine. More accurately, the election wasn't hacked, the voters were.

I'm sure an interaction with you would have given his opinion an extra data point and improved its accuracy.

 

These are the same people that spend $16B on water - most of it just tap water from Municipal water supplies.

Why is anyone surprised that the Russian trolls were able to influence them?

 

Consistent with this view, sales revenues for the U.S. bottled water market in 2016 were nearly $16 billion in wholesale dollars, a 7.4% increase over the previous year. Nearly all of the bottled water sold in the U.S. is sourced domestically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

These are the same people that spend $16B on water - most of it just tap water from Municipal water supplies.

Why is anyone surprised that the Russian trolls were able to influence them?

 

Consistent with this view, sales revenues for the U.S. bottled water market in 2016 were nearly $16 billion in wholesale dollars, a 7.4% increase over the previous year. Nearly all of the bottled water sold in the U.S. is sourced domestically.

And complain about all the plastic rubbish at their chosen place of recreation.......

Share this post


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

Your efforts to distract and change the conversation account for about 90 pages of it.  

In other news, the Campaign Manager got some relief today, and got transferred from the jail outside of Richmond to the one in Alexandria, so he doesn't have to pay his attorneys' travel time.  

 Not so fast!  After thinking about it Manafort fears for his life (trump/Russia threats) and asks to stay put.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/manafort-jail-move-order-request-reverse

 

Share this post


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

 Not so fast!  After thinking about it Manafort fears for his life (trump/Russia threats) and asks to stay put.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/manafort-jail-move-order-request-reverse

 

Who is this Manafort guy?  Wait.  Wasn't he the Campaign Chairman?  Interesting.  Those guys are always facing trial, after every campaign.  Nothingburger.  

Share this post


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

Obama knew the Russians were meddling and did and said nothing. He didn't want to tarnish Hillary's inevitable election.

He said nothing publicly. He did nothing publicly. You have no idea what he did or did not say or do behind the scenes in order to keep the elections free from even the appearance of domestic meddling on his part. Once again, you're making shit up to manufacture some whataboutism. Sad that after 90 pages, that's STILL all you got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

And complain about all the plastic rubbish at their chosen place of recreation.......

I suspect Darwin is at work there - plastics outgas for a very long time and those idiots are drinking it constantly.

There will almost surely be reproductive consequences.

Share this post


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

I suspect Darwin is at work there - plastics outgas for a very long time and those idiots are drinking it constantly.

There will almost surely be reproductive consequences.

Well,  there does seem to more fucking idiots around than in my youth..........

 

Reproductive consequences,  overwhelming darwin since 1783....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drip....Today Lisa Page has defied her subpoena and refused to appear before House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees.

Share this post


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

Drip....Today Lisa Page has defied her subpoena and refused to appear before House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees.

Fake news.

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page's lawyer says that her client has "made it abundantly clear that she will cooperate" with the congressional investigation into the FBI's and DOJ's handling of the Russia probe and the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.

"All she is asking is to be treated as other witnesses have under the Committees' own rules," Page's attorney, Amy Jeffress said in a statement to CBS News' Paula Reid. Jeffress went on to say that Page simply wanted clarification about the scope of the interview and access to relevant documents. Late Wednesday night, the Justice Department granted that access. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

Fake news.

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page's lawyer says that her client has "made it abundantly clear that she will cooperate" with the congressional investigation into the FBI's and DOJ's handling of the Russia probe and the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.

"All she is asking is to be treated as other witnesses have under the Committees' own rules," Page's attorney, Amy Jeffress said in a statement to CBS News' Paula Reid. Jeffress went on to say that Page simply wanted clarification about the scope of the interview and access to relevant documents. Late Wednesday night, the Justice Department granted that access. 

Wait, Dog Lied? Say it ain't so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Wait, Dog Lied? Say it ain't so!

Does that quote say she showed up - or that she "will *IF*"?   Y'all bust on him all ya want - this time, he's reading it right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Does that quote say she showed up - or that she "will *IF*"?   Y'all bust on him all ya want - this time, he's reading it right. 

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Does that quote say she showed up - or that she "will *IF*"?   Y'all bust on him all ya want - this time, he's reading it right. 

Are you suggesting that he cherry picked, overlooking relevant bits of information including but not limited to the part about her continuing to work with the committee to schedule her appearance?  

Share this post


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

Are you suggesting that he cherry picked, overlooking relevant bits of information including but not limited to the part about her continuing to work with the committee to schedule her appearance?  

I'm suggesting that there's a good deal of group think and pile on - and what he said was right, and the article cited as a refuation was itself titled  "/former-fbi-lawyer-lisa-page-fighting-congressional-deposition/"   - and I do think that this is a case of piling on to pile on.  

Most of ya are better than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm suggesting that there's a good deal of group think and pile on - and what he said was right, and the article cited as a refuation was itself titled  "/former-fbi-lawyer-lisa-page-fighting-congressional-deposition/"   - and I do think that this is a case of piling on to pile on.  

Most of ya are better than that. 

Bullshit artists are responsible for a large part of the mess that we as a country are in.  They should be piled on, without mercy.  Our system depends on people telling the truth about certain facts.  The sun rises in the east, for example.  When someone uses a logical fallacy to distort the truth, they should be called out.  Dog likes to cherry pick, to remove context from the discussion.  For example, no mention of the fact that the department had to sign off on her turning over documents for Rep. Jordan to make public.  No discussion of the committee not following procedures used with other witnesses...just the cherry picked nugget.  

Cherry picking is a big part of the Doggy style.  It should be identified so that the unwary can know that they are reading a partial accounting of the facts, as in one fact out of many.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Wait, Dog Lied? Say it ain't so!

Did she or did she not appear pursuant to her subpoena?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Bullshit artists are responsible for a large part of the mess that we as a country are in.  They should be piled on, without mercy.  Our system depends on people telling the truth about certain facts.  The sun rises in the east, for example.  When someone uses a logical fallacy to distort the truth, they should be called out.  Dog likes to cherry pick, to remove context from the discussion.  For example, no mention of the fact that the department had to sign off on her turning over documents for Rep. Jordan to make public.  No discussion of the committee not following procedures used with other witnesses...just the cherry picked nugget.  

Cherry picking is a big part of the Doggy style.  It should be identified so that the unwary can know that they are reading a partial accounting of the facts, as in one fact out of many.  

"Hillary used email."

Share this post


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

Bullshit artists are responsible for a large part of the mess that we as a country are in.  They should be piled on, without mercy.  Our system depends on people telling the truth about certain facts.  The sun rises in the east, for example.  When someone uses a logical fallacy to distort the truth, they should be called out.  Dog likes to cherry pick, to remove context from the discussion.  For example, no mention of the fact that the department had to sign off on her turning over documents for Rep. Jordan to make public.  No discussion of the committee not following procedures used with other witnesses...just the cherry picked nugget.  

Cherry picking is a big part of the Doggy style.  It should be identified so that the unwary can know that they are reading a partial accounting of the facts, as in one fact out of many.  

While you're right, he has been often guilty of that in the past, I don't think that that's so in this particular comment, and looking at the time stamps of the pile-on replies? I doubt that those responding took the time to actually read anything, nor that they were following this so closely that they had a priori awareness. 

Piling on to everything a particular individual posts w/out taking the time to validate the basis for the disagreement is also largely responsible for the mess we're in as a country.  Look at the recent brouhaha about "Trump's Racist Policies discharging Immigrant Soldiers" - that's turned out to be mostly a bunch of new noise about the status quo.    It goes both ways, brudda -- and should. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 Although the jail does not allow prisoners to send or receive emails, Manafort appears to have developed a workaround. Manafort has revealed on the monitored phone calls that in order to exchange emails, he reads and composes emails on a second laptop that is shuttled in and out of the facility by his team. When the team takes the laptop from the jail, it reconnects to the internet and Manafort’s emails are transmitted.

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4594533/7-11-18-US-Oppo-Manafort-Motion-to-Continue.pdf

 

CONCLUSION For these reasons, the government opposes Manafort’s motion for a continuance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

I'm going to pile on here and agree with you.

Oh please....Sol is the king of distortions and deceptions. Sol distilled the entire Clinton server scandal down to "Hillary used email". He creates deceptive little memes like Dog/Plame for his lemmings run with. He's elevated it to an art form.

Share this post


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

Oh please....Sol is the king of distortions and deceptions. Sol distilled the entire Clinton server scandal down to "Hillary used email". He creates deceptive little memes like Dog/Plame for his lemmings run with. He's elevated it to an art form.

Sol's behavior has nothing to do with your behavior.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

Sol's behavior has nothing to do with your behavior.

 

Sol started this little digression with accusations about my behavior to which you piled on.  Good lemming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

While you're right, he has been often guilty of that in the past, I don't think that that's so in this particular comment, and looking at the time stamps of the pile-on replies? I doubt that those responding took the time to actually read anything, nor that they were following this so closely that they had a priori awareness. 

Piling on to everything a particular individual posts w/out taking the time to validate the basis for the disagreement is also largely responsible for the mess we're in as a country.  Look at the recent brouhaha about "Trump's Racist Policies discharging Immigrant Soldiers" - that's turned out to be mostly a bunch of new noise about the status quo.    It goes both ways, brudda -- and should. 

Identifying Dog's cherry picking, or otherwise illuminating whatever logical fallacy or fallacies he is repeating or using in any given post is not piling on, though.  There are people who make mistakes and there are bullshit artists.  Dog is a bullshit aficionado. I'd give him credit for being an artist if he were better at it.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mike G said:

5 Although the jail does not allow prisoners to send or receive emails, Manafort appears to have developed a workaround. Manafort has revealed on the monitored phone calls that in order to exchange emails, he reads and composes emails on a second laptop that is shuttled in and out of the facility by his team. When the team takes the laptop from the jail, it reconnects to the internet and Manafort’s emails are transmitted.

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4594533/7-11-18-US-Oppo-Manafort-Motion-to-Continue.pdf

 

CONCLUSION For these reasons, the government opposes Manafort’s motion for a continuance.

This crew is smarter than everyone else.  Nobody will ever know.  They have superior knowledge.  

Share this post


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

This crew is smarter than everyone else.  Nobody will ever know.  They have superior knowledge.  

I'm assuming it's illegal?  What attorney would be  put in a place where they're liable for helping an inmate do something illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mike G said:

I'm assuming it's illegal?  What attorney would be  put in a place where they're liable for helping an inmate do something illegal?

I'm not sure.  It sounds like it is a rule of that facility, so they might want to slap him on the wrist, but the prosecution just wants to show the extent of his good faith.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mike G said:

I'm assuming it's illegal?  What attorney would be  put in a place where they're liable for helping an inmate do something illegal?

Mueller's team are listening to the Campaign Manager's phone calls.  This happens with every campaign, really.  

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/paul-manafort-jail-calls-710445

Share this post


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

Sol started this little digression with accusations about my behavior to which you piled on.  Good lemming!

I was agreeing with Chesapeake. You are not responsible for Sols behavior, only your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

I was agreeing with Chesapeake. You are not responsible for Sols behavior, only your own.

Thank god for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Identifying Dog's cherry picking, or otherwise illuminating whatever logical fallacy or fallacies he is repeating or using in any given post is not piling on, though.  There are people who make mistakes and there are bullshit artists.  Dog is a bullshit aficionado. I'd give him credit for being an artist if he were better at it.    

Ha!....You would know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to being called out for often cherry picking to present incomplete facts, your defense is Whataboutism and He started it. That's essentially admitting to what Chesapeake wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

In response to being called out for often cherry picking to present incomplete facts, your defense is Whataboutism and He started it. That's essentially admitting to what Chesapeake wrote.

come on, cherry picking is the number one sport in here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile,  back at the ranch Mueller has brought on a new posse of hired guns. When the shootout starts, it won't be OK when the Trumpers get corralled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

In response to being called out for often cherry picking to present incomplete facts, your defense is Whataboutism and He started it. That's essentially admitting to what Chesapeake wrote.

Please, don't be such a dupe...Charges of cherry picking and incomplete facts are so nebulous as to be meaningless. Of course facts are cherry picked when making a case, of course facts are incomplete, it can't be otherwise. Bullshit charges like "cherry picking" are prevarications themselves.

Share this post


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

Please, don't be such a dupe...Charges of cherry picking and incomplete facts are so nebulous as to be meaningless. Of course facts are cherry picked when making a case, of course facts are incomplete, it can't be otherwise. Bullshit charges like "cherry picking" are prevarications themselves.

Best ever excuse for "You Lie"

Share this post


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

Oh please....Sol is the king of distortions and deceptions.

Does that make you the Dauphin? Lots of training and education, but you ended up a feckless wastrel fucking whores and embarrassing your parents?

Share this post


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

Seems like this show is going to run a bit longer -

Robert Mueller files request for another 100 blank subpoenas in Paul Manafort case

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/robert-mueller-files-request-for-another-100-blank-subpoenas-in-paul-manafort-case

Wasn’t he the Campaign Manager or something?  What is it with those guys?  They always end up indicted. Many people are saying it. This I can tell you. Belief me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mike G said:

 

Oh please. That response had to do with only one piece of evidence (that the FBI concealed from us) and he was probably lying.

Share this post


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

Oh please. That response had to do with only one piece of evidence (that the FBI concealed from us) and he was probably lying.

Womp womp.  You and your bullshitting buddies have nothing.  As usual.  Just as the IG said.  

Tune in in two weeks for the Campaign Manager's trial.  

36978776_10156581502469166_8624479589487

Share this post


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

Womp womp.  You and your bullshitting buddies have nothing.  As usual.  Just as the IG said.  

Tune in in two weeks for the Campaign Manager's trial.  

36978776_10156581502469166_8624479589487

I don't give a shit about the campaign manager. If, as I suspect, he ripped us off he needs to go down. I will say though that it doesn't seem fair to lock a guy up in solitary confinement while he is still presumed to be innocent.

Share this post


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

I don't give a shit about the campaign manager. If, as I suspect, he ripped us off he needs to go down. I will say though that it doesn't seem fair to lock a guy up in solitary confinement while he is still presumed to be innocent.

Of course you don't.  He's an American, not a democRAT.  

The VIP treatment was awful tough on him.  Good thing that he won't have to suffer through that now that he's been moved to Alexandria.  https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/12/paul-manafort-alexandria-jail-715378

Share this post


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

 I will say though that it doesn't seem fair to lock a guy up in solitary confinement while he is still presumed to be innocent.

 Manafort  thinks the treatment is "VIP"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 Manafort  thinks the treatment is "VIP"

VIP = Virtually Impossible to Poison.

Share this post


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

Oh please. That response had to do with only one piece of evidence (that the FBI concealed from us) and he was probably lying.

So he was lying about the multiple layers of agents and controls around him that would prevent him from going rouge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bhyde said:

VIP = Virtually Impossible to Poison.

Exactly.  It really is unfair for him to be in protective isolation, so that he can't be silenced.  It isn't just unfair, it is SO Unfair.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Exactly.  It really is unfair for him to be in protective isolation, so that he can't be silenced.  It isn't just unfair, it is SO Unfair.  

Paul should enjoy his new home. After all, Virginia is for Lovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, bhyde said:

So he was lying about the multiple layers of agents and controls around him that would prevent him from going rouge?

Did you even watch the clip?

Share this post


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

Did you even watch the clip?

Yes I did. What exactly do you think he is lying about and what do you base that accusation on?

Share this post


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

Did you even watch the clip?

I watched the hearing.  They should have stuck to the hearing behind closed doors.  Rep. Gowdy looked even more silly than he did when Hillary pantsed him.  The doggy style might play well on the American networks, but once it gets out in public where honest people can see it, it takes but minutes to see that it is all just bullshit, innuendo, lack of context, cherry picking, etc...the basic tools of the Doggy Style.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Yes I did. What exactly do you think he is lying about and what do you base that accusation on?

First... I didn't accuse him of lying but he probably was (he has failed polygraphs in the past) and if so at issue was the motivation in sending the text in question. Interesting that he's so indignant and explicit and when giving his explanation for what prompted him to send a text he says he doesn't remember sending.

Share this post


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

First... I didn't accuse him of lying but he probably was (he has failed polygraphs in the past) and if so at issue was the motivation in sending the text in question. Interesting that he's so indignant explicit and when giving his explanation for what prompted him to send a text he says he doesn't remember sending.

I'm not calling you a liar Dog, but you probably are.

I see how it works now. Thanks bro!

Share this post


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

First... I didn't accuse him of lying but he probably was (he has failed polygraphs in the past) and if so at issue was the motivation in sending the text in question. Interesting that he's so indignant and explicit and when giving his explanation for what prompted him to send a text he says he doesn't remember sending.

Do you have a cite for the failed polygraph, and if that really is true, does it make you think more or less of him?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bhyde said:

I'm not calling you a liar Dog, but you probably are.

I see how it works now. Thanks bro!

Anytime!

Share this post


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

Do you have a cite for the failed polygraph, and if that really is true, does it make you think more or less of him?  

If lying in the past means you can never take someone at their word, what about the oath President Trump swore at his inauguration?

Consistency. 

Share this post


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

Do you have a cite for the failed polygraph, and if that really is true, does it make you think more or less of him?  

My opinion of Strzok is alread pretty low but the failed ploygraph is more an indictment of the FBI because they ignored it.

Share this post


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

My opinion of Strzok is alread pretty low but the failed ploygraph is more an indictment of the FBI because they ignored it.

Dog, another subject you apparently know nothing about.  Failing a polygraph is not an immediate disqualifier, remember they are not 100% accurate.  When someone who holds a top level clearance fails a poly they of course re-test several times and failing to pass any of those does not cause you to immediately lose your clearance.  What it will do is prompt a bunch of investigators to crawl even further up your ass. 

I always felt that polys were given as a deterrent vs a detection tool.  When handling classified throughout the year and hoping to shortcut what at times are ridiculous rules, I would ask myself how am I going to feel about this when I'm hooked up to the poly machine.  

I've taken something on the order of 15 over the course of my career.  How many did you take?

Trump didn't even take one for his position and I would love to see how he would have done on a CI poly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Trump didn't even take one for his position and I would love to see how he would have done on a CI poly.  

He'd probably pass. I think at some, perhaps many, levels Trump believes all of the bullshit he spews.

It's the assholes who surround Trump that I'd love to see polygraphed. Jared? Dear lord that'd be beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

He'd probably pass. I think at some, perhaps many, levels Trump believes all of the bullshit he spews.

It's the assholes who surround Trump that I'd love to see polygraphed. Jared? Dear lord that'd be beautiful.

You are probably the closest to the truth with this. To spew so much shit, so consistently, he’s either an extremely good and Oscar winning worthy actor. Or he really believes what he says and believes...... now that’s a scary thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's the assholes who surround Trump that I'd love to see polygraphed. Jared? Dear lord that'd be beautiful.

Jared?  Anywhere but the White House a security chief  would have chatted with him for two minutes and told him to not even bother filling out the paperwork.  He is so far off being a person you would give a clearance to it is laughable.  Foreign travel, contacts, owing money, etc., etc.  

Share this post


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

My opinion of Strzok is alread pretty low but the failed ploygraph is more an indictment of the FBI because they ignored it.

Who confirmed a failed polygraph?  Doggy Styling some questions doesn’t prove anything. Got a cite that confirms a failed polygraph?