dubs Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 Can we stop using the dem strategic language and not call Eric C a whistleblower. He’s not. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: No, I do not. and he does not meet the actual criteria for the category of whistleblower anyway. No greater danger by publicizing it more? Are you sure? OK, then why are you doing it? What is gained by publicizing him/her? Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: No greater danger by publicizing it more? Are you sure? OK, then why are you doing it? What is gained by publicizing him/her? Truth is power, Bob. I know you have a hard time understanding that with as much disinformation as you spew -- but truth is power. Sharing that power is beneficial to the community and the world at large. 2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. Again, if you care so much about protecting whistleblowers, why were you silent when Nunes was being targeted -- Nunes didn't have the media protecting him, they enabled the targeting, and pig piled on. Bob, you were silent that whole time. Why? Could it be because you're a blind partisan and not truly interested in protecting whistleblowers unless you're ordered to by your masters? Nah. That can't be it... 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: No greater danger by publicizing it more? Are you sure? OK, then why are you doing it? What is gained by publicizing him/her? Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. your brian truly is broken. you are attempting to equate B-Man with a public figure. just stop would you. you are so far out in the weeds that any semblance with logic is completely void. you're hardly recognizable at this point. Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 How can someone who is not asserting any direct, first-hand knowledge, all while we actually have transcripts of the conversations the person is purporting to be uncovering, be a whistleblower. Because he filled out a form? 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 13 minutes ago, Foxx said: not B-Man, however... Bob, there is considerable question whether he is 'legally' a whistle blower or not. no one should be put in danger but, there deserves to be a fact finding operation to find out the specifics of his motive, his coming forward and who he collaborated with. it is all relevant. he would be in no more danger than other operatives who are being outed for their duplicitous role in the #moderdaywatergate. stop regurgitating the propaganda press talking points, think for yourself, Bob. Stop with the talking points BS. It is tiring. I give my own opinions on this board as much as anyone and I do think for myself. You don't like my thoughts, fine but they are my opinions. How come if you say something generally agreed to by your side it is OK but if the other side does similar, they read it from the talking points? I recall getting accused of using Elijah Cummings words in a post that I put up about 5 hours before Cummings spoke. Sometime people can see the same situation and come to the same conclusion independently. So your whistle blower point is no one should be put in more danger but this guy probably would be (as much as modern day watergate) and he deserves it. Yeah, and my reasoning skills are faulty. sure thing Foxx 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, dubs said: How can someone who is not asserting any direct, first-hand knowledge, all while we actually have transcripts of the conversations the person is purporting to be uncovering, be a whistleblower. Because he filled out a form? Sounds a lot like the disinformation trolls on ppp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: Stop with the talking points BS. It is tiring. I give my own opinions on this board as much as anyone and I do think for myself. All evidence to the contrary. You are literally spouting talking points -- and have yet to show you're capable of thinking for yourself when that requires you to read/understand information that runs counter to those very talking points you're here to spew. You can prove me wrong though, by answering my question about Nunes and why you were silent about his targeting but so worked up over EC's. Why is that, Bob? Think for yourself before answering... 3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: You don't like my thoughts, fine but they are my opinions. Thoughts taken right from the MSM spigot... but carry on. 3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: So your whistle blower point is no one should be put in more danger but this guy probably would be (as much as modern day watergate) and he deserves it. Yeah, and my reasoning skills are faulty. sure thing Foxx Your reasoning skills ARE faulty because you keep thinking he's a whistleblower when he's not. He's part of the plot against the president. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 17 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: No greater danger by publicizing it more? Are you sure? OK, then why are you doing it? What is gained by publicizing him/her? Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. You may or may not know, that I shy away from the back and forth conversations here on the board. I am not here to "win" but to offer information that you (and others) probably will not seek out yourself. You asked politely, so I answered. I do not believe that Eric Ciamella is any more dangerous position, by having his name out there. You do. Though I am not interested in your "what if" proposals. Carry on with the others if you so desire. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 Just now, B-Man said: You may or may not know, that I shy away from the back and forth conversations here on the board. I am not here to "win" but to offer information that you (and others) probably will not seek out yourself. You asked politely, so I answered. I do not believe that Eric Ciamella is any more dangerous position, by having his name out there. You do. Though I am not interested in your "what if" proposals. Carry on with the others if you so desire. His name has been known for three months by every right wing group in the country. He's not in danger. If he were, it would have manifested by now. But Bob "thinks for himself" so he came to this conclusion that it's dangerous for him all on his own. Never mind that it's been a media talking point for the past two months, it's what Bob came to all on his own! Deep thinker, that Bob. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Stop with the talking points BS. It is tiring. I give my own opinions on this board as much as anyone and I do think for myself. You don't like my thoughts, fine but they are my opinions. How come if you say something generally agreed to by your side it is OK but if the other side does similar, they read it from the talking points? I recall getting accused of using Elijah Cummings words in a post that I put up about 5 hours before Cummings spoke. Sometime people can see the same situation and come to the same conclusion independently. So your whistle blower point is no one should be put in more danger but this guy probably would be (as much as modern day watergate) and he deserves it. Yeah, and my reasoning skills are faulty. sure thing Foxx Bob, you give what you think are your opinions. and they may be, however in reality, they were implanted there by the propaganda press of the Left. how do i know? you do not, in any way shape or form, display any signs of cognitive ability that you are thinking for yourself. i understand that it is tough to realize that you are a tool for the Left, NLP is a very real and strong tool in their box that they employ. you apparently are not tired of having been wrong for three, going on four years now. it's okay though, i do know that banging one's head up against the wall will eventually bleed through and even the thickest skull will realize that it hurts. i am just trying to help you along, Bob. by all means, carry on with your delusion. Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 12 minutes ago, Foxx said: your brian truly is broken. you are attempting to equate B-Man with a public figure. just stop would you. you are so far out in the weeds that any semblance with logic is completely void,.you're hardly recognizable at this point. I have limited exposure to your posting style but I have noticed a pattern. You do these broad hand waving dismissals of posts claiming, posters are disingenuous, or dishonest, or an idiot, etc. Ironically, that is disingenuous of you. What, specifically is so illogical? Where? And, what is with the constant need to insult? We covered this I thought. If at a bar a few chairs away, would you keep insulting the conversation partner? Likely not I suspect. Why here? It is not necessary and uncalled for. I can insult too and surely have but you keep firing opening shots for no good reason that I see. And the point is NOT public figure or not. The point is trying to get greater publicity on his identity endangers the guy and family and is unnecessary to do any investigation. What you have so far are accusations of bad behavior. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 Eric Ciaramella Attorney, January 2017: “Coup Has Started ... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/06/eric-ciaramella-attorney-january-2017... Nov 06, 2019 · A few people have started looking at the connections behind Mark Zaid, the attorney for CIA "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella. What is starting to emerge is evidence of what CTH outlined yesterday; the current impeachment process is part of a coup continuum, and everything around the whistleblower is part of a long-ago planned and pre-constructed operation.… Eric Ciaramella Attorney, January 2017: “Coup Has Started ... https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3792120/posts A few people have started looking at the connections behind Mark Zaid, the attorney for CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella. What is starting to emerge is evidence of what CTH outlined yesterday; the current impeachment process is part of a coup continuum, and everything around the whistleblower is part of a long-ago planned and pre ... Eric Ciaramella Attorney, January 2017: “Coup Has Started ... https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/eric-ciaramella-attorney-january-2017... A few people have started looking at the connections behind Mark Zaid, the attorney for CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella. What is starting to emerge is evidence of what CTH outlined yesterday; the current impeachment process is part of a coup continuum, and everything around the whistleblower is part of a long-ago planned and pre-constructed operation. "Coup Has Started" - Whistleblower's Attorney Mark Zaid ... https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/coup-has... From what we know so far the current participants in the latest coup attempt to remove Donald Trump include a who’s who of liberal politicians. Activist attorney Mark Zaid, who represents the anti-Trump CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella is linked to Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta. Zaid’s old tweets are coming back to haunt him … Eric Ciaramella Attorney, January 2017: “Coup Has Started ... https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/eric-ciaramella-attorney-january-2017... Eric Ciaramella Attorney, January 2017: “Coup Has Started” – July 2017 - You think that a deep state operative involved in a giant conspiracy to fabricate e Ciaramella's lawyer admits to coup against Trump (CNN ... www.city-data.com/.../3101220-ciaramellas-lawyer-admits-coup-against-trump.html Nov 06, 2019 · He's Eric Ciaramella's lawyer, and it's interesting to see his support for a coup since day one of the Trump presidency given that he's now involved in a coup attempt. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: And the point is NOT public figure or not. The point is trying to get greater publicity on his identity endangers the guy and family and is unnecessary to do any investigation. What you have so far are accusations of bad behavior. His name has been known for months -- he's fine. He's central to the investigation as he's the accuser. His role is important to understand, if you care about truth of course. Which you do not. You care about having your beliefs confirmed. Bob, why were you silent when Nunes was under death threats? Why didn't you speak out about protecting an actual whistle blower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I have limited exposure to your posting style but I have noticed a pattern. You do these broad hand waving dismissals of posts claiming, posters are disingenuous, or dishonest, or an idiot, etc. Ironically, that is disingenuous of you. What, specifically is so illogical? Where? And, what is with the constant need to insult? We covered this I thought. If at a bar a few chairs away, would you keep insulting the conversation partner? Likely not I suspect. Why here? It is not necessary and uncalled for. I can insult too and surely have but you keep firing opening shots for no good reason that I see. And the point is NOT public figure or not. The point is trying to get greater publicity on his identity endangers the guy and family and is unnecessary to do any investigation. What you have so far are accusations of bad behavior. Bob, you can not see that trying to equivocate B-Man with a public figure is apples and oranges, Bob? you made the equivocation, Bob. perhaps you need to go back and reread your post. i l l o g i c a l , B o b. Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 59 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: T.L., mornin. Slept well I expect. Upon reflection and time....and, no, actually given what now passes for no prob, the fact that Bill lied, seems like, eh, so who doesn't? Times have changed on lying for sure. In 1999 my buddy was a big deal in Human Resources. It stuck when he opined that the Pres would be fired from any large public company if that behavior with an intern and subsequent lying became public. He thought any board would replace the guy pronto. I kept thinking that BillC should be held to higher standards. Apparently you too thought the perjury too much. Again though, times have changed that we were aghast at lying.. Seems today if the Pres did it, we likely would not agree as to how 'bad' that was. Sure, I can see the McCarthy angle from the hyper prosecution angle. I just don't agree that holding Trump accountable for the Ukraine scheme is hyper. I realize too that you see it differently. The lying thing, c'mon Len, Trump can not be trusted to tell the truth every day of every week. He lies so much more so than (on my honor) than any politician I have ever heard speak. His only rivals are his staff. Holy crap that Kelly Ann Conway can spit out 3 lies before any normal person could interrupt or interject. But I digress.....To say there is any level of equivalence cuz you can find a lie for them is not being sincere, imo. Question: Can you tell his lies from his truths when they happen? If so, what is the tell or the clue? If Trump were impeached of course Mr Pence is in the wings. He is possibly worse than Trump on several issues from my perspective. His 'faith' may guide him and that, if it wasn't fake, would be an improvement but the separation of church and state issues concern me. This 'overturn the election' seems less outrageous though when you consider it was Trump/Pence and it would become Pence Standards have eroded. Check. Clinton earned his perjury charge. Check. I was never “aghast” at lying, I can’t recall a time when I didn’t think it was a normal for a politician to lie, so while I get what you’re trying to say on the higher standard issue, I think it’s a crock just as I think witnesses in thus impeachment will or could lead to some baseline of understanding amongst our political parties. I have no special truth-o-meter, but I do have the ability to reason. If you apply Bob’s Deluxe Less-Lie-Spectrometer to politicians, that’s great, but simply know that I think that argument is absurd. Your comments on Trump and Kelly Ann Conway are hyperbolic, but these issues tend to cause emotional declarations to be made, but as I said before...how cute it is you think your guys are less liarly than the people I support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, B-Man said: You may or may not know, that I shy away from the back and forth conversations here on the board. I am not here to "win" but to offer information that you (and others) probably will not seek out yourself. You asked politely, so I answered. I do not believe that Eric Ciamella is any more dangerous position, by having his name out there. You do. Though I am not interested in your "what if" proposals. Carry on with the others if you so desire. I am just trying to understand, if not to bring greater danger to the guy, why try to make sure his identity is exposed? One can push for all mentioned investigations but in this climate I find it hard to understand that you think he would not be a bigger target. Recall that guy that mailed those bombs to dozens? BTW, I never knew you didn't want replies. Going forward I can do that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 The best part of any Tweet about Eric Ciaramella (the leaker/coconspirator popularly referred to as "the whistleblower") is the histrionic hacks that inevitably accuse the poster of putting his life in danger. Hypocrisy aside, no one with an IQ above room temperature could actually think that. Anyone who cares enough to pay attention has known his name for months. The theory must be that one of these crazed, rabid Trump supporters, that we hear so much about but rarely, if ever, see, feels so strongly about this that he'd take the guy out, but hasn't followed the story at all. It's a pretty stupid theory. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 13 minutes ago, Foxx said: Bob, you can not see that trying to equivocate B-Man with a public figure is apples and oranges, Bob? you made the equivocation, Bob. perhaps you need to go back and reread your post. i l l o g i c a l , B o b. Can you comprehend that my comparison was not about public figure vs private individual? The point is exposing an individual's identity on the web exposes that individual to possible retaliation from anyone on the web that may have beef. Period. Before your stroke, let me state that I realize that public figures have less expectations of privacy What is your purpose of ensuring the guy's identity is pushed further into the light, allowing that is not necessary in order to push for any investigation? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 http://www.floppingaces.net/2019/11/03/schiff-has-made-a-fatal-error/ Adam Schiff has pursued Donald Trump with a religious fervor. He desperately want Trump out of office and will resort to just about anything to that end. Of late he is conducting secret impeachment proceedings, having failed to produce his mysterious Russian collusion evidence. In his zeal he has made a gigantic error- his “whistleblowers.” #1- Eric Ciaramella registered democrat Contacted Schiff’s office first Had whistleblower forms changed just for him worked for John Brennan worked with Alexandra Chalupa, who sought and obtained 2016 Ukranian election in interference worked for Joe Biden left post at NSC under cloud of leaking authored the “Putin told Trump to fire Comey” story disapproved of Trump foreign policy #2- Alexander Vindman He lied about Trumps’s phone call: “I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’ s support of Ukraine.” Trump made no such demand. Actively worked with Ukraine against Giuliani and Trump He thinks he controls foreign policy Brit Hume ✔@brithume This from the article: “he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy...” There is a huge fallacy in this. Anyone know what it is? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-official-who-heard-trumps-call-with-ukraine-leader-testified-that-he-was-told-to-keep-quiet/2019/11/01/dbed7fae-fc07-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html … White House official who heard Trump’s call with Ukraine leader testified that he was told to keep... The directive adds to an expanding list of moves by senior White House officials to contain, if not conceal, possible evidence of President Trump’s attempt to pressure his Ukrainian counterpart to... washingtonpost.com 15.8K 7:55 AM - Nov 2, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy 12.3K people are talking about this Vindman clearly does not understand government. Foreign policy is what the President wants it to be, not what he or Ciaramella want it to be. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts