The Start of the Russian Hoax

[Guest]

LOL The problem of course is she has documented proof for what she is saying.  

Keep watching Durham. 

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:
LOL The problem of course is she has documented proof for what she is saying.  

Keep watching Durham. 

is it proof that those in opposition will acknowledge?  if the answer is "no" then it is really a moot point.

its pretty much going to take literal baseball bats for either side to concede a point IMO so arguing over anything that is in any way controversial in nature or substance is pretty much an exercise in futility.

[Guest]

@JimmyinSD said:

@A1Janitor said:
LOL The problem of course is she has documented proof for what she is saying.  

Keep watching Durham. 

is it proof that those in opposition will acknowledge?  if the answer is "no" then it is really a moot point.

its pretty much going to take literal baseball bats for either side to concede a point IMO so arguing over anything that is in any way controversial in nature or substance is pretty much an exercise in futility.

I don’t give two shits what the other side accepts.  Read what she wrote.  Yes ... there is documented proof what she said.  

This isn’t about conceding points.  Obama was spying.  He was corrupt.  Benghazi.  Pay to play scams.  Uranium One.  Iran cash.  Ukraine corruption.  

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@A1Janitor said:
LOL The problem of course is she has documented proof for what she is saying.  

Keep watching Durham. 

is it proof that those in opposition will acknowledge?  if the answer is "no" then it is really a moot point.

its pretty much going to take literal baseball bats for either side to concede a point IMO so arguing over anything that is in any way controversial in nature or substance is pretty much an exercise in futility.

I don’t give two shits what the other side accepts.  Read what she wrote.  Yes ... there is documented proof what she said.  

This isn’t about conceding points.  Obama was spying.  He was corrupt.  Benghazi.  Pay to play scams.  Uranium One.  Iran cash.  Ukraine corruption.  

If you arent trying to enlighten those of opposing views or learn something from them,  what's the point of this forum?  If you cant find supporting evidence for your contending points that they will believe then nothing else matters.  The same stands for their positions,  if they cant find something to support their angles from a source that you find credible....why bother?

[Guest]

LMAO a respected journalist puts out credible timeline of events.  Go and search - its all true.  She gives names, dates, publications etc.  

Yet Jimmy thinks I have to show HER supporting documents to the satisfaction of partisan hacks or I can’t post this information. 

Somehow it isn’t true.  

Too bad Jimmy doesn’t hold everyone to the same bullshit standard.  
For instance - you don’t think they lied to Congress about the Benghazi video?

LOL 

Stupid clown shit.  

[Guest]

I post this stuff for informational purposes.  I don’t want to argue with stupid people.  Take the information ... read it or not.  Discuss if you want.  

I don’t want to argue with naive partisan hacks.  Don’t like the thread or the information - don’t comment. 

[Guest]

For instance ... progressive Salon backs up her claims in the first entry. 

https://www.salon.com/2009/04/20/harman/

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:
LMAO a respected journalist puts out credible timeline of events.  Go and search - its all true.  She gives names, dates, publications etc.  

Yet Jimmy thinks I have to show HER supporting documents to the satisfaction of partisan hacks or I can’t post this information. 

Somehow it isn’t true.  

Too bad Jimmy doesn’t hold everyone to the same bullshit standard.  

For instance - you don’t think they lied to Congress about the Benghazi video?

LOL 

Stupid clown shit.  

you really should try reading comprehension as a skill you hope to acquire this new year.   NO WHERE have i said you cant post the shit you post. 

I was simply asking what the point was to post stuff in a debate when your counter debaters wont recognize your sources.  It was more rhetorical than pointed at you as you are as quick to dismiss opposing views sources as they are yours.

and for the record,  ( i really dont know how many times I can repeat this)  your argument isnt with me and not knowing who your argument really is with really makes you look the clown if its anybody.

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:
I post this stuff for informational purposes.  I don’t want to argue with stupid people.  Take the information ... read it or not.  Discuss if you want.  

I don’t want to argue with naive partisan hacks.  Don’t like the thread or the information - don’t comment. 

and I am just as free to post my comments as you are,  so dont like them ... to fucking bad.

[Guest]

Here is the ACLU that supports what she wrote.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/secrecy/edward-snowden-saturday-demand-end-surveillance-state