(03-10-2017 11:43 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 09:19 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/1...pping.html


Sorry if already posted.

So DT should bring forth some evidence rather than being a moral coward.

Yeah, Trump should prove a negative.

(03-10-2017 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 11:23 AM)SuperFlyBCat 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!

Spin deflect so normal for you. Has nothing to do with impeach Bush LOL. Head in the sand.

And totally missing the obvious point is so normal for you.

You guys used to call Kucinich nuts.
Now you think he's a rational educated voice.

Get it?

Not me. I've always thought he was an angry yard gnome.

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

(03-10-2017 11:43 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 09:19 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/1...pping.html


Sorry if already posted.

So DT should bring forth some evidence rather than being a moral coward.

Yeah, Trump should prove a negative.

Ummmm....no. He very clearly accused Obama of wiretapping him. So he should put forth that evidence.

Is it really that hard to understand?

(03-10-2017 02:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

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

(03-10-2017 11:43 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 09:19 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/1...pping.html


Sorry if already posted.

So DT should bring forth some evidence rather than being a moral coward.

Yeah, Trump should prove a negative.

Ummmm....no. He very clearly accused Obama of wiretapping him. So he should put forth that evidence.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Yes, the wiretapping he should prove, the colluding with Russia to "hack" the election, no. Is it really that hard to understand?

(03-10-2017 11:43 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 09:19 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/1...pping.html


Sorry if already posted.

So DT should bring forth some evidence rather than being a moral coward.

Wait. What?

So now it's on the accused to prove his/her innocence?

Errrrr, no. The leftists on here and ALL over the media, congress and anywhere within the distance you could swing a cat have been screaming collusion! Trump had the Rooskies "hack" the idiots at the DNC and expose their e-mails and rank incompetence and whatever else.

Funny thing, though. They have produced zerO proof. None. Nada. Zilch. 0. Squat.

People are seeing right through this garbage finally, proof of that is schmucky hasn't been seen diving for the nearest mic in a couple days.

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

(03-10-2017 11:43 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 09:19 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/1...pping.html


Sorry if already posted.

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.

(03-10-2017 02:33 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

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

(03-10-2017 11:43 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 09:19 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/1...pping.html


Sorry if already posted.

So DT should bring forth some evidence rather than being a moral coward.

Yeah, Trump should prove a negative.

Ummmm....no. He very clearly accused Obama of wiretapping him. So he should put forth that evidence.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Yes, the wiretapping he should prove, the colluding with Russia to "hack" the election, no. Is it really that hard to understand?

No, not at all...but this thread is about wiretapping.

(03-10-2017 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:33 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

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

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

Yeah, Trump should prove a negative.

Ummmm....no. He very clearly accused Obama of wiretapping him. So he should put forth that evidence.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Yes, the wiretapping he should prove, the colluding with Russia to "hack" the election, no. Is it really that hard to understand?

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)?

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

(03-10-2017 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:33 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:27 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Yeah, Trump should prove a negative.

Ummmm....no. He very clearly accused Obama of wiretapping him. So he should put forth that evidence.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Yes, the wiretapping he should prove, the colluding with Russia to "hack" the election, no. Is it really that hard to understand?

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.

(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.

For curiosity sake I figured I'd go look and see if I was one of "you guys" too.

Query Kucinich and JMUDunk.

Kyra spin room/ Wild West spin room.

All topics, all threads

Result- 1 mention.

that he appears periodically on Fox News as a contributor.

Can count me OUT too.

Aside- reading a couple of those old(er) threads, what ever happened to Stinkbug or Question Socratic? Anyone know those guys in "real" life?

Doesn't look like they were banned (?).

(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:  

(03-10-2017 09:19 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/1...pping.html


Sorry if already posted.

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!

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

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

(03-10-2017 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:33 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ummmm....no. He very clearly accused Obama of wiretapping him. So he should put forth that evidence.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Yes, the wiretapping he should prove, the colluding with Russia to "hack" the election, no. Is it really that hard to understand?

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?

(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:  

(03-10-2017 09:19 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/1...pping.html


Sorry if already posted.

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.

(03-10-2017 03:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Aside- reading a couple of those old(er) threads, what ever happened to Stinkbug or Question Socratic? Anyone know those guys in "real" life?

Doesn't look like they were banned (?).

Stinkfist has a line through his name. I assume that means he's banned.

(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.

(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:  

(03-10-2017 02:33 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Yes, the wiretapping he should prove, the colluding with Russia to "hack" the election, no. Is it really that hard to understand?

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.

(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.

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

Can you provide a link or two to some of the evidence? Most of what I've seen is stuff like, reliable unnamed sources said..........blah blah blah.

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.

(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?