trump: oblivious moron or psychotically narcissistic oblivious moron?

yowsa said:
olde, Austria is about to close the border. The Brenner Pass. A bunch of ignorant racists or what? What say you?
Click to expand...

Yep, racist ignoramuses. That is to say, your ilk, your xenophobic brothers in spirit and resentment.

BTW, don't you have some fascist's boot to lick? Make yourself useful already.
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Now you are down to lying?

Is there something unclear about this? "We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election..."

............................................................................



Ah, now you're a cyber security expert, and you know better than the FBI, CIA, and NSA, which conclusions they can reach without examining the server. And you base that formidable assessment on your rightarded sources that told you that you have to hyperventilate about "The FBI did not examine the server! Now!" Yeah, but your useful idiocy is cute.
Click to expand...

It's not quite a Gish Gallop, more of "the trots".
 
Darth Omar said:
Why is the Russian narrative so important to you?
Click to expand...

Because I am a reasonably patriotic American and not a goose-stepping Deplorable, and so having a president who is a dumbass bitch of a fascist dictator and maybe our greatest rival bothers me. Actually, if trump were not Putin's bitch and helping Putin with his agenda, I would have said China is our greatest rival, but ...

Better question is why doesn't it bother you?
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Now you are down to lying?

Is there something unclear about this? "We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election..."

............................................................................



Ah, now you're a cyber security expert, and you know better than the FBI, CIA, and NSA, which conclusions they can reach without examining the server. And you base that formidable assessment on your rightarded sources that told you that you have to hyperventilate about "The FBI did not examine the server! Now!" Yeah, but your useful idiocy is cute.
Click to expand...
do some research. the NSA did not have high confidence. This was an assessment written by DNI Clapper.
The private security companies did the technical analysis.

And don't be an asshole calling me a liar because I refuse to swallow a leap to conclusion Deep State agenda
with questionable technical research, written by a "wittingly" known liar ( Clapper) , combined w/ Brenna's hostility to Trump.
It's a shaky assessment passed off as gospel, and swallowed whole by John McCain , Democrats,and Russiaphobes
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Yep, racist ignoramuses. That is to say, your ilk, your xenophobic brothers in spirit and resentment.

BTW, don't you have some fascist's boot to lick? Make yourself useful already.
Click to expand...

olde, didn't your side win the election over Norbert? Please be realistic. And I'm not a socialist. For the umpteenth time.
 
anatta said:
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ence-agencies-agreed-on-russian-interference/
the New York Times and Associated Press posted corrections last week walking back the widely reported claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Donald Trump.

Rather, the assessment involved information collected by the FBI, CIA and NSA, and was then published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all the intelligence agencies.

The Associated Press published a "clarification" on June 30 about four different stories stating all 17 intelligence agencies agreed the Russians interfered in the election in order to help Trump. Instead, it acknowledged, not all those agencies were involved in that assessment:

In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency – and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment.
Click to expand...

Sigh. I dealt with this. You don't know the context of this retraction, but research tells me those on the internet who tell you what you think are distorting the truth again. That won't bother you any. I gave a link earlier to the original source showing all 17 did endorse the fact that Russia meddled in our election and even a link to a rightard source grudgingly acknowledging that fact.
 
yowsa said:
olde, didn't your side win the election over Norbert? Please be realistic. And I'm not a socialist. For the umpteenth time.
Click to expand...

You can say fascist = socialist and then deny you're a fascist for another 20 years, the internet will still be a series of tubes, Perfesser Crazy.
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Oh, please! No eff'n way will I give that hyperventilating shit he pulled from his probably cavernous arse the time and effort to "refute" anything, particularly so since this is from beginning to end baseless speculation, innuendo, and the ascription of motivations that satisfy the author's paranoia - and your willingness to join in to the hyperventilating - but have no basis in fact. This is a document so obviously and utterly worthless, the fabrication of some obscure conspiracy crackpot, you should be ashamed to post it, A Nutter.
Click to expand...
there are salient points in there you are choosing to ignore. Fuck if I care, but you do with a rant as an answer instead.
 
Moondoggie said:
You can say fascist = socialist and then deny you're a fascist for another 20 years, the internet will still be a series of tubes, Perfesser Crazy.
Click to expand...

You're on virtual ignore for another two weeks for ignoring me for two years or so, moondiggity, good buddy. Get used to it. :-)
 
RickyTavy said:
Sigh. I dealt with this. You don't know the context of this retraction, but research tells me those on the internet who tell you what you think are distorting the truth again. That won't bother you any. I gave a link earlier to the original source showing all 17 did endorse the fact that Russia meddled in our election and even a link to a rightard source grudgingly acknowledging that fact.
Click to expand...

I'll look for it. endoresment doesn't mean anything though, as they were completely un-involved with the production.
Would I expect the Coast guard to endorse it?? Gee why not. It's not like they are gona refute something
that the major INTEL agencies concoct
 
anatta said:
there are salient points in there you are choosing to ignore. Fuck if I care, but you do with a rant as an answer instead.
Click to expand...

Look, for the last time - it isn't all that hard to understand: You post a silly, illiterate conspiracy nutcase's rant. You have to be thoroughly delusional to hope to find anyone with a lick of sense to take you and your "source" seriously. Seriously, A Nutter, get a grip.

Oh, BTW, since there were "salient points", allegedly, hidden somewhere in there: Why don't you sit down an explain what they are, and why they are salient? Posting some entry of deplorable quality from some obscure blog won't get you a pat on the head, much less a debate.
 
Darth Omar said:
It was a lie and the lemmings swallowed it.
Click to expand...

You did the swallowing. Again. I proved it with a link to the original source as well as a grudging admission from a rightard rag.

For you liberals unaware of the extent of rightard media, if you try to research this topic you will have to wade through at least six pages of google with nothing but rightard sources celebrating this supposed retraction. Again, the "retraction" was correction of a claim that all 17 (depending on how you count them) came up with this evidence/proof. You can google yourself something about "October 7th intelligence statement" and get the original source that says in its first sentence it is representing the USIC. You can then google "US Intelligence Community" and find out it is made up of the "17 intelligence agencies" described.

There are two things here worthy of comment. First, think about there being so many hundreds of rightard websites and how they dominate cyber-space. Can you picture a liberal needing so many places to validate their prejudices? There being enough advertising money validating prejudices to support so many propaganda sites?

The second thing is how Deplorables here and everywhere are so reliant on such ludicrously biased sources. I mean, on one level they are aware enough how shameful such reliance is, because they never use the rightard sites that alerted them to the latest thing they think. No, they always use a link these sites provide to some more reasonable source from which they began their distortion. Oh yeah, one more thing. How about the lack of pride Deplorables exhibit in so obediently parroting what these sites tell them, despite how often what they have been told to squawk leads to their humiliation? Buncha kamikaze katapulters.
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Look, for the last time - it isn't all that hard to understand: You post a silly, illiterate conspiracy nutcase's rant. You have to be thoroughly delusional to hope to find anyone with a lick of sense to take you and your "source" seriously. Seriously, A Nutter, get a grip.

Oh, BTW, since there were "salient points", allegedly, hidden somewhere in there: Why don't you sit down an explain what they are, and why they are salient? Posting some entry of deplorable quality from some obscure blog won't get you a pat on the head, much less a debate.
Click to expand...
I bolded a few, because the writer has an inside view. Interesting points on the make up of the classified assessment
The OTHER link goes point by point over the evidence -read that.

Here’s the Public Evidence Russia Hacked the DNC — It’s Not Enough
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

for someone who didn't know the NSA only had "moderate confidence' in the assessment,,,
I'm not all that concerned with your assessment
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Look, for the last time - it isn't all that hard to understand: You post a silly, illiterate conspiracy nutcase's rant. You have to be thoroughly delusional to hope to find anyone with a lick of sense to take you and your "source" seriously. Seriously, A Nutter, get a grip.

Oh, BTW, since there were "salient points", allegedly, hidden somewhere in there: Why don't you sit down an explain what they are, and why they are salient? Posting some entry of deplorable quality from some obscure blog won't get you a pat on the head, much less a debate.
Click to expand...
olde, did the AP liars and the NY Slimes retract? Good grief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top