Random Political comments...

Madeleine said:
Sure, it's very fair to hear from the source. So when they interviewed Putin and asked him: " Did you/your country meddle in the American election he said "No, of course not, you are giving us too much credit." Putin said it, you heard it from the horses mouth. That means you believe him and it must be true, right? When they asked him Mr Putin, was Russian military involved with separatists in Eastern Ukraine that let to the annexation of that part of the country by Russia he said " No, of course not, we were never there, it was only the Ukrainians who decided to join us because Russia is such a great country." Well he said it, so you believe him, right?
Click to expand...
Hi Madeliene,

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether l believe what they said, or not.

The question stands - DID they say it?

In your Putin examples, the answer is clearly...yes.

So...we can agree, it's not about one's feelings, opinions, beliefs or anything else emotional or subjective...DID THEY ACTUALLY SAY IT?

Furthermore, if you're going to cite that someone actually said something, then put your name behind it and your accused can then face you.

To put it in context, would you, Madeleine, like for annonymous people to say you said things, but provide no proof?
Or how about if they merely thought you were going to do something, so they just said you would have done it or wanted to do it, anyway. You know, make up stuff about you.
Think about it.

Also, if you think there has been no fallout from this mere "opinion" of President Trump, CBS News just reported in an update that "Mueller is being encouraged to use this new information toward a possible impeachment since it shows that Trump was attempting to remove Mueller from investigating.him."

And this is exactly why the NYT and every subsequent news outlet parroting them is worthy of having their integrity questioned.
 
Bliss said:
I'm fully aware of Project Veritas and the Left's attempt to discredit them.


However, if you watch the videos yourself you will see that the conversation is uninterrupted. You will also see those are the words that come out of each individual's mouth.

Furthermore, these producers were fired over it (not sure why Van wasn't).

BTW, Anderson Cooper has even called some of Veritas's videos as "damning".

The bottom line is, regardless of any funding sources, no one can make you say what you say, unless you say it. And that is the crux here.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, to your mind, Project Veritas and James O'keefe who is a convicted criminal and is being sued for illegal wiretapping, and has been barred from fund raising in Florida for failure to disclose his criminal past, and has numerous run-ins with the law is more credible than Politifact who has won a Pulitzer prize for reporting after having gone through an extensive vetting process before receiving the award. All joking aside, Bliss im really starting to worry about you, seriously.
 
8c87126691a8d46cc0423de91b90f556--political-beliefs-us-politics.jpg
 
Loki said:
So let me get this straight, to your mind, Project Veritas and James O'keefe who is a convicted criminal and is being sued for illegal wiretapping, and has been barred from fund raising in Florida for failure to disclose his criminal past, and has numerous run-ins with the law is more credible than Politifact who has won a Pulitzer prize for reporting after having gone through an extensive vetting process before receiving the award. All joking aside, Bliss im really starting to worry about you, seriously.
Click to expand...
I assure you Loki, I worry more about you as a politically-biased attorney who can affect people's lives, than you need to worry about little ol' me.;)


Your Veritas deflection is atrocious - why praytell are you even comparing PolitiFact, and what do they have to do with Veritas's video expose`?

However, since you keep trying to deflect to O'Keefe's 'criminal record', let's see what that conviction is, shall we?

'James O'Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine after he pleaded guilty on Wednesday to misdemeanor charges stemming from his involvement in a break-in at Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-La.) office."

So just to be clear here, any criminal activity conviction was a result from his undercover work.
So let's not pretend for a second that the Left isn't targeting and trying to shut this man down, just like you are in this thread.

Rather than be disturbed by the revelations, you want to discredit him by branding him like he's some two-bit career criminal.
I personally know Animal Rights activists who have been arrested and convicted for their undercover work at slaughterhouses and Medical Research laboratories, and I guess any members of BLM who have since become 'criminals' should now be reviled and discredited as well, right?
Miss me on that, Loki.


BTW, Anderson Cooper also disagrees with you, at the 7: 10 mark, enjoy. ;)

 
Bliss said:
Your Veritas deflection is atrocious - why praytell are you even comparing PolitiFact, and what do they have to do with Veritas's video expose`?

However, since you keep trying to deflect to O'Keefe's 'criminal record', let's see what that conviction is, shall we?

'James O'Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine after he pleaded guilty on Wednesday to misdemeanor charges stemming from his involvement in a break-in at Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-La.) office."

So just to be clear here, any criminal activity conviction was a result from his undercover work.
So let's not pretend for a second that the Left isn't targeting and trying to shut this man down, just like you are in this thread.

Rather than be disturbed by the revelations, you want to discredit him by branding him like he's some two-bit career criminal.
I personally know Animal Rights activists who have been arrested and convicted for their undercover work at slaughterhouses and Medical Research laboratories, and I guess any members of BLM who have since become 'criminals' should now be reviled and discredited as well, right?
Miss me on that, Loki.

BTW, Anderson Cooper also disagrees with you, at the 7: 10 mark, enjoy. ;)
Click to expand...

First I was not comparing Politifact to Veritas, I was pointing out to you the flaws in your logic (or should I say, lack thereof) when it comes to which source should be more trustworthy, given your past statements as to why you discount Politifact.

You are forgetting the $100,000 O'Keefe had to pay to settle a lawsuit with a former employee of a social welfare agency who accused O'Keefe of misrepresenting him in a widely distributed video. You are also forgetting that O’Keefe has been sued by multiple former Project Veritas personnel and charged with acts of sexual impropriety by former coworkers and others.

You are also forgetting that the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) organization also regularly covered O’Keefe’s efforts in 2011 and 2012, lamenting how often the details of the purported stings are misreported before being thoroughly investigated.

All of the above facts are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, easily verified, not some left wing smear job on O'keefe like you keep insisting.

Long story short Bliss, you are being led down a BAD path by a true con-artist if you believe O'keefe is some kind of champion of investigative journalism and seeker of truth.

Lastly, Cooper did not disagree with me at all, he said that O'keefe was convicted of a crime, which he was = convicted criminal.
 
Last edited:
ColiBreh1 said:
Ehhhhh...I would say WinCo's prices are competitive with Wal-Mart, not necessarily lower. Aldi is still cheaper than both of them.
Click to expand...

It's actually true that Winco is lower priced and the rest of the comments. However, it's not like they treat their employees so great either. Yes there are those who did well with Winco, but as with most....that is changing. My daughter worked there for 2 years in the busiest Winco that exists. She decided to leave and go to another store (no NOT WalMart) and make a bit less about a year ago. The new store is much better. Treats employees better, the customers are nicer, and she's just back to where she was money wise when she left Winco.

As much as I really don't like Winco, I still shop there because it is lower and that's just how it is, we all admit that - can't deny the facts. But I know how it is there too. Same with when I go to WalMart. When I want to be treated better I go to another store.
 
Loki said:
First I was not comparing Politifact to Veritas, I was pointing out to you the flaws in your logic (or should I say, lack thereof) when it comes to which source should be more trustworthy, given your past statements as to why you discount Politifact.

You are forgetting the $100,000 O'Keefe had to pay to settle a lawsuit with a former employee of a social welfare agency who accused O'Keefe of misrepresenting him in a widely distributed video. You are also forgetting that O’Keefe has been sued by multiple former Project Veritas personnel and charged with acts of sexual impropriety by former coworkers and others.

You are also forgetting that the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) organization also regularly covered O’Keefe’s efforts in 2011 and 2012, lamenting how often the details of the purported stings are misreported before being thoroughly investigated.

All of the above facts are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, easily verified, not some left wing smear job on O'keefe like you keep insisting.

Long story short Bliss, you are being led down a BAD path by a true con-artist if you believe O'keefe is some kind of champion of investigative journalism and seeker of truth.

Lastly, Cooper did not disagree with me at all, he said that O'keefe was convicted of a crime, which he was = convicted criminal.
Click to expand...
Before l address anything else you wrote, when you have a moment, can you please elaborate or link this statement you wrote:

"You are also forgetting that O’Keefe has been sued by multiple former Project Veritas personnel and charged with acts of sexual impropriety by former coworkers and others."

Just the underlined part. I researched and couidn't find anything. I would like to know more please. Thanks.
 
ColiBreh1 said:
Ehhhhh...I would say WinCo's prices are competitive with Wal-Mart, not necessarily lower. Aldi is still cheaper than both of them.
Click to expand...
Oh, ok..I'd never heard of WinCo before seeing that meme, and learned they're primarily in the west and midwest.
We do have Aldi in my State/City..
 
Bliss said:
Before l address anything else you wrote, when you have a moment, can you please elaborate or link this statement you wrote:

"You are also forgetting that O’Keefe has been sued by multiple former Project Veritas personnel and charged with acts of sexual impropriety by former coworkers and others."

Just the underlined part. I researched and couidn't find anything. I would like to know more please. Thanks.
Click to expand...

https://www.mediaite.com/online/for...veals-barn-incident-and-harassment-complaint/

"Last week, we reported that Nadia Naffe, self-described “accomplice” to conservative activist James O’Keefe , had begun publishing a multi-part tell-all series of posts to her blog. Thursday morning, Naffe published the second part, which details her version of the events that led her to file a criminal harassment complaint against O’Keefe in November, and which includes documents related to a sexual harassment settlement between O’Keefe and “CNN Sex Boat Caper” whistleblower Izzy Santa. O’Keefe filed suit against Naffe on Wednesday to obtain an injunction against publication of those documents, and of emails that O’Keefe claims she stole from his computer."

"According to a settlement document released by Ms. Naffe, O’Keefe paid Santa $20,000 (a little less than half of what she was demanding) with no admission of liability, and with a confidentiality clause."
 
Bliss said:
Hi Madeliene,

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether l believe what they said, or not.

The question stands - DID they say it?

In your Putin examples, the answer is clearly...yes.

So...we can agree, it's not about one's feelings, opinions, beliefs or anything else emotional or subjective...DID THEY ACTUALLY SAY IT?

Furthermore, if you're going to cite that someone actually said something, then put your name behind it and your accused can then face you.

To put it in context, would you, Madeleine, like for annonymous people to say you said things, but provide no proof?
Or how about if they merely thought you were going to do something, so they just said you would have done it or wanted to do it, anyway. You know, make up stuff about you.
Think about it.

Also, if you think there has been no fallout from this mere "opinion" of President Trump, CBS News just reported in an update that "Mueller is being encouraged to use this new information toward a possible impeachment since it shows that Trump was attempting to remove Mueller from investigating.him."

And this is exactly why the NYT and every subsequent news outlet parroting them is worthy of having their integrity questioned.
Click to expand...
It’s not realistic for journalists to be able to name their sources because they wouldn’t be sources for very long then. The sources would get fired or killed. I don’t treat newspapers like the Holy Word, there’s bound to be error and mistake every now and then, but it remains that they play an important role in a democracy and it is wrong to discredit all journalists as a whole. The normal process for a journalist is to verify a piece of information from several sources. Also it is very unrealistic of you to think you have better access to information and will come closer to the truth by sitting in your room and researching the internet for little soundbites of what the people „actually said themselves“.
 
The Dark King said:
But its a witch hunt right? Smh
Click to expand...
Sure is.
Did you read it?
"...Russia’s effort to interfere with the U.S. political system dates back to at least 2014, according to the indictment. By September 2016, just before the presidential election, the monthly budget for election interference operations was more than $1.25 million...."

Interference isn't colllusion. Interference has always happened.
Obama was accused of it by Netanyahu against him during the Israeli elections.

Now, if they could just indict George Soros for the same, that would be great......
 
andreboba said:
13 Russian Nationals Indicted For Interfering With U.S. Elections


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russian-indicted-us-election_us_5a871b70e4b05c2bcaca8989
Click to expand...
Mueller seems desperate now..
  • Indictment says Russia-run 'Internet Research Agency' employees set up fake Facebook groups and Twitter accounts to support Trump and oppose Clinton
  • ....
  • No allegation is made of a conspiracy or collusion that includes the Trump campaign itself
  • ...
  • 'There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity,' Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein said Friday
  • ....
  • Also cautioned that 'there is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election'
  • ...
  • Rosenstein said the goal was 'spreading distrust toward the candidates and the political system in general'
 
Last edited:
Bliss said:
Mueller seems desperate now..
  • Indictment says Russia-run 'Internet Research Agency' employees set up fake Facebook groups and Twitter accounts to support Trump and oppose Clinton
  • ....
  • No allegation is made of a conspiracy or collusion that includes the Trump campaign itself
  • ...
  • 'There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity,' Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein said Friday
  • ....
  • Also cautioned that 'there is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election'
  • ...
  • Rosenstein said the goal was 'spreading distrust toward the candidates and the political system in general'
Click to expand...

No, you seem desperate, Bliss.
The underlying evidence behind these indictments hasn't been fully released to the public yet, but I guarantee you that Russia plotting to influence our election was revealed to Mueller partly through statements made to the special counsel by people on Trump's campaign team.

This is a 37 page indictment which has been posted on the HuffPost. Read it if you get a chance, and understand Mueller's investigation is proceeding in stages and he has yet to release the names of those Americans who knowingly worked with the Russians.

This is the beginning of the the end for Trump.

From the indictment....MAGA was created by the Russians.lol
The Russians basically ran Trump's campaign.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom