Logic

http://observer.com/2017/03/fbi-nsa-congressional-session-trump-putin-kremlin/ "Monday’s marathon Congressional session about Moscow’s clandestine machinations during our 2016 election was one for the books. The directors of the FBI and NSA hardly ever speak jointly in open session, so this was a truly special event, and what they had to say rocked American politics. Together, the FBI’s James Comey and NSA’s Mike Rogers made it abundantly clear to the House Intelligence Committee that Russian spies interfered in last year’s presidential campaign, to the detriment of Hillary Clinton and the benefit of Donald Trump. Moreover, the new president and his team are under FBI counterintelligence investigation, and have been since last summer, in an inquiry that’s attempting to get to the bottom of this unpleasant mess—including assessing if there was any clandestine collusion between the Kremlin and Team Trump." For those who still make insistences to the contrary.

To be fair, I am in agreement that Wikipedia is not a quality "source". That being said, everything I posted in the quote from that link was factual. It wasn't as if it was erroneous information. Furthermore, I wouldn't call newbsusters.org, the National Review, or Fox News "reliable, fact-based reporting" either, yet I see those "sources" used here constantly.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/22/paul-manaforts-plan-greatly-benefit-putin-government/99483224/ "President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests." It's getting smokey in here. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breitbart-covered-by-fbis-russia-probe-report/article/2617956#.WNHYNN614Fw.twitter "Breitbart News, the right-leaning news site that aggressively promoted Donald Trump's bid for the presidency, is part of the FBI's probe on Russia's influence of the election, according to a report. The report, by McClatchy, said the FBI is looking at whether Breitbart and other "far-right news operations took any actions to assist Russia's operatives." Breitbart was formerly run by President Trump's White House strategic adviser Steve Bannon, who left the site to chair Trump's campaign in the fall." et tu, Bannon?

Thanks for this response. Well reasoned and civil. Sometimes it's tough to acknowledge that, while much of the GOP have been selfish, obstructionist children the past eight years, it doesn't mean democrats have to follow suit. You're probably correct, though.

You both act as if the head of the FBI didn't JUST testify that this very matter is currently under investigation. You also act as if hacking one political party's servers and not the other's doesn't constitute a potentially damaging altering of public opinion for a specific purpose. Under questioning from Representative K. Michael Conaway, Republican of Texas, Mr. Comey confirmed the intelligence agencies’ findings that the goal of Russian interference in the election was to hurt Mrs. Clinton, a particular target of the ire of Russian President Vladimir V. Putin. “To be clear, Mr. Conaway, we all agreed with that judgment,” Mr. Comey said, and Admiral Rogers added his assent. But Mr. Conaway repeatedly probed the agencies’ additional conclusion: that Russia, and Mr. Putin, also wanted to help Mr. Trump. Mr. Comey stated what he suggested was obvious: “Putin hated Secretary Clinton so much, that the flip side of that coin was he had a clear preference for the person running against the person he hated so much.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/takeaways-russia-intelligence-committee-hearing.html

Is that supposed to count as a rebuttal or reasonable refutation of my opinion? Deflection is not discussion. Be honest: If the scenario were flipped and, say President Hillary Clinton was under ongoing FBI investigation for collusion with a foreign government to affect the presidential election, and she was trying to push through a Supreme Court justice, how would you feel? I'm sure you'd be all for it, right?

When they hacked the 2016 presidential election. Here's a Wiki, in case you missed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks.[3][4] In early January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper testified before a Senate committee that Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign went beyond hacking, and included disinformation and the dissemination of fake news often promoted on social media.[5] Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates, including his advisers Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.[6][7] U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that Putin "personally directed" the operation

Two things: First, I agree with Chuck Schumer about the fact that it's unseemly to allow a president currently under FBI investigation for colluding with a foreign enemy to appoint a justice to a lifetime position. Second, at the VERY LEAST, it seems reasonable to slow the process down a bit in order to get a more thorough chance to vet Gorsuch and to let more of the Trump/Russia process play out. And for anyone who says "enough obstructionism" or "why wait?", well: The GOP saw fit to let 322 days pass without even giving Garland a hearing, and now they think it's important to push through Gorsuch ASAP? What's the hurry all of a sudden?

I'll check back in with you as this thing progresses and see if you still think it's so funny.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-trump-faces-his-hardest-truth-he-was-wrong/2017/03/20/af9cabfc-0d83-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.bb95b016b6ea "There’s a smell of treason in the air,” presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said. “Imagine if J. Edgar Hoover or any other FBI director would have testified against a sitting president? It would have been a mind- boggling event.” Brinkley, who has published biographies of such presidents as Gerald Ford, Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt, said of Trump’s start, “This is the most failed first 100 days of any president.” “To be as low as he is in the polls, in the 30s, while the FBI director is on television saying they launched an investigation into your ties with Russia, I don’t know how it can get much worse,” Brinkley said.

Jets are purposely tanking to get Darnold next year. 2-14, here we come! J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS!!!

Sure. So long as we also get to remove the billions of dollars that oil companies spend to pump out misinformation and denial reports. And with regard to convincing you...what say you to the fact that the 10 hottest years in modern history all came within the past 15 years? Coincidence? Unrelated? False? (Forgive me, I did not use the search function to go back and try to hunt down your opinion on this fact, much to the possible dismay of that Meazza fellow). I appreciate the link and the further explanation. What I'd like to know is this: What evidence exists that the "theory" of climate change, as you put it, was found to be false? What peer-reviewed (or at least reasonably unbiased and fact-based) reports exist claiming that the science on global warming has been disproven? If I have missed it in this thread, forgive me. I admittedly have not read all 140 pages of discussion and am genuinely curious to know why several people here are of this opinion. Thanks.

The possibility or likelihood that information or data can be proven false. Now is where you explain your point in asking this or show me the proof that the data in question has been falsified.

Do you need a hug or something? It's just a message forum. Sheesh.

To be fair, I don't see much scientific value in talking about how snowstorms mean climate change is a hoax, either, but that's what the last page and a half were loaded with.

I knew I shouldn't have trusted the word of a man with "jizzle" in his name. No need for hostility and name-calling, now.

Are you insinuating that you think the majority of the 97% are falsifying their data? And I'd like to suggest a topic, too (and yes, I'm sure it's been discussed already somewhere in these 140 pages. That doesn't make it any less pertinent to the discussion): The ten hottest years on record. What do we suppose this data means? Was it, too, falsified?

I could just easily state that "ignoring and/or disavowing a 97% consensus among a scientific community is to misunderstand what science is".

Cool. So a TRUMP SUPPORTER thinks it's "embarrassing" that leftists keep lying. How's old honest Donny coming along with his not-at-all-embarrassing wiretapping allegations against Obama, by the way? If lies embarrass you, my friend, I think you're supporting the wrong man.

There's really no sense in trying to debate someone over a topic about which 97% of scientists are in agreement. If the only response to "97% of experts on this issue agree" is "It's a money laundering scheme started by unions!", then, well...where do you really go from there? I simply don't understand how it can be so easy for so many people to completely disavow a near 100% consensus by scientists that something is a fact. I'll say it again: The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not. And to those upset that I didn't comb through all 140 pages of this thread to ensure that what I posted has not previously been posted, I apologize. But in fairness, "97% of scientists agree" is pretty much the thread ender...unless you truly believe that climate change is a big hoax created to launder money. If you don't believe 97% of scientists, I don't know what to tell you. It's like the kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

Just curious, are you a Trump supporter?

Philly Brown and Walt Powell Right now, I see the depth chart looking roughly like this: Watkins Holmes Brown Tate Butler Powell ...doesn't matter. Still hoping for a high draft pick to round out the WR corps.

Fair enough. I am apparently not the only one who WOULD use that word, though: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/marlon-humphrey?id=2558067 STRENGTHS Has the body type and athletic traits that are out of central casting. Fluid hips and hard-charging makeup speed. Well-versed in a variety of coverages. Plays with disciplined eyes and good balance between high-low responsibilities in zone. Good short-area acceleration to close out receivers and attack throwing lanes. Reactive athleticism helps erase coverage mistakes. Extremely competitive with an edge that spikes after he's beaten. Timid receivers should take the day off. Aggressive from press with a powerful punch. Looks to intimidate when the opportunity arises. Drives receivers out of bounds and out of the play if their vertical release takes them too close to the boundary. Will not let a blocking receiver punk him. Tears through blocker and attacks downhill. Searches for opportunities to strip the ball; forced three fumbles in 2016.

I think Marlon Humphrey, with all his aggression, run stopping prowess, and the likelihood that he fits best in a zone scheme...could be a sleeper pick for the Bills. Whether he is worth the 10th pick or whether it makes more sense to trade down and hope to land him is a topic I'll leave to the draft experts on here.

Because science.