• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is why Mueller needs to finish what he started.

JasperL said:
Looked like poorly reasoned, poorly written garbage to me.
Click to expand...

If you think so, then you should have no problem coming up with a reasoned dispute.

My challenge stands.
 
Mycroft said:
If you think so, then you should have no problem coming up with a reasoned dispute.

My challenge stands.
Click to expand...

Your "challenge" is for me to come up with a reasoned dispute about _________________??? Sorry, not playing. I'll let others see what the problem is. This is the first paragraph:

Against a newly discovered likelihood the Robert Mueller investigation began under false pretenses; and against the backdrop that FBI surveillance and wiretaps were obtained through materially (intentionally) false representations to the FISA court; and against the backdrop the original Flynn plea judge (Contrereas) was also the approving FISA judge; and that judge ‘was summarily recused’ from the case; and against increasing evidence that Mike Flynn was set up by a terminal animus, and politically-motivated investigative rogue unit, operating within the FBI; and against surfacing IG Horowitz evidence that FBI investigators manipulated (lied on) their FD-302 interrogation documents; and understanding those falsified 302’s were used in the Mueller/Flynn charging document…

…Special Counsel Robert Mueller now asks for postponement of sentencing:
Click to expand...

First of all, that's all ONE sentence. Second, it conflates about a dozen different events and for some reason unknown to me connects the dots from all that random nonsense to what is likely a routine postponement of sentencing of a person who with high priced legal assistance has PLED GUILTY to certain crimes. Maybe the dots are connected below, but who is willing to wade through that kind of crap writing to find out? Not me!

What does this mean: "increasing evidence that Mike Flynn was set up by a terminal animus" It's gibberish. Flynn was set up by "terminal" "ill feeling." or "hostility"? How does that work? Is the ill feeling going to result in death, and that's what's meant by "terminal" in that context? Who knows. It looks like the author ("sundance"- nice pseudonym!!) got out their handy word processor and did a little bit of stream of consciousness writing as an exercise for a 300 level psychology class, then hit publish THAT by mistake instead of the actual article that wasn't written by an apparent illiterate.
 
JasperL said:
Your "challenge" is for me to come up with a reasoned dispute about _________________??? Sorry, not playing. I'll let others see what the problem is. This is the first paragraph:



First of all, that's all ONE sentence. Second, it conflates about a dozen different events and for some reason unknown to me connects the dots from all that random nonsense to what is likely a routine postponement of sentencing of a person who with high priced legal assistance has PLED GUILTY to certain crimes. Maybe the dots are connected below, but who is willing to wade through that kind of crap writing to find out? Not me!

What does this mean: "increasing evidence that Mike Flynn was set up by a terminal animus" It's gibberish. Flynn was set up by "terminal" "ill feeling." or "hostility"? How does that work? Is the ill feeling going to result in death, and that's what's meant by "terminal" in that context? Who knows. It looks like the author ("sundance"- nice pseudonym!!) got out their handy word processor and did a little bit of stream of consciousness writing as an exercise for a 300 level psychology class, then hit publish THAT by mistake instead of the actual article that wasn't written by an apparent illiterate.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

So...that first sentence was too much for you to handle.

Okay. Forget I gave you a challenge. You are obviously not up to the task. Remember, I asked for a fact-based dispute...not your whining about writing style.

Dismissed.
 
JasperL said:
Your "challenge" is for me to come up with a reasoned dispute about _________________??? Sorry, not playing. I'll let others see what the problem is. This is the first paragraph:



First of all, that's all ONE sentence. Second, it conflates about a dozen different events and for some reason unknown to me connects the dots from all that random nonsense to what is likely a routine postponement of sentencing of a person who with high priced legal assistance has PLED GUILTY to certain crimes. Maybe the dots are connected below, but who is willing to wade through that kind of crap writing to find out? Not me!

What does this mean: "increasing evidence that Mike Flynn was set up by a terminal animus" It's gibberish. Flynn was set up by "terminal" "ill feeling." or "hostility"? How does that work? Is the ill feeling going to result in death, and that's what's meant by "terminal" in that context? Who knows. It looks like the author ("sundance"- nice pseudonym!!) got out their handy word processor and did a little bit of stream of consciousness writing as an exercise for a 300 level psychology class, then hit publish THAT by mistake instead of the actual article that wasn't written by an apparent illiterate.
Click to expand...

Sundance runs the site. I read a fair amount of his garbage during the Zimmerman trial. I literally felt like taking a shower after reading some of his sludge and his fellow stormfront-light followers.

I've since read bits here and there, ( incognito, or from other sites) and rate the logic and critical thinking employed there about as low as 4chan or r/The_Donald Cult.

I've got to give you credit for your patience with Mycroft. I lost mine a while ago.

You also highlighted his laziness in presenting an argument in his own words. Major facepalm on his part.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

So...that first sentence was too much for you to handle.

Okay. Forget I gave you a challenge. You are obviously not up to the task.

Dismissed.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. My gibberish translator is broken, so I'm unable to read and comprehend that writing.

BTW, what is "terminal animus?" Any ideas? Flynn was set up by it, apparently, but you're correct - I'm quite literally unable to understand what "sundance" means by it.

I will say that "sundance" appears to have studied Glenn Beck and his infamous white board, with the lines all crossing, etc. but is a poor substitute for the master, Mr. Beck.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
Yes, you are correct. My gibberish translator is broken, so I'm unable to read and comprehend that writing.

BTW, what is "terminal animus?" Any ideas? Flynn was set up by it, apparently, but you're correct - I'm quite literally unable to understand what "sundance" means by it.

I will say that "sundance" appears to have studied Glenn Beck and his infamous white board, with the lines all crossing, etc. but is a poor substitute for the master, Mr. Beck.
Click to expand...

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/terminal

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/animus
 
JasperL said:
LOL. I see you can't put the definition in your own words either. Don't feel bad - illiterate gibberish is a bear to translate in my experience.
Click to expand...

How's that old saying go...?

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.
 
Starr investigated Clinton from 1994 until 1999 or so. Mueller's investigation isn't even a year old, and he has already charged four people with crimes.
 
WCH said:
Read the article. If the investigation was created under false pretences... all bets are off.
Click to expand...

So the whole memo is, as the Democrats say, just an attempt to undermine the investigation? Wow, so many Congress people to add to the obstruction of justice list, so little time....
 
rocket88 said:
So the whole memo is, as the Democrats say, just an attempt to undermine the investigation? Wow, so many Congress people to add to the obstruction of justice list, so little time....
Click to expand...

The investigation, as Republicans say, is a total hoax from the get-go. The memo helps verify that.
 
WCH said:
Read the article. If the investigation was created under false pretences... all bets are off.
Click to expand...

You'd like that but unfortunately the people you support set precedent to the contrary when they ran seven "Benghazi" investigations (tied to the retarded notion that by repeating the CIA's initial assessment that the attack was motivated by a video for two weeks and calling it an act of terror, the admin was somehow covering something up) just so they could talk about an email server.

Ditto for the Whitewater business turning into a beej investigation.

Both were cynical investigations founded on garbage pretenses. The GOP didn't have a problem with it then. They don't get to have a problem with it now, except, that's not what's going on now either. Meuller was given a very broad mandate (which is of course why people on the right keep lying and trying to pretend it was only about collusion). He's charged four people thus far.

Not that you'll admit it, but your "false pretenses" angle is itself a false pretense. Funny, that....
 
WCH said:
The investigation, as Republicans say, is a total hoax from the get-go. The memo helps verify that.
Click to expand...

LOL! It must be fun to deny reality on a minute by minute basis.

I can assure you the investigation is quite real and not a hoax. Bobby Mueller really is leading a team of real life top level prosecutors and investigators.

You can read abou them in the media if you doubt me.
 
WCH said:
The investigation, as Republicans say, is a total hoax from the get-go. The memo helps verify that.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Republicans in Congress having their own investigation.
 
Mr Person said:
You'd like that but unfortunately the people you support set precedent to the contrary when they ran seven "Benghazi" investigations (tied to the retarded notion that by repeating the CIA's initial assessment that the attack was motivated by a video for two weeks and calling it an act of terror, the admin was somehow covering something up) just so they could talk about an email server.

Ditto for the Whitewater business turning into a beej investigation.

Both were cynical investigations founded on garbage pretenses. The GOP didn't have a problem with it then. They don't get to have a problem with it now, except, that's not what's going on now either. Meuller was given a very broad mandate (which is of course why people on the right keep lying and trying to pretend it was only about collusion). He's charged four people thus far.

Not that you'll admit it, but your "false pretenses" angle is itself a false pretense. Funny, that....
Click to expand...

As far as the indictment that have been laid out, they wouldn't hold water. The whole thing is based on a lie...a hoax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom