• 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!

Brennan, Clapper, Obama, Clinton, Page, McCabe, Strzok, Lynch, etc.

Nonsense. Apparently you've painted your self into a swamp of snooty propriety and now feel compelled to attack a social construction that is commonly understood and shared by the rest of us as NOT disrespectful EXCEPT to the target of the sarcasm. You can invent your own language that lack a sense of sarcasm, but our language and culture shares a plain meaning and construction that you don't get.

Sad. Perhaps you can move to a remote island where your native language is "ecofarm" - but as long as your going to interact here I suggest you use the lingua franca of America - American English.



No one would stand for calling an adversary an American hero unless that hero is female and or brown. It's disrespectful, it's sexist and it's racist.
 
No one would stand for calling an adversary an American hero unless that hero is female and or brown. It's disrespectful, it's sexist and it's racist.

Apparently you lack a major cognitive ability found in most, but not all, people: the ability to detect and understand the use of irony in mocking, sarcasm, sardonic wit, or tongue-in-cheek.

And even though I have explained it to you, it's rather like explaining sight to the life-long blind. At least that seems so from the incoherent obtuseness in your replies.

For example, most of us know that few would tolerate calling any villain a hero unless the sentence or tone were structured so as to convey the opposite, that the villain is anything BUT an authentic hero. Your tone-deafness to context conveying meaning, is quite remarkable. I'm wondering if anyone else has noted and mentioned it to you?

In any event, there is no point in providing yet more examples. There will always be a minority percentage of people who are so literal minded who, regardless of age, will never grasp the complex relationship between language, intention and context.

Best of luck.
 
Apparently you lack a major cognitive ability found in most, but not all, people: the ability to detect and understand the use of irony in mocking, sarcasm, sardonic wit, or tongue-in-cheek.

And even though I have explained it to you, it's rather like explaining sight to the life-long blind. At least that seems so from the incoherent obtuseness in your replies.

For example, most of us now that few would tolerate calling any villain a hero unless the sentence or tone were structured so as to convey the opposite, that the villain is anything BUT an authentic hero. Your tone-deafness to context conveying meaning, is quite remarkable. I'm wondering if anyone else has noted and mentioned it to you?

In any event, there is no point in providing yet more examples. There will always be a minority percentage of people who are so literal minded who, regardless of age, will never grasp the complex relationship between language, intention and context.

Best of luck.

You cannot produce a counter example. Just a buncha BS excusing racist sexist garbage.
 
I already did, "Einstein". ;)

Nickname of a political opponent by a national figure.

Who's called Washington? Lincoln? Jefferson? Nope, but who cares about a brown female hero dragged through the mud.
 
Perhaps. But I think it already damaged her, and that might be evidenced by her meager poll numbers and flame-out. Regardless, I don't see her catching-on sufficiently. She might make the bottom of the ticket, though. But for Veep, I'd probably prefer Kamala Harris.

I don't like Kamala Harris.
 
So the citizens of Trump Fan Nation have been telling us for months that the Mueller report was going to result in all sorts of terrible issues for these people, and they were going to all be locked up. Has anyone found the pages in the Mueller report yet that basically exposes all of the heinous crimes these people committed, and when can we expect these indictments to be handed down?

Mueller wasn't tasked with investigating any of them. Their day is coming.
 
Mueller wasn't tasked with investigating any of them. Their day is coming.

Well that isn't what Trump Fan Nation was saying. I kept reading about all of the malfeasance that were about to rear their ugly heads in the Mueller investigation about all the terrible things those people did.
 
It doesn't literally report they are con artists, they not the subject of the report. However the content of the report exposes (reveals) what most of us suspected: these characters were full of **** all along.

Former CIA Director Brennan, for example, has been pushing the falsehood that about real and substantive collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia for the past two years. On what basis? Now that Mueller has shot holes in his meme, he sheepish admits he "must have gotten some bad information".

No kidding. Now begins the development of those terrible issues of the great hoax, who perpetuated it, and to hold the hoaxers accountable.

The wheel turns...heh...heh...heh.


So in other words, you lied.
 
So the citizens of Trump Fan Nation have been telling us for months that the Mueller report was going to result in all sorts of terrible issues for these people, and they were going to all be locked up. Has anyone found the pages in the Mueller report yet that basically exposes all of the heinous crimes these people committed, and when can we expect these indictments to be handed down?

The Mueller investigation was targeted toward Trump. The investigation was not allowed to diverge, to crimes unrelated to Trump's assumed guilt. Mueller was not commissioned into looking into the role of Obama and Clinton, unless Trump made a deal directly with them, and Trump could be attached to that crime. Barr has said he will now make a new targeted investigation, that targets the front end; Democrat characters, who began the scam. How did this 2 years of collusion delusion begin?

There is the IG; inspector general report, on FISA abuse, in the works. The technical problem with this report is, the IG can only investigate active government employees. Many of the criminals involved in the abuse; i.e., Comie, don't work for the government any longer. They cannot be questioned, because they are private citizens. The IG report may not be conclusive, based on the private-public employee protocol. Barr will use this report, as a start, and expand it to include the guilty private citizens not questioned.

The collusion delusion and how it fooled the left, can understood with an example. It was an honest mistake by left loyalists. Say you were reading a mystery novel. Instead of reading it from the beginning, you start the book in the middle. Since the first half of the book usually develops the characters and the plot, starting in the middle can cause the story to appear to take a different direction, in terms of the conclusion you will draw.

For example, say the novel is about a retired spy enjoying retirement with his wife at their exotic home. One day a former adversary, attacks them and kills his wife. This is the first chapter where the plot begins.

Say you started the novel in the middle, and do not know the story line defined by the first chapter. Instead in the middle chapter, that you start, the hero is breaking into a mansion and stealing a brief case. One does not know he is the hero but rather it is reasonable to assume he is a thief or the villain. You lack the front end context to know for sure. Instead you will have infer, based only on someone break in and stealing. This usually means thief.

This is why Barr is about to write the first half of the mystery novel. The rough draft is already done, thanks to people like Senator Nunes and investigative reporters like Solomon and McCarthy. Barr will add more facts and then turn this rough draft, into a finished first half of the book. Once the novel is reread, from start to finish, the inference and conclusions will be totally different. The Democrat leadership is fighting the writing of the first chapters, since they know their goose will be cooked. On the other hand, the Democrat, rank and file, will not be able to ignore their own common sense when they read the fill novel. They could only ignore the truth, when they were told to start the book in the middle and forget about the beginning. The left was played by their own leaders.
 
The Mueller investigation was targeted toward Trump. The investigation was not allowed to diverge, to crimes unrelated to Trump's assumed guilt. Mueller was not commissioned into looking into the role of Obama and Clinton, unless Trump made a deal directly with them, and Trump could be attached to that crime. Barr has said he will now make a new targeted investigation, that targets the front end; Democrat characters, who began the scam. How did this 2 years of collusion delusion begin?

There is the IG; inspector general report, on FISA abuse, in the works. The technical problem with this report is, the IG can only investigate active government employees. Many of the criminals involved in the abuse; i.e., Comie, don't work for the government any longer. They cannot be questioned, because they are private citizens. The IG report may not be conclusive, based on the private-public employee protocol. Barr will use this report, as a start, and expand it to include the guilty private citizens not questioned.

The collusion delusion and how it fooled the left, can understood with an example. It was an honest mistake by left loyalists. Say you were reading a mystery novel. Instead of reading it from the beginning, you start the book in the middle. Since the first half of the book usually develops the characters and the plot, starting in the middle can cause the story to appear to take a different direction, in terms of the conclusion you will draw.

For example, say the novel is about a retired spy enjoying retirement with his wife at their exotic home. One day a former adversary, attacks them and kills his wife. This is the first chapter where the plot begins.

Say you started the novel in the middle, and do not know the story line defined by the first chapter. Instead in the middle chapter, that you start, the hero is breaking into a mansion and stealing a brief case. One does not know he is the hero but rather it is reasonable to assume he is a thief or the villain. You lack the front end context to know for sure. Instead you will have infer, based only on someone break in and stealing. This usually means thief.

This is why Barr is about to write the first half of the mystery novel. The rough draft is already done, thanks to people like Senator Nunes and investigative reporters like Solomon and McCarthy. Barr will add more facts and then turn this rough draft, into a finished first half of the book. Once the novel is reread, from start to finish, the inference and conclusions will be totally different. The Democrat leadership is fighting the writing of the first chapters, since they know their goose will be cooked. On the other hand, the Democrat, rank and file, will not be able to ignore their own common sense when they read the fill novel. They could only ignore the truth, when they were told to start the book in the middle and forget about the beginning. The left was played by their own leaders.

So all of the people who were indicted as a result of the Mueller investigation were.....what again?
 
The Mueller investigation was targeted toward Trump. The investigation was not allowed to diverge, to crimes unrelated to Trump's assumed guilt. Mueller was not commissioned into looking into the role of Obama and Clinton, unless Trump made a deal directly with them, and Trump could be attached to that crime. Barr has said he will now make a new targeted investigation, that targets the front end; Democrat characters, who began the scam. How did this 2 years of collusion delusion begin?

There is the IG; inspector general report, on FISA abuse, in the works. The technical problem with this report is, the IG can only investigate active government employees. Many of the criminals involved in the abuse; i.e., Comie, don't work for the government any longer. They cannot be questioned, because they are private citizens. The IG report may not be conclusive, based on the private-public employee protocol. Barr will use this report, as a start, and expand it to include the guilty private citizens not questioned.

The collusion delusion and how it fooled the left, can understood with an example. It was an honest mistake by left loyalists. Say you were reading a mystery novel. Instead of reading it from the beginning, you start the book in the middle. Since the first half of the book usually develops the characters and the plot, starting in the middle can cause the story to appear to take a different direction, in terms of the conclusion you will draw.

For example, say the novel is about a retired spy enjoying retirement with his wife at their exotic home. One day a former adversary, attacks them and kills his wife. This is the first chapter where the plot begins.

Say you started the novel in the middle, and do not know the story line defined by the first chapter. Instead in the middle chapter, that you start, the hero is breaking into a mansion and stealing a brief case. One does not know he is the hero but rather it is reasonable to assume he is a thief or the villain. You lack the front end context to know for sure. Instead you will have infer, based only on someone break in and stealing. This usually means thief.

This is why Barr is about to write the first half of the mystery novel. The rough draft is already done, thanks to people like Senator Nunes and investigative reporters like Solomon and McCarthy. Barr will add more facts and then turn this rough draft, into a finished first half of the book. Once the novel is reread, from start to finish, the inference and conclusions will be totally different. The Democrat leadership is fighting the writing of the first chapters, since they know their goose will be cooked. On the other hand, the Democrat, rank and file, will not be able to ignore their own common sense when they read the fill novel. They could only ignore the truth, when they were told to start the book in the middle and forget about the beginning. The left was played by their own leaders.

Greetings, wellwisher. :2wave:


Excellent analogy! :thumbs: Well stated clarification! :applaud
 
Greetings, wellwisher. :2wave:


Excellent analogy! :thumbs: Well stated clarification! :applaud

Too bad is post was wrong at the second sentence.

The investigation was not allowed to diverge, to crimes unrelated to Trump's assumed guilt

You may want to let Manafort, Papadopoulos, Flynn, Cohen and the Russians know that Mueller's investigation wasn't allowed to diverge into their crimes.
 
Just stating a fact. It isn't a slur on your character at all. If I was slurring your character, you'd know it, and I wouldn't do it up here.

So you were just stating an irrelevant and disputable fact, and mind-reading to accuse a poster of lying. If you don't recognize your pointless semantic quibbling was followed by a unsupported slur, then "up here" dialog is pointless.
 
So you were just stating an irrelevant and disputable fact, and mind-reading to accuse a poster of lying. If you don't recognize your pointless semantic quibbling was followed by a unsupported slur, then "up here" dialog is pointless.

It isn't my fault that you lied. Next time you make a claim about what the Mueller report says, be prepared to back it up. I asked you to back it up, and you couldn't.
 
It isn't my fault that you lied. Next time you make a claim about what the Mueller report says, be prepared to back it up. I asked you to back it up, and you couldn't.

But it is entirely your fault that you chose to make a bad faith reading of a phrase that can be interpreted in at least two or more ways, and to "mind read" that I lied (as opposed to making, at worst, a mistake).

I didn't make a claim about "what the report says"; I made a claim about what the report EXPOSED, and I backed it up. A report that shows a person to be in good health doesn't SAY that those claiming the person is on his/her death bed are flim-flammers, BUT the health report does EXPOSE that anyone telling this false hood must be acting as flim-flammers.

THAT was the reason I chose the word "expose" to describe the EFFECT of the report, to EXPOSE the media con-men. I never claimed it the report SAID it - although you chose to read it that way in order to make a snark.

Because I know you are sufficiently intelligent to have read it and understood the point in good faith (or at least asked for clarification if you did not), and still dodge the point "up here" further dialog "up here" is pointless. Communicating "up here' with an insulting snarky jerk is not entertaining for me, so it will now end … tootles.
 
Last edited:
But it is entirely your fault that you chose to make a bad faith reading of a phrase that can be interpreted in at least two or more ways, and to "mind read" that I lied (as opposed to making, at worst, a mistake).

I didn't make a claim about "what the report says"; I made a claim about what the report EXPOSED, and I backed it up. A report that shows a person to be in good health doesn't SAY that those claiming the person is on his/her death bed are flim-flammers, BUT the health report does EXPOSE that anyone telling this false hood must be acting as flim-flammers.

THAT was the reason I chose the word "expose" to describe the EFFECT of the report, to EXPOSE the media con-men. I never claimed it the report SAID it - although you chose to read it that way in order to make a snark.

Because I know you are sufficiently intelligent to have read it and understood the point in good faith (or at least asked for clarification if you did not), and still dodge the point "up here" further dialog "up here" is pointless. Communicating "up here' with an insulting snarky jerk is not entertaining for me, so it will now end … tootles.

I don't recall saying I was reading anyone's mind. Can you point me to that post?

The report exposed Trump. It didn't expose anyone else.
 
Too bad is post was wrong at the second sentence.

The investigation was not allowed to diverge, to crimes unrelated to Trump's assumed guilt

You may want to let Manafort, Papadopoulos, Flynn, Cohen and the Russians know that Mueller's investigation wasn't allowed to diverge into their crimes.

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

I know the story, but I wanted to tell Wellwisher that I liked his way of looking at what happened. His courteous example of "starting the story in the middle of the book" approach not only made sense, but it was also interesting to read! Since I doubt that any of us posting here had anything to do with this fiasco, and those that did already know what parts they played, and since I am very tired of hearing the SOS over and over, I trust that karma will handle what happens next! :thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom