I linked it because I think he makes some excellent points.
Narrator: "And, once again, when asked what these 'excellent points' are, LC will simply repeat over and over that the 'eddy nailed it'..."
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I linked it because I think he makes some excellent points.
Once again, you ignore the reality of the situation. I linked a piece that clearly was the author's opinion, and said I didn't agree with all he said, specifically not the subject line.
Why don't you just state the parts that you agree with and that define the reason you are sharing any given article in the first place?I should have said in my initial post, when I said I didn't agree with everything he says, that I didn't agree the Mueller probe should be ended before it's finished. I (mistakenly, it appears) assumed that since I have frequently and consistently said I oppose prematurely ending the probe, it wasn't necessary to repeat myself. I erred -- as I shouldn't have, considering the subject line of the linked piece.
I linked it because I think he makes some excellent points. And because I knew it would cause mass hysteria among the usual suspects here. Hence the subject line I chose to put on my post.
So we're just supposed to guess what you agree and disagree with. It's the same thing from you. You keep posting Trump sided articles and then add a general disclaimer to cover your butt when people call you out. It's the same thing over and over from you. If someone repeatedly posts articles from the KKK but adds the disclaimer "I don't agree with everything", I think most people would come to the conclusion the poster was pro KKK. That's where you're at with Trump. Sorry, but you are what you post.
Why don't you just state the parts that you agree with and that define the reason you are sharing any given article in the first place?
Good. Because I'm posting like a rational adult.So we're just supposed to guess what you agree and disagree with. It's the same thing from you. You keep posting Trump sided articles and then add a general disclaimer to cover your butt when people call you out. It's the same thing over and over from you. If someone repeatedly posts articles from the KKK but adds the disclaimer "I don't agree with everything", I think most people would come to the conclusion the poster was pro KKK. That's where you're at with Trump. Sorry, but you are what you post.
I said I agreed with the idea of having the Trump-Mueller conversation on live TV.Why don't you just state the parts that you agree with and that define the reason you are sharing any given article in the first place?
I said I agreed with the idea of having the Trump-Mueller conversation on live TV.
I do not agree with you. He has done several good things as president -- more, in fact, than I expected. But my expectations were awfully low, so there's that.You can justify it with "But Hillary", but the fact is, a turnip would be doing a better job. He literally does nothing good, ever.
Rule number 1A: Don't betray your ignorance by saying Alex Jones and Sean Hannity made up the term "Deep State."Anything that starts with the word "deep state" in the first sentence is not a credible article. Rule number 1 to legitimacy: Do not use terms made up by Alex Jones and Sean Hannity when attempting to sound serious.
No. I was asked for an example. so I gave an obvious one. I'm in general agreement with most everything in the piece except his conclusion that the Mueller investigation should be halted.An entire Op Ed, just for THAT?
FWIW, "live TV" of FBI questioning is a really really bad idea. I'm sure you know that, though.
I agree. But I also agree there is a lot of smoke that the Obama admin used our government to weaponize against a competitors campaign and transition. To me that is WAY more important to get to the bottom of regardless of party affiliation.
Rule number 1A: Don't betray your ignorance by saying Alex Jones and Sean Hannity made up the term "Deep State."
Which was a joke.I said I agreed with the idea of having the Trump-Mueller conversation on live TV.
Serious question: Do you ever link something with which you are not in 100% agreement?
Once again, you ignore the reality of the situation. I linked a piece that clearly was the author's opinion, and said I didn't agree with all he said, specifically not the subject line.
As I said in another post, I agree with most of what he writes, but not the conclusion that this justifies ending the Mueller investigation. There may be other specific statements with which I disagree. Run a few past me and I'll tell you.Which was a joke.
Of course, but I've never linked an article when I didn't fundamentally agree with most of it or at least the primary assertions being made. What main points do you agree with that you think made the article worth sharing?
Why on Earth would I do that, or be expected to do that?Find one with an opposite view and post it. I won't be holding my breath.
No. I was asked for an example. so I gave an obvious one. I'm in general agreement with most everything in the piece except his conclusion that the Mueller investigation should be halted.
No, I don't "know" that it would be a bad idea to have the interview on live TV. But I'm sure you're willing to enlighten me.
I would think you, of all people, would be delighted to see Trump questioned live, as he's sure to make mistakes and/or tell lies, right there before God and everybody.
That's typical liberal bullshit. It's like your people deciding abruptly that "chain migration" was a racist term and calling people racist if they used it.I don't know specifically which right wing propagandist actually made up the term but those were the two that promoted it the most so they get the blame. Of course, your deflection doesn't change the fact that using right wing propagandist terms in the article destroys its credibility.
Which was a joke.
Of course, but I've never linked an article when I didn't fundamentally agree with most of it or at least the primary assertions being made. What main points do you agree with that you think made the article worth sharing?
And you simply are unable to carry on a civil, adult conversation if you sense anything in it conflicts with your own opinions and prejudices. You have a disability that causes you to think any opinion different from your own is, by its very difference, untrue. Because of this, you continually confuse fact and opinion....which explains quite a lot, as most of the piece is non-factual and fluff. You are apparently incapable of understanding that.
One would THINK this would be fairly obvious. Try contemplating it a little harder...
He's been doing that for months. Do you not pay attention?
Why on Earth would I do that, or be expected to do that?
(Go ahead and exhale)
Yikes.As I said in another post, I agree with most of what he writes, but not the conclusion that this justifies ending the Mueller investigation. There may be other specific statements with which I disagree. Run a few past me and I'll tell you.
That's what I figured. Thanks for the confirmation.Yikes.
No thanks.
It's actually from the Turks, isn't it? Like Swedish Meatballs?That's typical liberal bullshit. It's like your people deciding abruptly that "chain migration" was a racist term and calling people racist if they used it.
As far as credibility is concerned, you kinda blew yours all to hell by believing it was started by Alex Jones and Sean Hannity.
Wikopedia is your friend. Use it.
I'm comfortable with this. I know you are, too. Common ground! Boom!That's what I figured. Thanks for the confirmation.
"Together with Doug Schoen, he was co-founder of the polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates.,[2] whose clients included political and business leaders such as U.S. PresidentBill Clinton, British Prime MinisterTony Blair, and Bill Gates. Penn later served as chief strategist and pollster to Hillary Clinton in her unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[3] In September 2007, he released a book titled Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes, which examines small trends sweeping the world.[4] Penn is married to Nancy Jacobson, a professional fundraiser.[5] He is currently a visiting lecturer at Harvard College.[6]"I’m curious Loneclone, do you consider the source of the article. Mr. Penn is hated by liberal Dems and he really isn’t a qualified critic of Muehlerr and the FBI. He is qualified to defend shady politicians and obfuscate to twist public opinion.
Wrong. I posted at least 2 posts, asking you for your positions.And you simply are unable to carry on a civil, adult conversation if you sense anything in it conflicts with your own opinions and prejudices.
And you are an idiot.
Good. Because I'm posting like a rational adult.
You may think you're posting as a rational adult but you're really not. FYI, OiT thinks he's rational too.