|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 27 2017 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't explain a billionaire thinking they need a tax cut with veterans on the street and kids going hungry in the wealthiest country in the world other than addiction.
Addiction can generate some elaborate and superficially sensible rationalizations for one's actions, which I'm sure someone will offer, but they don't stand up to examination. If you look at wealthy people arguing they need more wealth as addicts, suddenly their actions make sense (if you've ever known addicts).
When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.
I know it's old news. But I've never agreed more with an internet post than this one.
|
On October 28 2017 10:28 Wulfey_LA wrote:
EDIT: in the xDaunt/Danglars OppositeLand, the following is true:
To be fair, he's kind of right. Those stories are distractions.
|
having it come out there are indictments today and waiting till monday to announce who's in trouble is sneaky as hell. see if anyone develops sudden vacation plans over the weekend.
|
On October 28 2017 10:22 KwarK wrote:
I especially liked that all it took to make xDaunt shut up about the Uranium One scandal was asking him to explain what the Uranium One scandal was. He was trying so hard to make that a thing, it's unfortunate that some things are too hard to understand when you get all your information in 140 character bites.
Actually, I purposefully ignored you because you were engaging in your usual disingenuous bullshit. I said this...
On October 26 2017 11:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 11:11 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2017 11:05 xDaunt wrote:
When I talked about flipping the script, I was referring to the Trump/Russia collusion narrative -- ie that Trump did something wrong. I think that Manafort and Flynn can go down without Trump being affected. Manafort looks particularly dirty, but, again, we'll have to wait and see what the actual evidence is and whether charges are brought. Gotcha. I thought when you said On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 10:30 Tachion wrote:
That doesn't even make any sense. How would that flip the Russia/Trump collusion narrative when they're not even related? Did Hillary sell uranium ore to Russia to help fund the hacks and ads against her campaign?
The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). that you meant that accusations against the Trump campaign/administration are made up in some way. Just to be clear, I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land. I'm just watching with interest.
...and in accordance with your usual practice of purposefully ignoring what people say to make up your own bullshit narrative in the thread, you wrote this...
On October 26 2017 13:05 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt, could you explain to us how the conspiracy worked? Just a few paragraphs would be great, explaining the key actors, their motivations, and how they achieved their goals through participation in the conspiracy.
...and then punctuated it with your nonsense to which I first responded above.
I'm not here to do the dance of the retards with you. Other posters may do it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Show some integrity in your posting, and you may get some better responses.
|
On October 28 2017 09:51 Wulfey_LA wrote:Looks we know what this week's BUT URANIUM ONE IS COLLUSSSSSION TOO and RESEARCHING DOSSIER === COLLUSSSION was all about. Someone at FOX must have known this was coming. They needed to spin hard with whatever they could possibly find. Honorable footsolders of Dear Leader's internet brigades really tried on this broad this week. Because Mueller just dropped the first indictments. Individuals will be in custody on Monday. Show nested quote +
Washington (CNN)A federal grand jury in Washington, DC, on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.
The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.htmlEDIT: Dear Leader 11 hours before the indictments. The Iron Law of Trump: every Twitter accusation Trump makes towards another person can with 100% certainty be read as admission of that accusation against Trump. EDIT2: in RealityTown, indictments. In OppositeLand, Mueller and HRC are going down for Russian Collusion. + Show Spoiler +
I like your Iron Law of Trump. It’s the Roy Cohn/ Roger Stone mantra: admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations. Trump has a history of simply accusing the other side of what he did. Cohn (the McCarthy lawyer) was Trump’s literal mentor.
|
Doesn't it just say charges "could" be filed on Monday? Means that they don't have to be filed then.
|
On October 28 2017 11:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2017 10:22 KwarK wrote:
I especially liked that all it took to make xDaunt shut up about the Uranium One scandal was asking him to explain what the Uranium One scandal was. He was trying so hard to make that a thing, it's unfortunate that some things are too hard to understand when you get all your information in 140 character bites. Actually, I purposefully ignored you because you were engaging in your usual disingenuous bullshit. I said this... Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 11:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 11:11 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2017 11:05 xDaunt wrote:
When I talked about flipping the script, I was referring to the Trump/Russia collusion narrative -- ie that Trump did something wrong. I think that Manafort and Flynn can go down without Trump being affected. Manafort looks particularly dirty, but, again, we'll have to wait and see what the actual evidence is and whether charges are brought. Gotcha. I thought when you said On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 10:30 Tachion wrote:
That doesn't even make any sense. How would that flip the Russia/Trump collusion narrative when they're not even related? Did Hillary sell uranium ore to Russia to help fund the hacks and ads against her campaign?
The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). that you meant that accusations against the Trump campaign/administration are made up in some way. Just to be clear, I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land. I'm just watching with interest. ...and in accordance with your usual practice of purposefully ignoring what people say to make up your own bullshit narrative in the thread, you wrote this... Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 13:05 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt, could you explain to us how the conspiracy worked? Just a few paragraphs would be great, explaining the key actors, their motivations, and how they achieved their goals through participation in the conspiracy. ...and then punctuated it with your nonsense to which I first responded above. I'm not here to do the dance of the retards with you. Other posters may do it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Show some integrity in your posting, and you may get some better responses.
Since you only answer with insults in place of arguments, that means you have no argument! You lose!
EDIT: come on, it can't be that hard to spin up some Uranium One nonsense. Just start by assuming that OUR Uranium was sold, as opposed to a Canadian company selling digging rights they weren't exercising to a Rosatam subsidiary. Then assume that donations to the Clinton foundation are BRIBES. Then assume that the deal was inherently unlawful and that it only happened because HRC pushed it. Then assume that the Ruskie who went down for bribes and racketeering was actually a CLINTON DONOR!!!!
EDIT2: you could also try to trick your readers into thinking that America mines all of its own uranium for weapons and this sale was 20% OF OUR URANIUM A STRATEGIC RESOURCE, as opposed to reality where we import 90%+ of our Uranium and domestic uranium mining has cratered.
Imports in 2011: ~58 million tons
Domestic production in 2011: ~4 million tons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_United_States
|
On October 28 2017 11:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2017 10:22 KwarK wrote:
I especially liked that all it took to make xDaunt shut up about the Uranium One scandal was asking him to explain what the Uranium One scandal was. He was trying so hard to make that a thing, it's unfortunate that some things are too hard to understand when you get all your information in 140 character bites. Actually, I purposefully ignored you because you were engaging in your usual disingenuous bullshit. I said this... Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 11:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 11:11 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2017 11:05 xDaunt wrote:
When I talked about flipping the script, I was referring to the Trump/Russia collusion narrative -- ie that Trump did something wrong. I think that Manafort and Flynn can go down without Trump being affected. Manafort looks particularly dirty, but, again, we'll have to wait and see what the actual evidence is and whether charges are brought. Gotcha. I thought when you said On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 10:30 Tachion wrote:
That doesn't even make any sense. How would that flip the Russia/Trump collusion narrative when they're not even related? Did Hillary sell uranium ore to Russia to help fund the hacks and ads against her campaign?
The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). that you meant that accusations against the Trump campaign/administration are made up in some way. Just to be clear, I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land. I'm just watching with interest. ...and in accordance with your usual practice of purposefully ignoring what people say to make up your own bullshit narrative in the thread, you wrote this... Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 13:05 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt, could you explain to us how the conspiracy worked? Just a few paragraphs would be great, explaining the key actors, their motivations, and how they achieved their goals through participation in the conspiracy. ...and then punctuated it with your nonsense to which I first responded above. I'm not here to do the dance of the retards with you. Other posters may do it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Show some integrity in your posting, and you may get some better responses.
I mean, if you think you have a sound argument and you want to convince people, all you have to do is make your case. We're not that unreasonable. Instead you attack the posting of everyone but yourself, and call us retards. It's never your posting and your arguments that are flawed, even if it's a dozen people arguing with you, literally everyone else is in the wrong when it's you. You're never anything less than completely correct, and people need to be shamed for thinking you're full of it.
Stay classy xD.
|
United States24753 Posts
On October 28 2017 11:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2017 10:22 KwarK wrote:
I especially liked that all it took to make xDaunt shut up about the Uranium One scandal was asking him to explain what the Uranium One scandal was. He was trying so hard to make that a thing, it's unfortunate that some things are too hard to understand when you get all your information in 140 character bites. Actually, I purposefully ignored you because you were engaging in your usual disingenuous bullshit. I said this... Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 11:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 11:11 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2017 11:05 xDaunt wrote:
When I talked about flipping the script, I was referring to the Trump/Russia collusion narrative -- ie that Trump did something wrong. I think that Manafort and Flynn can go down without Trump being affected. Manafort looks particularly dirty, but, again, we'll have to wait and see what the actual evidence is and whether charges are brought. Gotcha. I thought when you said On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 10:30 Tachion wrote:
That doesn't even make any sense. How would that flip the Russia/Trump collusion narrative when they're not even related? Did Hillary sell uranium ore to Russia to help fund the hacks and ads against her campaign?
The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). that you meant that accusations against the Trump campaign/administration are made up in some way. Just to be clear, I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land. I'm just watching with interest. ...and in accordance with your usual practice of purposefully ignoring what people say to make up your own bullshit narrative in the thread, you wrote this... Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 13:05 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt, could you explain to us how the conspiracy worked? Just a few paragraphs would be great, explaining the key actors, their motivations, and how they achieved their goals through participation in the conspiracy. ...and then punctuated it with your nonsense to which I first responded above. I'm not here to do the dance of the retards with you. Other posters may do it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Show some integrity in your posting, and you may get some better responses.
xdaunt I am having trouble following your argument here. The things you quoted and the claims you are making don't seem to correspond at all. Kwark is claiming that you were pushing a particular (conspiracy?) theory and that you backed off on discussing it when asked to actually explain what the theory was. He did so kind of rudely, but I understood the point he was attempting to make. You then point to the quote of when Kwark actually asked you to explain the theory, and referred to it as 'doing the dance of retards' which is strange, considering the quote is almost exactly how Kwark described it. The only way this makes sense is if you legitimately think it is doing the 'dance of retards' to ask someone to explain (presumably) a (conspiracy) theory after publicizing it in a discussion. It seems like you are doing the very thing you are instead accusing Kwark of: ignoring what someone actually said and engaging in disingenuous bullshit.
|
On October 28 2017 11:41 Nevuk wrote:
Doesn't it just say charges "could" be filed on Monday? Means that they don't have to be filed then.
The grand jury has already indicted someone (or multiple people). We just won't know who until Monday.
|
On October 28 2017 12:34 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2017 11:41 Nevuk wrote:
Doesn't it just say charges "could" be filed on Monday? Means that they don't have to be filed then. The grand jury has already indicted someone (or multiple people). We just won't know who until Monday.
This also means they already arrested him/her and the news caught wind of it now. The information will be public on Monday.
|
On October 28 2017 12:23 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2017 11:37 xDaunt wrote:On October 28 2017 10:22 KwarK wrote:
I especially liked that all it took to make xDaunt shut up about the Uranium One scandal was asking him to explain what the Uranium One scandal was. He was trying so hard to make that a thing, it's unfortunate that some things are too hard to understand when you get all your information in 140 character bites. Actually, I purposefully ignored you because you were engaging in your usual disingenuous bullshit. I said this... On October 26 2017 11:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 11:11 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2017 11:05 xDaunt wrote:
When I talked about flipping the script, I was referring to the Trump/Russia collusion narrative -- ie that Trump did something wrong. I think that Manafort and Flynn can go down without Trump being affected. Manafort looks particularly dirty, but, again, we'll have to wait and see what the actual evidence is and whether charges are brought. Gotcha. I thought when you said On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 10:30 Tachion wrote:
That doesn't even make any sense. How would that flip the Russia/Trump collusion narrative when they're not even related? Did Hillary sell uranium ore to Russia to help fund the hacks and ads against her campaign?
The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). that you meant that accusations against the Trump campaign/administration are made up in some way. Just to be clear, I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land. I'm just watching with interest. ...and in accordance with your usual practice of purposefully ignoring what people say to make up your own bullshit narrative in the thread, you wrote this... On October 26 2017 13:05 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt, could you explain to us how the conspiracy worked? Just a few paragraphs would be great, explaining the key actors, their motivations, and how they achieved their goals through participation in the conspiracy. ...and then punctuated it with your nonsense to which I first responded above. I'm not here to do the dance of the retards with you. Other posters may do it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Show some integrity in your posting, and you may get some better responses. xdaunt I am having trouble following your argument here. The things you quoted and the claims you are making don't seem to correspond at all. Kwark is claiming that you were pushing a particular (conspiracy?) theory and that you backed off on discussing it when asked to actually explain what the theory was. He did so kind of rudely, but I understood the point he was attempting to make. You then point to the quote of when Kwark actually asked you to explain the theory, and referred to it as 'doing the dance of retards' which is strange, considering the quote is almost exactly how Kwark described it. The only way this makes sense is if you legitimately think it is doing the 'dance of retards' to ask someone to explain (presumably) a (conspiracy) theory after publicizing it in a discussion. It seems like you are doing the very thing you are instead accusing Kwark of: ignoring what someone actually said and engaging in disingenuous bullshit.
I didn't push anything. I made some observations. I noted that I had seen some conspiratorial stuff regarding the Russian collusion scandal before the dossier/Uranium One stuff went public that seemed eerily prescient. I expressly stated that I couldn't speak to the details of the conspiracy. And right after I made that disclaimer, Kwark asked me to do just that. Why would anyone dignify that with a response? And of course, Kwark being Kwark, goes right ahead with a bullshit extrapolation. I'm not hiding the ball. It's all there. As usual, half of you don't bother reading the thread before you start commenting.
|
United States43538 Posts
On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:
some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others)
You refer to the Uranium One deal here. What do the words "Uranium One deal" mean to you? What is your understanding of what took place? Who do you think were participants in this deal? What did they want? What did they get out of it?
You don't need to know every detail about it to answer these questions. And if you can't answer these questions you really have no place even saying "Uranium One deal". If I were to keep saying "Trump chemtrails fema deal" you'd expect me to at least be able to identify the participants of the deal, if pushed on the subject.
If you're going to defend yourself with "yeah, but I don't know any details about the subject so asking me for details is totally a dick move and it's bullshit" then maybe don't bring up the subject and try to build your argument around it. You can't have it both ways. Either you know what the hell you're talking about, in which case you should be able to explain it to us, or you don't, in which case you should shut up. You can't plead ignorance of your own argument as a defence. Or at least, not if you want any credibility.
|
On October 28 2017 13:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:
some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others) You refer to the Uranium One deal here. What do the words "Uranium One deal" mean to you? What is your understanding of what took place? Who do you think were participants in this deal? What did they want? What did they get out of it? You don't need to know every detail about it to answer these questions. And if you can't answer these questions you really have no place even saying "Uranium One deal". If I were to keep saying "Trump chemtrails fema deal" you'd expect me to at least be able to identify the participants of the deal, if pushed on the subject. If you're going to defend yourself with "yeah, but I don't know any details about the subject so asking me for details is totally a dick move and it's bullshit" then maybe don't bring up the subject and try to build your argument around it. You can't have it both ways. Either you know what the hell you're talking about, in which case you should be able to explain it to us, or you don't, in which case you should shut up. You can't plead ignorance of your own argument as a defence. Or at least, not if you want any credibility.
If it was pretty much anyone but you, I'd respond. You aren't asking these questions in good faith. I already answered the question that you're posing now two days ago, and it was discussed by others. Get off your ass and go look it up.
|
United States24753 Posts
On October 28 2017 13:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2017 12:23 micronesia wrote:On October 28 2017 11:37 xDaunt wrote:On October 28 2017 10:22 KwarK wrote:
I especially liked that all it took to make xDaunt shut up about the Uranium One scandal was asking him to explain what the Uranium One scandal was. He was trying so hard to make that a thing, it's unfortunate that some things are too hard to understand when you get all your information in 140 character bites. Actually, I purposefully ignored you because you were engaging in your usual disingenuous bullshit. I said this... On October 26 2017 11:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 11:11 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2017 11:05 xDaunt wrote:
When I talked about flipping the script, I was referring to the Trump/Russia collusion narrative -- ie that Trump did something wrong. I think that Manafort and Flynn can go down without Trump being affected. Manafort looks particularly dirty, but, again, we'll have to wait and see what the actual evidence is and whether charges are brought. Gotcha. I thought when you said On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 10:30 Tachion wrote:
That doesn't even make any sense. How would that flip the Russia/Trump collusion narrative when they're not even related? Did Hillary sell uranium ore to Russia to help fund the hacks and ads against her campaign?
The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). that you meant that accusations against the Trump campaign/administration are made up in some way. Just to be clear, I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land. I'm just watching with interest. ...and in accordance with your usual practice of purposefully ignoring what people say to make up your own bullshit narrative in the thread, you wrote this... On October 26 2017 13:05 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt, could you explain to us how the conspiracy worked? Just a few paragraphs would be great, explaining the key actors, their motivations, and how they achieved their goals through participation in the conspiracy. ...and then punctuated it with your nonsense to which I first responded above. I'm not here to do the dance of the retards with you. Other posters may do it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Show some integrity in your posting, and you may get some better responses. xdaunt I am having trouble following your argument here. The things you quoted and the claims you are making don't seem to correspond at all. Kwark is claiming that you were pushing a particular (conspiracy?) theory and that you backed off on discussing it when asked to actually explain what the theory was. He did so kind of rudely, but I understood the point he was attempting to make. You then point to the quote of when Kwark actually asked you to explain the theory, and referred to it as 'doing the dance of retards' which is strange, considering the quote is almost exactly how Kwark described it. The only way this makes sense is if you legitimately think it is doing the 'dance of retards' to ask someone to explain (presumably) a (conspiracy) theory after publicizing it in a discussion. It seems like you are doing the very thing you are instead accusing Kwark of: ignoring what someone actually said and engaging in disingenuous bullshit. I didn't push anything. I made some observations. I noted that I had seen some conspiratorial stuff regarding the Russian collusion scandal before the dossier/Uranium One stuff went public that seemed eerily prescient. I expressly stated that I couldn't speak to the details of the conspiracy. And right after I made that disclaimer, Kwark asked me to do just that. Why would anyone dignify that with a response? And of course, Kwark being Kwark, goes right ahead with a bullshit extrapolation. I'm not hiding the ball. It's all there. As usual, half of you don't bother reading the thread before you start commenting.
But, you said the following statement:
"The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others)."
You are referring to a theory that the Uranium One deal (and potentially others which you won't name because it's better to just imply there are a whole slew of other things that make your political opposition look guilty) was covered up by manufacturing a Russia/Trump collusion narrative. Why is it acceptable for you to point to (alleged conspiracy) theories and use them to push a narrative that suits your political leanings, but insult people who ask you to actually defend that theory by at least explaining how it actually could be true based on available information? You seem to want to have it both ways here, and just about everyone is seeing it plain as day and your credibility in this thread is just utterly in the toilet at this point. Offense is the best defense only gets you so far, and the current POTUS will reach his tipping point too, I expect.
|
United States43538 Posts
On October 28 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2017 13:03 KwarK wrote:On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:
some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others) You refer to the Uranium One deal here. What do the words "Uranium One deal" mean to you? What is your understanding of what took place? Who do you think were participants in this deal? What did they want? What did they get out of it? You don't need to know every detail about it to answer these questions. And if you can't answer these questions you really have no place even saying "Uranium One deal". If I were to keep saying "Trump chemtrails fema deal" you'd expect me to at least be able to identify the participants of the deal, if pushed on the subject. If you're going to defend yourself with "yeah, but I don't know any details about the subject so asking me for details is totally a dick move and it's bullshit" then maybe don't bring up the subject and try to build your argument around it. You can't have it both ways. Either you know what the hell you're talking about, in which case you should be able to explain it to us, or you don't, in which case you should shut up. You can't plead ignorance of your own argument as a defence. Or at least, not if you want any credibility. If it was pretty much anyone but you, I'd respond. You aren't asking these questions in good faith. I already answered the question that you're posing now two days ago, and it was discussed by others. Get off your ass and go look it up.
The question I'm posing hasn't changed, hell, you could have had Amazon ship Clinton Cash to you by now.
I know what the words "Uranium One" means to me, but I also know what chemtrails, globalists, vaccines etc mean to me. The question is what the words "Uranium One deal" mean to you, and only you can answer that. You used the words, you must surely have some kind of idea in your head about what the words mean.
|
|
|
On October 28 2017 13:31 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2017 13:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 28 2017 12:23 micronesia wrote:On October 28 2017 11:37 xDaunt wrote:On October 28 2017 10:22 KwarK wrote:
I especially liked that all it took to make xDaunt shut up about the Uranium One scandal was asking him to explain what the Uranium One scandal was. He was trying so hard to make that a thing, it's unfortunate that some things are too hard to understand when you get all your information in 140 character bites. Actually, I purposefully ignored you because you were engaging in your usual disingenuous bullshit. I said this... On October 26 2017 11:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 11:11 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2017 11:05 xDaunt wrote:
When I talked about flipping the script, I was referring to the Trump/Russia collusion narrative -- ie that Trump did something wrong. I think that Manafort and Flynn can go down without Trump being affected. Manafort looks particularly dirty, but, again, we'll have to wait and see what the actual evidence is and whether charges are brought. Gotcha. I thought when you said On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 10:30 Tachion wrote:
That doesn't even make any sense. How would that flip the Russia/Trump collusion narrative when they're not even related? Did Hillary sell uranium ore to Russia to help fund the hacks and ads against her campaign?
The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). that you meant that accusations against the Trump campaign/administration are made up in some way. Just to be clear, I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land. I'm just watching with interest. ...and in accordance with your usual practice of purposefully ignoring what people say to make up your own bullshit narrative in the thread, you wrote this... On October 26 2017 13:05 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt, could you explain to us how the conspiracy worked? Just a few paragraphs would be great, explaining the key actors, their motivations, and how they achieved their goals through participation in the conspiracy. ...and then punctuated it with your nonsense to which I first responded above. I'm not here to do the dance of the retards with you. Other posters may do it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Show some integrity in your posting, and you may get some better responses. xdaunt I am having trouble following your argument here. The things you quoted and the claims you are making don't seem to correspond at all. Kwark is claiming that you were pushing a particular (conspiracy?) theory and that you backed off on discussing it when asked to actually explain what the theory was. He did so kind of rudely, but I understood the point he was attempting to make. You then point to the quote of when Kwark actually asked you to explain the theory, and referred to it as 'doing the dance of retards' which is strange, considering the quote is almost exactly how Kwark described it. The only way this makes sense is if you legitimately think it is doing the 'dance of retards' to ask someone to explain (presumably) a (conspiracy) theory after publicizing it in a discussion. It seems like you are doing the very thing you are instead accusing Kwark of: ignoring what someone actually said and engaging in disingenuous bullshit. I didn't push anything. I made some observations. I noted that I had seen some conspiratorial stuff regarding the Russian collusion scandal before the dossier/Uranium One stuff went public that seemed eerily prescient. I expressly stated that I couldn't speak to the details of the conspiracy. And right after I made that disclaimer, Kwark asked me to do just that. Why would anyone dignify that with a response? And of course, Kwark being Kwark, goes right ahead with a bullshit extrapolation. I'm not hiding the ball. It's all there. As usual, half of you don't bother reading the thread before you start commenting. But, you said the following statement: "The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others)." You are referring to a theory that the Uranium One deal (and potentially others which you won't name because it's better to just imply there are a whole slew of other things that make your political opposition look guilty) was covered up by manufacturing a Russia/Trump collusion narrative. Why is it acceptable for you to point to (alleged conspiracy) theories and use them to push a narrative that suits your political leanings, but insult people who ask you to actually defend that theory by at least explaining how it actually could be true based on available information? You seem to want to have it both ways here, and just about everyone is seeing it plain as day and your credibility in this thread is just utterly in the toilet at this point. Offense is the best defense only gets you so far, and the current POTUS will reach his tipping point too, I expect.
You’ve got a piss poor apprehension of what it means to push something.
Just to be clear, I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land. I'm just watching with interest.
Something smells fishy, so he’s “[pushing] a narrative that suits [his] political leanings?” He reveals he has no clue what it is so he’s pushing a narrative? This is some Trumpian level alt facts. And, to be clear, I don’t recommend you adopt Trump’s tactics to beat Republicans down, Micronesia.
On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 10:30 Tachion wrote:
That doesn't even make any sense. How would that flip the Russia/Trump collusion narrative when they're not even related? Did Hillary sell uranium ore to Russia to help fund the hacks and ads against her campaign?
The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). I really have no idea whether any of that is true
Aww fuck guys, he answered somebody that wondered what’s actually being alleged. Smoking gun, folks. Answering specific questions in US Pol thread when he should be busy asserting things left and right.
Pretty nonsensical baiting at someone just watching with interest.
|
On October 28 2017 13:31 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2017 13:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 28 2017 12:23 micronesia wrote:On October 28 2017 11:37 xDaunt wrote:On October 28 2017 10:22 KwarK wrote:
I especially liked that all it took to make xDaunt shut up about the Uranium One scandal was asking him to explain what the Uranium One scandal was. He was trying so hard to make that a thing, it's unfortunate that some things are too hard to understand when you get all your information in 140 character bites. Actually, I purposefully ignored you because you were engaging in your usual disingenuous bullshit. I said this... On October 26 2017 11:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 11:11 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2017 11:05 xDaunt wrote:
When I talked about flipping the script, I was referring to the Trump/Russia collusion narrative -- ie that Trump did something wrong. I think that Manafort and Flynn can go down without Trump being affected. Manafort looks particularly dirty, but, again, we'll have to wait and see what the actual evidence is and whether charges are brought. Gotcha. I thought when you said On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 26 2017 10:30 Tachion wrote:
That doesn't even make any sense. How would that flip the Russia/Trump collusion narrative when they're not even related? Did Hillary sell uranium ore to Russia to help fund the hacks and ads against her campaign?
The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). that you meant that accusations against the Trump campaign/administration are made up in some way. Just to be clear, I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land. I'm just watching with interest. ...and in accordance with your usual practice of purposefully ignoring what people say to make up your own bullshit narrative in the thread, you wrote this... On October 26 2017 13:05 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt, could you explain to us how the conspiracy worked? Just a few paragraphs would be great, explaining the key actors, their motivations, and how they achieved their goals through participation in the conspiracy. ...and then punctuated it with your nonsense to which I first responded above. I'm not here to do the dance of the retards with you. Other posters may do it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Show some integrity in your posting, and you may get some better responses. xdaunt I am having trouble following your argument here. The things you quoted and the claims you are making don't seem to correspond at all. Kwark is claiming that you were pushing a particular (conspiracy?) theory and that you backed off on discussing it when asked to actually explain what the theory was. He did so kind of rudely, but I understood the point he was attempting to make. You then point to the quote of when Kwark actually asked you to explain the theory, and referred to it as 'doing the dance of retards' which is strange, considering the quote is almost exactly how Kwark described it. The only way this makes sense is if you legitimately think it is doing the 'dance of retards' to ask someone to explain (presumably) a (conspiracy) theory after publicizing it in a discussion. It seems like you are doing the very thing you are instead accusing Kwark of: ignoring what someone actually said and engaging in disingenuous bullshit. I didn't push anything. I made some observations. I noted that I had seen some conspiratorial stuff regarding the Russian collusion scandal before the dossier/Uranium One stuff went public that seemed eerily prescient. I expressly stated that I couldn't speak to the details of the conspiracy. And right after I made that disclaimer, Kwark asked me to do just that. Why would anyone dignify that with a response? And of course, Kwark being Kwark, goes right ahead with a bullshit extrapolation. I'm not hiding the ball. It's all there. As usual, half of you don't bother reading the thread before you start commenting. But, you said the following statement: "The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others)." You are referring to a theory that the Uranium One deal (and potentially others which you won't name because it's better to just imply there are a whole slew of other things that make your political opposition look guilty) was covered up by manufacturing a Russia/Trump collusion narrative. Why is it acceptable for you to point to (alleged conspiracy) theories and use them to push a narrative that suits your political leanings, but insult people who ask you to actually defend that theory by at least explaining how it actually could be true based on available information? You seem to want to have it both ways here, and just about everyone is seeing it plain as day and your credibility in this thread is just utterly in the toilet at this point. Offense is the best defense only gets you so far, and the current POTUS will reach his tipping point too, I expect.
You're completely missing the point. I really don't give two shits about whether people want to attack the theory. That's all fair game. What I took exception to was the attack on me for something that I already disclaimed. That's uncalled for.
EDIT: And as for my credibility in the thread, let me cue you and everyone else in on something. I don't give a rat's ass about what the vast majority of you think. I know exactly where I stand and among whom it counts. If you can't demonstrate the simple ability to follow the facts and the conversation, then it's a safe bet that your opinion of me is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
