Jump to content

OIG FISA Report Discussion and the real reason for the FBI Mar-a-Lago raid


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


I am rapidly coming to that conclusion. It is disappointing. 

Is this the point in time where I say "I told you so", or is it too soon? 

43 minutes ago, Foxx said:

must you always be an asshat? what do you have against the proliferation of information? because most of it is rational and makes sense that goes against your would have narrative? information only enhances the formation of opinions. it would appear that you would prefer uninformed opinions be developed, how sad is that.

 

just piss off would you, you really add nothing here. if you could be genuine, you would contribute a much needed counter point, yet you can't do it so ... just piss off.

JA:

 

See the source image

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1 minute ago, SugarCone said:

 

 

I'd be happy to hop on discord or something if you're interested.   I don't know why your first inclination is I am the same person as someone else?   

 

Or - I'll DM you my phone number and we can chat. 

 

 

No thanks.

 

but I guess that I would like address  your 'opinion' on regurgitated articles being posted.................since that is a common complaint from the blinders wearing, "don't attack my beliefs" posters on PPP

 

I search dozens of sites most days, which includes hundreds of authors. The complaint from the lib posters here is that they are almost exclusively Conservative.

 

Well..........that's kind of the point.

 

The conservative thoughts and responses are very seldom even seen by the leftists here and if they read even one..........that is a good thing.

 

I will leave it to the others to do that back and force challenging thing.  I'm 65, there is very little chance that I am going to be upset or intimidated by anything on a Bills message board.

 

But, there is occasionally something written here by one of our (higher level) libs that I don't know, and that is always interesting.

 

 

 

.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

No thanks.

 

but I guess that I would like address  your 'opinion' on regurgitated articles being posted.................since that is a common complaint from the blinders wearing, "don't attack my beliefs" posters on PPP

 

I search dozens of sites most days, which includes hundreds of authors. The complaint from the lib posters here is that they are almost exclusively Conservative.

 

Well..........that's kind of the point.

 

The conservative thoughts and responses are very seldom even seen by the leftists here and if they read even one..........that is a good thing.

 

I will leave it to the others to do that back and force challenging thing.  I'm 65, there is very little chance that I am going to be upset or intimidated by anything on a Bills message board.

 

But, there is occasionally something written here by one of our (higher level) libs that I don't know, and that is always interesting.

 

 

 

.

 

 

Wait until I call you on the phone!

  • Sad 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

No thanks.

 

but I guess that I would like address  your 'opinion' on regurgitated articles being posted.................since that is a common complaint from the blinders wearing, "don't attack my beliefs" posters on PPP

 

I search dozens of sites most days, which includes hundreds of authors. The complaint from the lib posters here is that they are almost exclusively Conservative.

 

Well..........that's kind of the point.

 

The conservative thoughts and responses are very seldom even seen by the leftists here and if they read even one..........that is a good thing.

 

I will leave it to the others to do that back and force challenging thing.  I'm 65, there is very little chance that I am going to be upset or intimidated by anything on a Bills message board.

 

But, there is occasionally something written here by one of our (higher level) libs that I don't know, and that is always interesting.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

I appreciate the idea of being exposed to contrarian ideas, as I agree that sometimes we live in our own echo chambers.  I think its a mature state of mind to be open to having your mind changed.

Everyone needs an alternative point of view - but I think we can do better than posting propaganda from either side.  I would be just as frustrated if there was someone in here drowning out dissent spamming links from CNN's twitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You don't know what she linked (which was an interview from first hand people involved in the matter) yet you still think it's not good evidence because it came from YouTube. 

 

Things NPCs say. 

 

You're TERRIBLE at this.

When did I say it's not good evidence?  I can't verify the veracity of it or not.

 

I said I can't view it. 

 

You're portraying yourself as a very small man.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SugarCone said:

 

I appreciate the idea of being exposed to contrarian ideas, as I agree that sometimes we live in our own echo chambers.  I think its a mature state of mind to be open to having your mind changed.

Everyone needs an alternative point of view - but I think we can do better than posting propaganda from either side.  I would be just as frustrated if there was someone in here drowning out dissent spamming links from CNN's twitter.

 

Propaganda = primary source documents and statements now from the key players involved? 

 

Someone is full of it.

Just now, transplantbillsfan said:

When did I say it's not good evidence?  I can't verify the veracity of it or not.

 

I said I can't view it. 

 

You're portraying yourself as a very small man.

 

Yet I'm towering over you because you won't answer a simple question. 

 

You've exposed yourself to be nothing but an NPC. 

 

Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

True indeed. Ball is in Barr's court. Money is long against it, but I'm still quite confident it's coming. 

 

 

Examples like this represent a confusing trend, a link to a tweet from someone like "RNC Research" (I can't imagine why anyone would suspect them of bias),  that links to a YouTube video from NBC... but is not actually on NBC's channel, but on a different channel called "GOP War Room"?   

Are you oblivious to how this appears to anyone who is interested in hearing your message at face value?  You say you are citing the source material but you're three levels deep here.

Edited by SugarCone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SugarCone said:

 

Examples like represent a confusing trend, a link to a tweet from someone like "RNC Research" (I can't imagine why anyone would suspect them of bias),  that links to a YouTube video from NBC... but is not actually on NBC's channel, but on a different channel called "GOP War Room"?   

Are you oblivious to how this appears to anyone who is interested in hearing your message at face value?  You say you are citing the source material but you're three levels deep here.

 

The information shared is an NBC clip. It has nothing to do with the twitter account. You're free to dismiss it or view it, but it's relevant information to the topic at hand being shared freely to cut through the noise. 

 

We're in a (dis)information war. Learning how to hone your own individual discernment is the only way to survive it. That means reading everything, from all sources, and holding them up to one another to see what's what. And the track record of the MSM or "reputable" media outlets on this very story the past three years has been nothing short of criminal. 

Just now, SugarCone said:

See example #2, Why not just link to the article?  

 

That is a link to the article. With the AUTHOR's statement. 

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 5
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The information shared is an NBC clip. It has nothing to do with the twitter account. You're free to dismiss it or view it, but it's relevant information to the topic at hand being shared freely to cut through the noise. 

 

We're in a (dis)information war. Learning how to hone your own individual discernment is the only way to survive it. That means reading everything, from all sources, and holding them up to one another to see what's what. And the track record of the MSM or "reputable" media outlets on this very story the past three years has been nothing short of criminal. 

 

Then why wrap the link in the tweet if it has nothing to do with the clip? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SugarCone said:

 

Then why wrap the link in the tweet if it has nothing to do with the clip? 

 

Google anything from Derranged Moron's opuses (deep state thread, etc) and you'll easily find out all he/she/it does is tweet. 

Edited by Gary Busey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Google anything from Derranged Moron's opuses (deep state thread, etc) and you'll easily find out all he/she/it does is tweet. 

"I'll try to keep it peaceful and positive in this thread. Let's all try to do the same."

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when Gar was SO positive Cohen was in Prague that he kept posting articles stating it happened long after it was disproven. 
 

... Yet he thinks other people are tinfoil hat wearers :lol: 

 

Dishonest asshats who just had three years of their own bull#### exposed as such are a joy to laugh at in times like these. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:


I did answer it. 

 

You are obviously a smart man, and should be able to acknowledge that any 'context' you think you're adding by wrapping them in tweets from 'RNC Research' is not context at all and at best commentary - at worst lies.  I think it is disingenuous to make people look through your keyhole at the news you cite.   It is all of our responsibilities to do our best to make the truth as easy as possible to see.  

I find your obsession with truth to be in conflict with the manner in which you share your resources.  I just hope it is not intentional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SugarCone said:

 

Examples like this represent a confusing trend, a link to a tweet from someone like "RNC Research" (I can't imagine why anyone would suspect them of bias),  that links to a YouTube video from NBC... but is not actually on NBC's channel, but on a different channel called "GOP War Room"?   

Are you oblivious to how this appears to anyone who is interested in hearing your message at face value?  You say you are citing the source material but you're three levels deep here.

so... what you are essentially saying here is that you are incapable of sifting  the wheat from the chaff on your own?

 

you would prefer to shoot the messenger rather than look through it all to see what is of value. i hope you understand that your argument is coming across as very weak. i'm sure you possess critical thinking skills, utilize them please.

 

 

19 minutes ago, SugarCone said:

...  Why wrap everything in tweets?

why not?

 

 

7 minutes ago, SugarCone said:

 

You are obviously a smart man, and should be able to acknowledge that any 'context' you think you're adding by wrapping them in tweets from 'RNC Research' is not context at all and at best commentary - at worst lies.  I think it is disingenuous to make people look through your keyhole at the news you cite.   It is all of our responsibilities to do our best to make the truth as easy as possible to see.  

I find your obsession with truth to be in conflict with the manner in which you share your resources.  I just hope it is not intentional.

again, critical thinking is incumbent.... upon you. it is not someone else's responsibility to do the work for you.

Edited by Foxx
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SugarCone said:

 

You are obviously a smart man, and should be able to acknowledge that any 'context' you think you're adding by wrapping them in tweets from 'RNC Research' is not context at all and at best commentary - at worst lies. 


You’re full of it. And it’s showing. Its the content that matters, not the packaging. Anyone hung up on this shows themselves to be living in a bubble. 
 

That’s a tough way to thrive in a (dis)information war where the media itself has been proven to be liars and manipulators — for decades. 

2 minutes ago, SugarCone said:

I think it is disingenuous to make people look through your keyhole at the news you cite.   It is all of our responsibilities to do our best to make the truth as easy as possible to see.  


It’s not hard to click a link and read and vet for yourself. That’s what I’m doing. Sharing information. 
 

You only want information to be shared if it comes in the right, pre approved packaging — that makes you the opposite of a truth warrior. 
 

It makes you a sucker. 
 

3 minutes ago, SugarCone said:

 

I find your obsession with truth to be in conflict with the manner in which you share your resources.  I just hope it is not intentional.


Considering how you attacked me for posting a link to an article by the author himself, I’m thinking you don’t know the first thing about truth. 
 

 

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SugarCone said:

I don't think its unfair to request the OP's original intent for the thread that he created.  I happened to agree with the sentiment that a more fruitful discussion can be had if the thread is not bombarded by commentary at a rate that seems to discourage continuity of ideas and thoughts.

 

Or you and the OP can go to the report, and read it for yourselves?

 

What's the difference between getting the analysis second-hand from posters here, or second-hand from a Tweet?

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SugarCone said:

 

You are obviously a smart man, and should be able to acknowledge that any 'context' you think you're adding by wrapping them in tweets from 'RNC Research' is not context at all and at best commentary - at worst lies.  I think it is disingenuous to make people look through your keyhole at the news you cite.   It is all of our responsibilities to do our best to make the truth as easy as possible to see.  

I find your obsession with truth to be in conflict with the manner in which you share your resources.  I just hope it is not intentional.

This post is horsecockery at its finest. 

 

You are responsible for you. I am responsible for me. If I was to meet DR for a coffee to discuss Trump-Russia collusion, and we choose to meet at a Starbucks because he used to be a bottle blond surfer west coast limousine liberal and he likes that swill, it's not on him if I don't understand the street signs and take a wrong turn or two before arriving. 

 

I find your comments shallow and pedantic. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another on topic post by the board's most dishonest (and consistently proven wrong) poster. 

 

Classy as always.

 

**********************

Mollie nails it again. 

 

She's been at the front of the pack for a long time now on this topic. But her tweet should not be linked, because she has nothing to offer this topic, right? 

 

It's amazing to watch minds melt as they come to grips with the fact that they've been lied to, repeatedly and insidiously, by the "proper" media outlets for years on this topic.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tweet should not be linked to respect the wishes of the OP

 

On 12/7/2019 at 11:05 AM, BillsFanNC said:

Thread for discussion of the long awaited IG FISA report which will reportedly drop on the 9th and not the 12th.  Rules are simple: Read the report yourself and discuss your interpretation of the findings here.  Do not post or link memes, tweets or news/opinion articles where other people tell you what they read in the report as there will surely be other threads for that.  Screenshots of text from the actual report or citations from the actual report are of course encouraged.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can the IG  report that no political bias was involved, when according to all reporting the previous excuse for not fully disclosing to the Court was that the FISA application  included a footnote that they knew the dossier came from a rival political CAMPAIGN! Not from a US governmental AGENCY. You can't have it both ways. Either they knew it was political dirt or they didn't. Sounds to me like the government is once again circling the wagons around itself, and we, the taxpaying citizens are left to pay the bill for all of this misbehavior.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

How can the IG  report that no political bias was involved, when according to all reporting the previous excuse for not fully disclosing to the Court was that the FISA application  included a footnote that they knew the dossier came from a rival political CAMPAIGN! Not from a US governmental AGENCY. You can't have it both ways. Either they knew it was political dirt or they didn't. Sounds to me like the government is once again circling the wagons around itself, and we, the taxpaying citizens are left to pay the bill for all of this misbehavior.

 

Wait for tomorrow. ;) :beer: 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Another on topic post by the board's most dishonest (and consistently proven wrong) poster. 

 

Classy as always.

 

**********************

Mollie nails it again. 

 

She's been at the front of the pack for a long time now on this topic. But her tweet should not be linked, because she has nothing to offer this topic, right? 

 

It's amazing to watch minds melt as they come to grips with the fact that they've been lied to, repeatedly and insidiously, by the "proper" media outlets for years on this topic.


The little of the Barr interview I watched today said the same thing... he wants to know why they didn't stop and instead continued to get new FISA warrants and launch an investigation on information they knew was caca.  For as uninterested as most of the "msm" is in the answer to those questions, it makes makes me think they know the whole "so we are good now!" narrative that is being pushed is what is currently complete bunk.

 

Edited by Buffalo_Gal
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:


You’re full of it. And it’s showing. Its the content that matters, not the packaging. Anyone hung up on this shows themselves to be living in a bubble. 
 

That’s a tough way to thrive in a (dis)information war where the media itself has been proven to be liars and manipulators — for decades. 


It’s not hard to click a link and read and vet for yourself. That’s what I’m doing. Sharing information. 
 

You only want information to be shared if it comes in the right, pre approved packaging — that makes you the opposite of a truth warrior. 
 

It makes you a sucker. 
 


Considering how you attacked me for posting a link to an article by the author himself, I’m thinking you don’t know the first thing about truth. 
 

 

 

...you'd be surprised how difficult a task that is for some......take my extended family, all dyed in the wool Dems......voting for ANY Republican is the combination of blasphemy, heresy, and treason.....they are the epitome of single source news readers.....CNN is their GOSPEL......Fox News is off the table as an outright fraudulent source.....exactly why I haven't attended a family function in YEARS.......

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Another on topic post by the board's most dishonest (and consistently proven wrong) poster. 

 

Classy as always.

 

**********************

Mollie nails it again. 

 

She's been at the front of the pack for a long time now on this topic. But her tweet should not be linked, because she has nothing to offer this topic, right? 

 

It's amazing to watch minds melt as they come to grips with the fact that they've been lied to, repeatedly and insidiously, by the "proper" media outlets for years on this topic.

As the OP I want to clarify that I'm not against linking to media sources at all. I just thought it might be a good idea to have an alternative or secondary thread where only the source material is discussed. Again, I was at fault for not making the alternative thread part clear and for starting it before the release.

 

And I'll also reiterate to those who continue to lament that this thread isnt what I laid out as the OP....you can always start another thread with that goal in mind since this one is already in full swing. As for myself,  I'm going to retire from FISA report thread starting at 0-1.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

As the OP I want to clarify that I'm not against linking to media sources at all. I just thought it might be a good idea to have an alternative or secondary thread where only the source material is discussed. Again, I was at fault for not making the alternative thread part clear and for starting it before the release.

 

And I'll also reiterate to those who continue to lament that this thread isnt what I laid out as the OP....you can always start another thread with that goal in mind since this one is already in full swing. As for myself,  I'm going to retire from FISA report thread starting at 0-1.

:beer: 

 

You’re not at fault for anything, sincerely. Yesterday was a chaos day — tons of news, coming simultaneously, and lots of information to share. I broke your intent without realizing because I was moving fast while waiting for planes and reading. It’s just how PPP goes, threads take on lives of their own. 
 

Apologies for my part. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...