Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politicalchat.org discussion boards > Conspiracy theory corner

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #461  
Old 06-09-2017, 09:49 AM
Rajoo's Avatar
Rajoo Rajoo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sierras
Posts: 14,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Can't deal with the subject matter, so attack the poster. That's just how you roll.....

...or is it role?
You do have a sense of humor after all, I was a bit worried.
__________________
White Christian Nationalism:
Freedom for us, order for everyone else, and violence for those who transgress.
Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 06-09-2017, 12:15 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is online now
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
One has to wonder why some don't learn the lessons of history. The press in this country have a unique roll, and historically referred to as the "fourth branch of government" or "fourth estate". This unique roll is protected by the First Amendment. While certainly not legally a co-equal branch of government, the unique roll that was envisioned for the press was that it is the news media's responsibility to inform the electorate, which is essential to a functional, effective democratic form of government.

So, held to a higher standard? Maybe, to the extend that this "fourth branch's" role is to help keep the other branches "honest".

What really appears to be happening is that, much like the rest of Washington DC, the fourth branch is becoming more dysfunctional every day.
Unlike the sources of right-wing drivel that really is fake news, the NYTimes takes the issue of Comey challenging their article head on.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/u...le-russia.html
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 06-09-2017, 02:33 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Unlike the sources of right-wing drivel that really is fake news, the NYTimes takes the issue of Comey challenging their article head on.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/u...le-russia.html
Well, if you insist.

The article was the first to reveal direct contacts between Trump advisers and Russian officials before the election — contacts that are now at the heart of F.B.I. and congressional investigations.

Sorry, NY Times. But you don't know what the FBI is investigating. The Congressional investigations are a separate matter, witch-hunts that they are.

Multiple news outlets have since published accounts that support the main elements of The Times’s article, including information about phone calls and in-person meetings between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians, some believed to be connected to Russian intelligence.

It doesn't make those stories any more correct, most of which are based on the same anonymous sourcing.

Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he believed was incorrect about the article, which was based on information from four current and former American officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified. The original sources could not immediately be reached after Mr. Comey’s remarks, but in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid.

Of course they said the info was solid, but the NY Times has no insight into their agenda, whatever that might be. But to believe them, you also have to believe Comey lied. So, if he lied about that, what else did he lie about? If you believe he's a liar, he could be lying about anything. Hell, he could even be lying about whether or not a reasonable prosecutor would have pursued a case against Hillary.

One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.”

Bingo. But that didn't stop you, the NY Times, from continuing to build a house of cards of a story, did it? It wouldn't surprise me that quite a few Russian officials have "contacts within the intelligence community". In Putin's Russia, I doubt you get that high up the ladder without connections in gov't....or the mob.

But several former American intelligence and law enforcement officials have said that other American agencies have a broader definition, especially when it comes to Russia. They said that President Vladimir V. Putin uses an extensive network of government officials and private citizens with deep links to Russian spy services who supplement the intelligence apparatus and report back to the Kremlin. At least some of the contacts, they said, involved Russians who fit into this category.

Shoddy reporting. Which contacts were connected? Which weren't? Did the campaign speak exclusively to those "connected"? Or were the contacts conducted in such a way that discussions with "connected" individuals couldn't be avoided? I suspect the folks at the NY Times weren't very curious about these significant distinctions.

In testimony last month before the House Intelligence Committee, John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director, said he became concerned last year about direct attempts by the Russian government to recruit members of Mr. Trump’s campaign.

I'm sure that one of Obama's closest advisers might say something like that. Either Comey is lying, or Brennan is lying, or they're both lying and the Times is fulla shit too. Can I pick "all of the above"? Also the Carter Page wiretap requests was a year ago, and was based on the idiotic dossier which has since been discredited. I know the Time still wants to believe its all true, however.

I don't think the Times took Comey's comments "head on". I think they took the comments with their head up their collective asses.
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 06-09-2017, 02:55 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is online now
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Well, if you insist.

The article was the first to reveal direct contacts between Trump advisers and Russian officials before the election — contacts that are now at the heart of F.B.I. and congressional investigations.

Sorry, NY Times. But you don't know what the FBI is investigating. The Congressional investigations are a separate matter, witch-hunts that they are.

Multiple news outlets have since published accounts that support the main elements of The Times’s article, including information about phone calls and in-person meetings between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians, some believed to be connected to Russian intelligence.

It doesn't make those stories any more correct, most of which are based on the same anonymous sourcing.

Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he believed was incorrect about the article, which was based on information from four current and former American officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified. The original sources could not immediately be reached after Mr. Comey’s remarks, but in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid.

Of course they said the info was solid, but the NY Times has no insight into their agenda, whatever that might be. But to believe them, you also have to believe Comey lied. So, if he lied about that, what else did he lie about? If you believe he's a liar, he could be lying about anything. Hell, he could even be lying about whether or not a reasonable prosecutor would have pursued a case against Hillary.

One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.”

Bingo. But that didn't stop you, the NY Times, from continuing to build a house of cards of a story, did it? It wouldn't surprise me that quite a few Russian officials have "contacts within the intelligence community". In Putin's Russia, I doubt you get that high up the ladder without connections in gov't....or the mob.

But several former American intelligence and law enforcement officials have said that other American agencies have a broader definition, especially when it comes to Russia. They said that President Vladimir V. Putin uses an extensive network of government officials and private citizens with deep links to Russian spy services who supplement the intelligence apparatus and report back to the Kremlin. At least some of the contacts, they said, involved Russians who fit into this category.

Shoddy reporting. Which contacts were connected? Which weren't? Did the campaign speak exclusively to those "connected"? Or were the contacts conducted in such a way that discussions with "connected" individuals couldn't be avoided? I suspect the folks at the NY Times weren't very curious about these significant distinctions.

In testimony last month before the House Intelligence Committee, John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director, said he became concerned last year about direct attempts by the Russian government to recruit members of Mr. Trump’s campaign.

I'm sure that one of Obama's closest advisers might say something like that. Either Comey is lying, or Brennan is lying, or they're both lying and the Times is fulla shit too. Can I pick "all of the above"? Also the Carter Page wiretap requests was a year ago, and was based on the idiotic dossier which has since been discredited. I know the Time still wants to believe its all true, however.

I don't think the Times took Comey's comments "head on". I think they took the comments with their head up their collective asses.
Blah, blah, blah. You still don't understand the difference between news based upon undisclosed sources and false news. Fake news, like Pizzagate and Seth Rich, are falsely made up out of whole cloth and are completely false. The Times articles doesn't meet this definition.

In any event, it doesn't much matter when it comes to Trump and this Times story. Mueller will find out the truth behind the Russian matter, to include the possibility of obstruction of justice. Stay tuned.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 06-09-2017, 07:17 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Blah, blah, blah. You still don't understand the difference between news based upon undisclosed sources and false news. Fake news, like Pizzagate and Seth Rich, are falsely made up out of whole cloth and are completely false. The Times articles doesn't meet this definition.
You don't understand that they're the same damn thing: the intent and the potential impact are the same. The only difference is that the fake news coming out of the N.Y. Times and others are the product of folks who claim to have journalistic standards....which is fake news too.
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 06-09-2017, 07:36 PM
Chicks Chicks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 13,285
Whell, you have some incredibly twisted ideas! You need to stop listening to that idiot Rush, and stop offending real journalists, whose first priority is getting the facts. Then correcting any errors that might have slipped through, something Rush etc never, ever do.

You are truly offensive personally, as I have family members who were journalists; I know first hand that integrity is paramount to them. Fuck you.
__________________
"In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -
George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 06-09-2017, 07:40 PM
bobabode's Avatar
bobabode bobabode is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
You don't understand that they're the same damn thing: the intent and the potential impact are the same. The only difference is that the fake news coming out of the N.Y. Times and others are the product of folks who claim to have journalistic standards....which is fake news too.
For your own sake, lay off the Trump-Aid, Mike. That shit'll rot your brains.
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 06-09-2017, 08:16 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is online now
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
You don't understand that they're the same damn thing: the intent and the potential impact are the same. The only difference is that the fake news coming out of the N.Y. Times and others are the product of folks who claim to have journalistic standards....which is fake news too.
You're a demented and delusional soul if you believe that the fake Pizzagate and Seth Rich stories are the equivalent of the Post and Times investigative coverage of the unethical and possible criminal behavior of Trump, his family and key members of his administration/campaign. I'd feel sorry for you if you're weren't so stupid/gullible.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 06-09-2017, 09:20 PM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,122
Whell 'believes' whatever keeps the fight going. But does he believe he believes it? I can't tell.
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 06-10-2017, 08:07 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicks View Post
Fuck you.
Right back at you. I see you're a Kirsten Gillibrand fan.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.