Obama Campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

53 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Good explanation— I would just clarify, as I think you did earlier, it wasn’t just a totally meaningless aside. It was in the context of Mueller being tight lipped— not all prosecutors are. He’s given no clues publicly. Frankly, that’s how it should be, IMO. So it wasn’t just a gratuitous jab at Starr— there was a real contrast that allowed media speculation to be attached to a recent clip of Starr talking. 

Yes, prosecutors should be tight lipped. But citizens shouldn't infer conclusions based on silence either. In this case, the best evidence the "public domain" has are the revelations of this investigation - none of which impute knowledge or criminal intent OBO Trump.

Thank goodness the judiciary's standards are not the same as some  people in the American public. 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Another ignoramus on the subject.

 

And you resort to name calling of anyone who disagrees with you. Webster defines ignoramus as an "utterly ignorant person." Not a nice thing to call ANYONE unless you presume to be perfect. And once more I try to tell you the whole thing was intended as a little jab at Tex. Have you lost all sense of humor?

[TexasTiger 12,831]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yes, prosecutors should be tight lipped. But citizens shouldn't infer conclusions based on silence either. In this case, the best evidence the "public domain" has are the revelations of this investigation - none of which impute knowledge or criminal intent OBO Trump.

Thank goodness the judiciary's standards are not the same as some  people in the American public. 

 

It’s unrealistic to expect citizens or media to wait until someone running their government has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and exhausted years of appeals. There are rational, informed opinions and irrational, uninformed opinions. An engaged citizenry needs to learn to discern between the two.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s unrealistic to expect citizens or media to wait until someone running their government has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and exhausted years of appeals. There are rational, informed opinions and irrational, uninformed opinions. An engaged citizenry needs to learn to discern between the two.

I'm not asking for you to wait until there's a Judgement. Legal conclusions, such as, "Trump is probably guilty of conspiracy," should have a justifiable legal basis. Half of the idiots don't even know the elements of the crime they are shouting about. It's fair for me to ask you for a legal basis for your contention. After all, you said something on the lines of "I bet it's a combination of illegalities." 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

13 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

And you resort to name calling of anyone who disagrees with you. Webster defines ignoramus as an "utterly ignorant person." Not a nice thing to call ANYONE unless you presume to be perfect.

First of all, just because I call someone a name doesn't mean it's simply because they disagree with me.  Disagree with me all you want, but know what you're talking about if you do.  In this case, it was because neither of you know what you're talking about.

Second, if we're going to start pedantically pulling dictionaries out rather than understanding colloquial usage, it would help if you would take into account the entire sentence.  I said he was an ignoramus "on this subject."  So yes, you and he in continuing to bellyache about this when you don't even comprehend what it is that you're bellyaching about (and are thus wrong) are "utterly ignorant" on the subject of whataboutism.

Clear enough?

[TexasTiger 12,831]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm not asking for you to wait until there's a Judgement. Legal conclusions, such as, "Trump is probably guilty of conspiracy," should have a justifiable legal basis. Half of the idiots don't even know the elements of the crime they are shouting about. It's fair for me to ask you for a legal basis for your contention. After all, you said something on the lines of "I bet it's a combination of illegalities." 

Pretty sure on obstruction and money laundering. Abuse of power is an impeachable offense— suspect we’ll see that. Conspiracy? Depends on what Mueller has . Their’s ample evidence of folks in Trump’s orbit working with Russia— what can he link to Trump? We’ll find out if he’s not fired. Do you want Trump to issue broad pardons now and short circuit it?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

First of all, just because I call someone a name doesn't mean it's simply because they disagree with me.  Disagree with me all you want, but know what you're talking about if you do.  In this case, it was because neither of you know what you're talking about.

Second, if we're going to start pedantically pulling dictionaries out rather than understanding colloquial usage, it would help if you would take into account the entire sentence.  I said he was an ignoramus "on this subject."  So yes, you and he in continuing to bellyache about this when you don't even comprehend what it is that you're bellyaching about (and are thus wrong) are "utterly ignorant" on the subject of whataboutism.

Clear enough?

We aren't bellyaching about the definition of the term, Titan. We're speaking to a larger point. I don't have a dictionary of fallacies on my desk - nor do I care enough to google it. There's more logical fallacies than I can count - being called "ignorant" by you on the subject is fine with me. What I do know is this - you're inconsistent when it comes to lashing out at others on this board. You constantly berate a select few for certain things, while utterly ignoring it when others do the very same things. I'm sorry if you take offense to this opinion. Often, you will lambaste me for "derailing the thread" for the mere utterance of a word or phrase that doesn't fall in line with previous rhetoric, while apparently turning a blind eye to others when they do it. 

But then again, I don't expect you to try to see this from my point of view. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Pretty sure on obstruction and money laundering. Abuse of power is an impeachable offense— suspect we’ll see that. Conspiracy? Depends on what Mueller has . Their’s ample evidence of folks in Trump’s orbit working with Russia— what can he link to Trump? We’ll find out if he’s not fired. Do you want Trump to issue broad pardons now and short circuit it?

You're still not getting to the "why?" In what way did he abuse his Constitutional powers under Art. II? 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

We aren't bellyaching about the definition of the term, Titan. We're speaking to a larger point. I don't have a dictionary of fallacies on my desk - nor do I care enough to google it. There's more logical fallacies than I can count - being called "ignorant" by you on the subject is fine with me. What I do know is this - you're inconsistent when it comes to lashing out at others on this board.

You may not be bellyaching about the definition of the term, but you are bellyaching based on a faulty definition of the term.  The end result is that you see inconsistencies where there aren't any.

 

Quote

You constantly berate a select few for certain things, while utterly ignoring it when others do the very same things. I'm sorry if you take offense to this opinion. Often, you will lambaste me for "derailing the thread" for the mere utterance of a word or phrase that doesn't fall in line with previous rhetoric, while apparently turning a blind eye to others when they do it. 

But then again, I don't expect you to try to see this from my point of view. 

If you think I'm being inconsistent, then nebulous references to other times or other people don't suffice.  In the future, point it out like you attempted to do in this thread.  But if you're going to point it out, please make sure that your example is one that is actually accurate.  It wasn't this time.  Perhaps the next time it will be.  I will try to be open minded enough to admit it if I have been inconsistent.  But don't get upset if it isn't and I point it out.

EDITED TO ADD:  Also, don't assume that just because I haven't said something, that I've simply ignored it.  I may not have seen it.  Feel free to bring it to my attention.  This isn't a free pass to become a hall monitor though.  I have a life.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

We aren't bellyaching about the definition of the term, Titan. We're speaking to a larger point. I don't have a dictionary of fallacies on my desk - nor do I care enough to google it. There's more logical fallacies than I can count - being called "ignorant" by you on the subject is fine with me. What I do know is this - you're inconsistent when it comes to lashing out at others on this board. You constantly berate a select few for certain things, while utterly ignoring it when others do the very same things. I'm sorry if you take offense to this opinion. Often, you will lambaste me for "derailing the thread" for the mere utterance of a word or phrase that doesn't fall in line with previous rhetoric, while apparently turning a blind eye to others when they do it. 

But then again, I don't expect you to try to see this from my point of view. 

I doubt Titan and I have ever voted for the same candidate. In the earlier years of this forum, he was one the people with whom I most frequently argued. Most of those were civil, but not all. Still, I never felt compelled to conform and was never threatened due to a contrary opinion. If you’re being called out, there are valid reasons.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You're still not getting to the "why?" In what way did he abuse his Constitutional powers under Art. II? 

I suspect we will see similar evidence related to obstruction cited as abuse of power. Having general authority to do things and doing them for the purpose of obstruction doesn’t absolve you. But disagree, stay tuned — there are credible analyses out there if you are genuinely interested. I don’t believe you are.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You may not be bellyaching about the definition of the term, but you are bellyaching based on a faulty definition of the term.  The end result is that you see inconsistencies where there aren't any.

I'm not concerned about the term. And being wrong about the term really shouldn't change anything - as if that justifies being met with the rhetoric not usually shown towards others. 

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If you think I'm being inconsistent, then nebulous references to other times or other people don't suffice.  In the future, point it out like you attempted to do in this thread.  But if you're going to point it out, please make sure that your example is one that is actually accurate.  It wasn't this time.  Perhaps the next time it will be.  I will try to be open minded enough to admit it if you do.  Don't get upset if it isn't and I say so

Perhaps you're missing my point. My example is your response to me this morning - you're extraordinarily harsh with a select few. It is correct. This isn't about "who was right and who was wrong." It's about the combativeness you show towards some in an array of circumstances.

That's all. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I suspect we will see similar evidence related to obstruction cited as abuse of power. Having general authority to do things and doing them for the purpose of obstruction doesn’t absolve you. But disagree, stay tuned — there are credible analyses out there if you are genuinely interested. I don’t believe you are.

You don't believe I am interested? 

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You don't believe I am interested? 

If you are you can research as easily as I can.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I doubt Titan and I have ever voted for the same candidate. In the earlier years of this forum, he was one the people with whom I most frequently argued. Most of those were civil, but not all. Still, I never felt compelled to conform and was never threatened due to a contrary opinion. If you’re being called out, there are valid reasons.

If you're being called out in an isolated manner for the very things others do as well, the reasons are not valid. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

If you are you can research as easily as I can.

But I want us to converse about it Tex

[Strychnine 1,802]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

But I want us to converse about it Tex

 

Here in the Smack Talk subforum I can say this:  Be less annoying, you will in turn get less grief from Titan.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But I want us to converse about it Tex

You want to “converse.”

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, Strychnine said:

 

Here in the Smack Talk subforum I can say this:  Be less annoying, you will in turn get less grief from Titan.

Thats subjective but thanks

[Strychnine 1,802]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Thats subjective but thanks

 

Of course it is subjective.  It was also both serious and a joke.

That said, a lot of Titan's reaction to some posters is based on history, which your account's join date indicates you are largely oblivious to.  As the small community that these two subforums are in comparison to the rest of the board, all of the regulars here basically know the positions of the other regulars in advance.  For example, I know where Titan is likely to land on any given issue, but I also know debating him requires your A game.  I enjoy it when I disagree with him, for that very reason.  The best piece of advice I can give you is to take an honest look at what you are doing, and how you are doing it, if you honestly feel Titan is being unfair to you.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

Of course it is subjective.  It was also both serious and a joke.

That said, a lot of Titan's reaction to some posters is based on history, which your account's join date indicates you are largely oblivious to.  As the small community that these two subforums are in comparison to the rest of the board, all of the regulars here basically know the positions of the other regulars in advance.  For example, I know where Titan is likely to land on any given issue, but I also know debating him requires your A game.  I enjoy it when I disagree with him, for that very reason.  The best piece of advice I can give you is to take an honest look at what you are doing, and how you are doing it, if you honestly feel Titan is being unfair to you.

Ok? I wasn't debating him on an "issue." This was about a perceived inconsistency in calling others out. 

Thanks for the concern though.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

Worth a read:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/969556148792844288

[homersapien 11,366]

18 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

let him have it!! I want to see paragraphs dangit!!!!

Please start by explaining how this qualifies as "whataboutism".  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

Please start by explaining how this qualifies as "whataboutism".  

You’re too late to the party. As PT said, a little friendly jab in jest.

[homersapien 11,366]

18 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm sure your bet is based on legal reasoning as well, isn't it? I mean, since you want to get technical...

Do you mean the same sort of reasoning that argues the results of a investigation still in progress?