Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Jumbo

By Jumbo
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Llevron

Llevron

Posted
Posted
Just now, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Maybe, if you just try discussion and not argue?  I am not interested in fighting with everybody on this board but I know that most times, that's probably how it's going to go.  Discussion is better but it's hard to get there.

 

Seriously? Look up the word. If that what you are hung up on you have more wrong with you than I thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PF Chang

PF Chang

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

And you wonder why the Left has lost 5 straight elections, and counting, or whatever it is.   Maybe you don't wonder.  Maybe you are completely aware of it and just feel superior?  I don't know, it's not my day to keep track.

 

 

Snark and condescension are problems for the left. My post didn't help that. But it seems like the Trump right is just one long troll anyway. The two sides can't even agree on reality. Instead of talking about the potential impact of the investigation or anything constructive, the debate is whether or not the investigation even exists. 

 

This administration is constantly lying, blatantly. From day 1 with Spicer and the crowd size thing. The refusal of his supporters to acknowledge this again seems like trolling. 

 

I think my point stands. Many people who tend to lack skepticism suddenly need complete proof, and quickly, to think something is wrong with Trump's campaign and Russia. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

Quote

The story, which reported that Congress was investigating a "Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials," cited a single anonymous source.

 

These types of stories are typically reviewed by several departments within CNN -- including fact-checkers, journalism standards experts and lawyers -- before publication.

 

This breakdown in editorial workflow disturbed the CNN executives who learned about it.

 

In a staff meeting Monday afternoon, investigative unit members were told that the retraction did not mean the facts of the story were necessarily wrong. Rather, it meant that "the story wasn't solid enough to publish as-is," one of the people briefed on the investigation said.

 

Quote

Friday night, once it was determined that editorial processes were not followed, CNN deleted the story from CNN.com. Soon thereafter, the story was officially retracted and replaced with an editor's note.


The piece "did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted," the note said. "Links to the story have been disabled."
The editor's note also included an apology to Scaramucci.


"CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted," Scaramucci tweeted the next morning. "Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Charla_04/status/879461922399076352

DDR59HzUAAA4_ae.jpg

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Seriously? Look up the word. If that what you are hung up on you have more wrong with you than I thought. 

 

I don't know, I mean, lets be honest here.  You think there is a considerable amount wrong with me rights?  I mean, who's kidding who here?

16 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

Snark and condescension are problems for the left. My post didn't help that. But it seems like the Trump right is just one long troll anyway. The two sides can't even agree on reality. Instead of talking about the potential impact of the investigation or anything constructive, the debate is whether or not the investigation even exists. 

 

This administration is constantly lying, blatantly. From day 1 with Spicer and the crowd size thing. The refusal of his supporters to acknowledge this again seems like trolling. 

 

I think my point stands. Many people who tend to lack skepticism suddenly need complete proof, and quickly, to think something is wrong with Trump's campaign and Russia. 

 

I'll have that discussion with you right now if you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Llevron

Llevron

Posted
Posted
Just now, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

I don't know, I mean, lets be honest here.  You think there is a considerable amount wrong with me rights?  I mean, who's kidding who here?

 

Lol ok man. Provide me with the prof I asked for or we really don't have alot to discuss. 

 

I'll even ask nicely, again, if that changes anything. 

 

Please. Pretty please with puppy dog eyes. Provide me with quotes of people saying that there is NO evidence and that any investigation has been close. Please. 

 

See I did it your turn. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted
Just now, Llevron said:

 

Lol ok man. Provide me with the prof I asked for or we really don't have alot to discuss. 

 

I'll even ask nicely, again, if that changes anything. 

 

Please. Pretty please with puppy dog eyes. Provide me with quotes of people saying that there is NO evidence and that any investigation has been close. Please. 

 

See I did it your turn. 

Is there a reason you keep saying, "prof"?  I thought it was a typo the first time I saw it, but I'm not sure anymore.   (sorry, it's just bugging me, lol)

 

 

Also you may want to consider just ignoring him for a while, if you don't wan't to talk to him, but feel compelled to answer him anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Llevron

Llevron

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, visionary said:

Is there a reason you keep saying, "prof"?  I thought it was a typo the first time I saw it, but I'm not sure anymore.   (sorry, it's just bugging me, lol)

 

 

Also you may want to consider just ignoring him for a while, if you don't wan't to talk to him, but feel compelled to answer him anyway. 

 

Point taken. 

 

And no reason whatsoever for prof. None lol

 

 

You got it @ABQCOWBOY. I don't want anymore drama and I'm just wasting space at this point. 

Edited by Llevron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, dfitzo53 said:

Trump retracts stuff all the time. Granted, I'm not sure it's intentional, but still.

No, he contradicts stuff all the time. That's not the same thing. I bet if you confronted Trump face to face with all of his contradictory statements, and tweets he'd claim that they aren't contradictory.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Posted
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Lol ok man. Provide me with the prof I asked for or we really don't have alot to discuss. 

 

I'll even ask nicely, again, if that changes anything. 

 

Please. Pretty please with puppy dog eyes. Provide me with quotes of people saying that there is NO evidence and that any investigation has been close. Please. 

 

See I did it your turn. 

 

 

 

 

Clapper, Morrell, Feinstein, Warren, Schiff, all have said that there is no proof of Russian collusion.  There are others as well but thats just off the top of my head.  Now, I am certain that a "yet" is coming and I acknowledge this because obviously know that at least one investigation is still on going.  However, you have to acknowledge none of the investigations have shown proof and keep in mind, Morrell, Clapper were heads of intelligence communities and Schiff and Feinstein are on commit that receive briefings on these investigations.   I think that's something you have to consider.

 

 

Now, I have given you names and it will easy to just do a search to confirm if you would like.   If you rather just drop it, that's fine too but I am not being dishonest about this subject.  This is discussion.

 

And on a side note, would you drop over dead if it turned out that I was a Professor?   LOL........

Edited by ABQCOWBOY
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TradeTheBeal!

TradeTheBeal!

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Pop quiz: What's the difference between responsible media and Trump/Fox News?

 

Answer: Trump/Fox News would never retract any story no matter how pourly sourced, untrue, or how blatantly and intentionally false it is.

 

I'll need to see some prof for this claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Llevron said:

Everybody got jokes lol

 

I totally meant that I was calling @ABQCOWBOY professor for how he schooled me in this discussion. 

 

I'm blaming Obama or spell check. Which ever the base wants to run with. 

 

Not that it needs to be explained but I understood what it was you were asking for.  It's no big deal.

25 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

Many people say he makes the best retractions.  He's even going to get Mexico to pay for his retractions.

 

 

LOL......

 

OK, that's funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Llevron said:

Everybody got jokes lol

 

I totally meant that I was calling @ABQCOWBOY professor for how he schooled me in this discussion. 

 

I'm blaming Obama or spell check. Which ever the base wants to run with. 

 

Man none of this would happen if you hadn't been posting with your ObamaPhone. Everyone knows the spell check on those things sucks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LD0506

LD0506

Posted
Posted

Well catching up in this thread has been fun, kinda like having someone stick a fork in your ear and scrambling your brain like an egg.

 

Several prominent names mentioned, ie. Clapper, Schiff, etc, have said they haven't seen evidence, they did not state there was none, There is a clear difference here far beyond mere semantics, and it stems from the investigation(s) ongoing, there is a process and they are not yet at the point where they can or will offer up conclusions. It would be wildly unprofessional and counterproductive to have anyone inside making any comments on them at this stage (you know, the way Comey did) and as such anyone making claims that there IS nothing there is just straight talkin' out their ass.

 

Gotta give Ed (Rskins) credit for this straightforward statement:

Quote

  Now,  IF they find out something factual that in fact ties President Trump to collusion with the Russians, I would fully support his removal from office.

 

I seem to recall a lot of (?) lefties yelling about letting the investigations run their course before making any declarations vis-a-vis police shootings, terrorist attacks, etc., how is this fundamentally different?

 

We (as in We the People we Americans) have to suck it up and show a little faith in the system and a little strength of character in allowing the process to work. You cannot have a meltdown about the system being destroyed while at the same time rail against the very same system working on this.

 

The Fox echo-flat out denials are laughable and somewhat insulting, but how is that anything new? Seriously, they've been training people to insert head in orifice for years, did some of y'all really just notice this happening? Enough of the pearl clutching, this did not just start.

 

The far left anguish and chorus of cries for impeachment and imprisonment and executions is a different flavor of the same dish, although to give credit it has been pretty damn amusing at times.

 

There are elements on the extremes at both ends that don't bear notice and quite honestly do not bring one single worthwhile comment to the discussion. The vast majority of Americans reside somewhere in the midground between the two, a spectrum of views and beliefs that still allows people to discuss and debate and even argue while at the same time recognizing and acknowledging the basic humanity in all of them. The wide, amorphous indefinable "Middle" is not lost but kinda does need to be rediscovered by many and repopulated by those that seem to have fled it. There will always be an abundance of finger pointing and blaming, but after that horse**** wears everyone out, where are we going to go from here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
techboy

techboy

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Lawyering up. Has there ever been an administration that has had more people close to the president lawyering up?

 

I can't remember in my lifetime except for Nixon.

 

I'm not sure you can read too much into that. If I was working in the Trump administration, I'd lawyer up too, even if I wasn't guilty of anything.

 

Especially if I wasn't guilty of anything.

 

That goes triple if it turns out to have some element of RICO. Those cases are notorious for dragging down even incidentals in a wide net. A lot of people would argue that the RICO laws are actually a serious government overreach.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...