• 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!

Warning Sign For All the President’s Men and Him

JackA said:
Then Trump must scare the crap out of you.
Click to expand...

No, he just amuses me with his inane statements. Oceans are quite small you know. :lol:
 
jnug said:
This whole deeeeeep staaaaate narrative just gets tiresome after awhile. I have a term that appears to have disappeared from some segments of the public lexicon since all this deeeeep staaaaate garbage started. It's PUBLIC SERVANT.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the Public Servants who attack the US Constitution? Or the ones who gather all our personal data?
 
JasperL said:
I read it, then followed an implausible link. The article says:



But the TIME article says no such thing - it in fact lays out a detailed case for IRANIANS targeting the flight. So the author lied. Oh well, so much for their credibility, relying on people not clicking on a link to advance a dishonest narrative.
Click to expand...

Sure Jasper, whatever you say. We all know TIME, just like NYT, always publishes the truth, never publishes propaganda. :lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, he just amuses me with his inane statements. Oceans are quite small you know. :lol:
Click to expand...

Trump gets a bad rap on that one. He spoke in comparison to the size of the atmosphere, which is far greater in size.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Sure Jasper, whatever you say. We all know TIME, just like NYT, always publishes the truth, never publishes propaganda. :lol:
Click to expand...

Maybe you're confused and didn't read your own link. The author YOU cited in the article linked by YOU claimed this:

As TIME magazine reported, the likely explanation for the bombing, supported by independent intelligence experts, was that U.S. operatives “targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the hostage-rescue team.” This would prevent disclosure of what McKee’s team had learned.
Click to expand...

That's an explosive claim - Pan Am flight 103 was downed by U.S. operatives - and it's a lie. The article says, "The theory that Jibril targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the hostage- rescue team is supported by two independent intelligence experts." Well, who is Jibril? From the same Time article:

Almost immediately after the Pan Am bombing, which killed the 259 people aboard the plane and 11 more on the ground, the prime suspect was Ahmed Jibril, the roly-poly boss of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (P.F.L.P.-G.C.). Two months earlier, West German police had arrested 16 members of his terrorist organization. Seized during the raids was a plastic bomb concealed in a Toshiba cassette player, similar to the one that blew up Flight 103. There was other evidence pointing to Jibril. His patron was Syria. His banker for the attack on the Pan Am plane appeared to be Iran. U.S. intelligence agents even traced a wire transfer of several million dollars to a bank account in Vienna belonging to the P.F.L.P.-G.C. Iran's motive seemed obvious enough. The previous July, the U.S.S. Vincennes had mistakenly shot down an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf, killing all 298 aboard.
Click to expand...

Oh, so he was an operative working for Iran, who were avenging the U.S. downing of a passenger plane! Not a U.S. operative!

The author lied using a common tactic of hacks and liars, which is to link to an article then dishonestly misrepresent what it demonstrates, knowing gullible readers won't follow the link. You seem to have performed true to form.

And then when it's pointed out, you attack a straw man, instead of the source that lies to you, on an incredibly explosive claim. Suit yourself, but I wouldn't rely on that hack for anything going forward if it was me.
 
trouble13 said:
The irony of you two complaining about a partisan source is delicious.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I didn't complain about a partisan source. I called it an opinion piece, since that is how the article was labeled, (right there in the URL) and went about discrediting the opinion.
 
Czar Mueller has no oversight. He's like a one man justice system. The only guy who can curb him is hamstrung because Mueller is investigating him. Funny how we arrived at this situation. Quite the coup by the left and the anti-Trump deep state. Unfortunately for them, they have so little to work with.
 
JackA said:
Then Trump must scare the crap out of you.
Click to expand...

It's my observation that Trump scares the crap out of the people who love their country the most.
 
veritas1 said:
Czar Mueller has no oversight. He's like a one man justice system. The only guy who can curb him is hamstrung because Mueller is investigating him. Funny how we arrived at this situation. Quite the coup by the left and the anti-Trump deep state. Unfortunately for them, they have so little to work with.
Click to expand...

What would be the solution to this problem? Who should be overseeing the Mueller investigation?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
There is no deep state.

Still, it must be fun to pretend there is.
Click to expand...

That's not what the left used to say, in fact quite the opposite. Funny how they've flipped on that, on immigration, on their opposition to business monopolies, etc. I guess they realized that taking the "proper" position on those issues was the route to more power as long as the parties they support have the same objectives.
 
veritas1 said:
That's not what the left used to say, in fact quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to what I stated.
Funny how they've flipped on that, on immigration, on their opposition to business monopolies, etc. I guess they realized that taking the "proper" position on those issues was the route to more power as long as the parties they support have the same objectives.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Wrong. He recused himself for valid reasons. Funny that you'd pretend otherwise and have to lie about no oversight.
Click to expand...

You like to call people liars frequently. It must substitute for actually having an argument. The only guy who can oversee Mueller right now is Trump and, obviously, Trump can do nothing without political ramifications. There was no reason for Sessions to recuse, either. He was a real asset to the Dems.
 
veritas1 said:
You like to call people liars frequently. It must substitute for actually having an argument. The only guy who can oversee Mueller right now is Trump and, obviously, Trump can do nothing without political ramifications.
Click to expand...

LOL! I call people liars when they lie. You stated their is no oversight over Mueller, and that's a lie. You have have not presented any actual argument to rebut. Rosenstein is over seeing Mueller at the moment, so matter how that simple reality fills you with impotent rage.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. It's not a new position in the least and the left is irrelevant to anything I've stated.

You clearly don't seem to understand what the term actually means.
Click to expand...

Left, liberals, Democrats. They all held the same position. That has now changed because they see a chance to hurt Trump. Everybody knows this.
 
lwf said:
I didn't complain about a partisan source. I called it an opinion piece, since that is how the article was labeled, (right there in the URL) and went about discrediting the opinion.
Click to expand...
I know it's an opinion piece. I was asked for an opinion about why I think mueller is running a partisan investigation. I posted that piece because it resembles my personal opinion.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! I call people liars when they lie. You stated their is no oversight over Mueller, and that's a lie. You have have not presented any actual argument to rebut. Rosenstein is over seeing Mueller at the moment, so matter how that simple reality fills you with impotent rage.
Click to expand...

Rosenstein? IOW, there is no oversight as I said.
 
veritas1 said:
It should be the AG but Sessions was MIA.
Click to expand...

The AG is appointed by and answers to the President of the United States. When the president is the subject of the investigation, how is this oversight?
 
veritas1 said:
Left, liberals, Democrats. They all held the same position. That has now changed because they see a chance to hurt Trump. Everybody knows this.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't all have the same position, nor can you demonstrate that they did.

Everybody knows that you don't actually know what the term 'deep state' means.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
See? This is why you're never taken seriously .

Thanks for admitting you lied.
Click to expand...

What oversight do you think Rosenstein would apply? He appointed Mueller without even informing Sessions or the WH. He'll let Mueller go anywhere he wants, whether it has the remotest connection to Russian interference or not. That has been made clear.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, they didn't all have the same position, nor can you demonstrate that they did.

Everybody knows that you don't actually know what the term 'deep state' means.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Sure. Democrats always contended that the agencies of intelligence and law enforcement had rogue elements and engaged in illegal activities. What do you think the Church Committee was about? Now it's all hearts and flowers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom