(03-10-2017 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 10:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Remember when Dennis was trying to impeach Bush and you all thought he was nuts? Good times!

Nope.

As a matter of fact I've never discussed Kucinich at all on here.

Utilizing the search function of this site I entered the term "Kucinich" and my name and got this in response:

Quote:Sorry, but no results were returned using the query information you provided. Please redefine your search terms and try again.

So evidently your memory isn't as good as you think it is because it certainly wasn't "you all". Perhaps you can be more specific as to whom you are referring to.

Ummmm...dude...I posted that comment in this thread before you even commented in it.

More delusions of grandeur I see.

OK. I'll play. Go ahead and provide some links for everyone who did post in the thread before your post thought that Kucinich is nuts. Per the SOP of this board you have to back up what you say.

Riiiiiiiight... But no, I was not talking just to those two who posted before my comment. Sorry.

Ok. You can't backup your claim so we can file it in the Made Up BS folder.

(03-10-2017 03:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Nope.

As a matter of fact I've never discussed Kucinich at all on here.

Utilizing the search function of this site I entered the term "Kucinich" and my name and got this in response:


So evidently your memory isn't as good as you think it is because it certainly wasn't "you all". Perhaps you can be more specific as to whom you are referring to.

Ummmm...dude...I posted that comment in this thread before you even commented in it.

More delusions of grandeur I see.

OK. I'll play. Go ahead and provide some links for everyone who did post in the thread before your post thought that Kucinich is nuts. Per the SOP of this board you have to back up what you say.

Riiiiiiiight... But no, I was not talking just to those two who posted before my comment. Sorry.

Ok. You can't backup your claim so we can file it in the Made Up BS folder.

Did you not see Post #39 two above yours?

That's what I was talking about. And no, I was not specifically naming people. I was naming conservatives in general...and yes, that was the general consensus of the thread...that Kucinich was nuts.

OBVIOUSLY, not EVERYONE thought that. If you took it that way...that I was impugning you, I apologize.

(03-10-2017 03:27 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 11:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 11:43 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  So DT should bring forth some evidence rather than being a moral coward.

LMAO. That's not how it works. The media and Democrats have been claiming for several months now that Russia and Trump were colluding on the hacks.

Exactly.

Figures they'd try to pivot now, that's he's gotta prove the negative. The ruse is up.

Dude, what in the hell are you even talking about? Nobody is saying Trump has to prove he did not collude with Russia. NO ONE!

Exactly. The media needs to prove it. They're the one's making the claims.

Media and member of both houses of Congress. Notably Fransicko Nan and that raving lunatic Coons from Delaware I believe. Many others as well.

(03-10-2017 03:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That didn't take long...
http://csnbbs.com/thread-301534.html

the guy is a card carrying loon.
What a POS that little insignificant troll is.
Washington is full of jokes just like this.
The craziest of the crazies is at it again.

So one person now = every conservative.

You are straight up hilarious when you try to throw up a smokescreen to hide your inaccurate claims

(03-10-2017 03:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That didn't take long...
http://csnbbs.com/thread-301534.html

the guy is a card carrying loon.
What a POS that little insignificant troll is.
Washington is full of jokes just like this.
The craziest of the crazies is at it again.

So one person now = every conservative.

You are straight up hilarious when you try to throw up a smokescreen to hide your inaccurate claims

Dude, it was four different posters. Their words are right before your eyes.

But since you have decided to stake your ground, I'll put you on record as agreeing with a sane and rational Dennis Kucinich, that President Bush should have been impeached.

(03-10-2017 03:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:27 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:19 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No, not at all...but this thread is about wiretapping.

As is typical in such threads, both issues have come up.

So we agree on the wire tapping claim, it's Trump's to prove because he made the assertion. Personally, I don't think Trump would ever have made the tweet unless he was certain, though I think he's probably letting it ride now so that more of his opponents can go on record with their denials.

Tom, are you in the camp that believes Trump has to prove he didn't collude with the Russians to hack the election (whatever that means)?

Sorry, but that camp does not even remotely exist. In fact, this is the first I've ever heard of anyone making a claim that he has to prove he didn't.

Okay, then I'll rephrase the question. Do you think that those who claim that Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians to hack the election have proven their assertion?

I think they've proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it was Russia who was behind hacking the DNC, but no, they have not proved any collusion with the campaign...yet.

What evidence? Where?

(03-10-2017 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's what I was talking about. And no, I was not specifically naming people. I was naming conservatives in general...and yes, that was the general consensus of the thread...that Kucinich was nuts.

OBVIOUSLY, not EVERYONE thought that. If you took it that way...that I was impugning you, I apologize.

I think anyone in favor of impeaching Bush (like those signing petitions to impeach Trump as if impeachment were a popularity contest) ARE/WERE nuts for that belief.

I think the reality is that such people are merely so partisan that they don't care that they're wrong about the process... they are merely venting their partisan unhappiness.

I also think that someone so partisan that they wanted to impeach Bush who now is in any way DEFENDING the current target of similar flawed movement is meaningful.

The left LOVES to point out when Republicans disagree with Trump... ignoring that that is precisely what earned him the nomination.

Feds’ Damning Report on Russian Election Hack Won’t Convince Skeptics

Clearly, I'll put you guys down in the skeptics silo.

(03-10-2017 03:37 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That didn't take long...
http://csnbbs.com/thread-301534.html

Did you bother to read who posted in there?

Or when?

Half of us, or probably more weren't even around then.

So, "you guys"= Those other people. haha

Being in favor of impeaching Bush and actually going about it are two vastly different things. Most on the left, including me, feel he and Cheney committed war crimes by overseeing what transpired with the whole Iraq mess. I believe Obama likely felt this way as well. However, what Obama (and me) realized was that this in the end would accomplish nothing but diminish our country as a whole...and if anything make W more popular with the right.

(03-10-2017 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Feds’ Damning Report on Russian Election Hack Won’t Convince Skeptics

Clearly, I'll put you guys down in the skeptics silo.

I don't think that anybody here has said that Russians didn't do it. We're saying that Trump wasn't colluding with them. That said the CIA has the ability to make it look like it's coming from someplace else.

(03-10-2017 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Feds’ Damning Report on Russian Election Hack Won’t Convince Skeptics

Clearly, I'll put you guys down in the skeptics silo.

W I R E D?!?

And as that venerable site/ "article" readily admits, the report offers no evidence. Simply, we think, we assert, we are confident.

Yea, that's not gonna prove a lot.

Back to the UP. DK had his congressional phone wiretapped. So surely tapping a private citizen can't be that hard.

I was wiretapped in 2011 after taking a phone call in my congressional office from a foreign leader.

That a secret recording had been made of this call was revealed to me by the Washington Times in 2015, a full two years after I left office.

The newspaper’s investigative reporters called me, saying they had obtained a tape of a sensitive telephone conversation that they wanted me to verify.

When I met them at a Chinese restaurant in Washington, they played back audio of a call I had taken in my D.C. congressional office four years earlier.

The call had been from Saif el-Islam Qaddafi, a high-ranking official in Libya’s government and a son of the country’s ruler, Moammar Qaddafi.

(03-10-2017 04:17 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Feds’ Damning Report on Russian Election Hack Won’t Convince Skeptics

Clearly, I'll put you guys down in the skeptics silo.

W I R E D?!?

And as that venerable site/ "article" readily admits, the report offers no evidence. Simply, we think, we assert, we are confident.

Yea, that's not gonna prove a lot.

Yeah, the CIA and NSA helped write the report so you know it's trustworthy.

(03-10-2017 04:17 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Feds’ Damning Report on Russian Election Hack Won’t Convince Skeptics

Clearly, I'll put you guys down in the skeptics silo.

W I R E D?!?

And as that venerable site/ "article" readily admits, the report offers no evidence. Simply, we think, we assert, we are confident.

Yea, that's not gonna prove a lot.

Dude, knock it off. The story is about the 25-page ONDI report. That's the evidence. It has nothing to do with wired.

And perhaps you overlooked this paragraph:

Quote:Even so, the report leaves out the much hoped-for technical evidence that informed these conclusions. In its “Scope and Sourcing” section, the report explains that this evidence exists, but can’t be declassified. And that means the report won’t satisfy the majority of the cybersecurity community that believes Russia hacked Democratic targets but has demanded more evidence, let alone the diehard deniers of the Kremlin’s fingerprints.

(03-10-2017 01:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  They should tell Trump they'll look into the wiretapping as soon as he releases his tax returns.

So you're saying on the 12th of never? I'm still waiting for Obama to release his college transcripts. It's been 8 years, what exactly is he trying to hide?

(03-10-2017 04:19 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:17 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Feds’ Damning Report on Russian Election Hack Won’t Convince Skeptics

Clearly, I'll put you guys down in the skeptics silo.

W I R E D?!?

And as that venerable site/ "article" readily admits, the report offers no evidence. Simply, we think, we assert, we are confident.

Yea, that's not gonna prove a lot.

Yeah, the CIA and NSA helped write the report so you know it's trustworthy.

Right...it's not like it came from the highly reliable Trump twitter account.

(03-10-2017 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Feds’ Damning Report on Russian Election Hack Won’t Convince Skeptics

Clearly, I'll put you guys down in the skeptics silo.

Clearly, I'll put you down in the "believes everything the government tells him...provided they're liberal/regressive" silo.