It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump - Russian connections....FAR DEEPER than anyone ever imagined

page: 8
65
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
You just debunked your entire line of reasoning.
You can revel in what you call Karma all you like, but Trump supporters are just enjoying his win and looking forward to his Presidency, while you churn yourself up with fake news.


In the sentence above you just wrote:



Yet here you state the news coming from MI6 and intelligence sources in the US is fake news:



Fake news is legitimately fake news. Not biased news. Not fast loose hard biased twisting of facts smothered under opinions.

There was a 'Boston Tribune' article about how a store owner and an employee in Florida shot 20 looters in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane in Florida. That never happened. There is no such thing as the Boston Tribune. There are other examples of wholly fabricated stories that circulated and qualify as fake news.

Any other use of the term is just an attempt to undermine an opposing source.

So where's the evidence this is fake news? You're consistent, right? You aren't just writing BS meaningless words when it suits your agenda are you?

MI6, GCHQ, and real intelligence sources are investigating it. So how is it fake, you have evidence right?

Is this sort of the same how you and your lying miserable friends kept saying the Russians didn't try to affect the election despite 17 intelligence agencies all saying otherwise?

What's hilarious is you are contradicting yourself literally within two posts.


There is no evidence, unfortunately for his detractors.


You don't work in the intelligence world do you? So how exactly do you know?

Serious question. Please try to answer this question, I'd really be fascinated to know how you know an MI6 operatives intel (now corroborated as something that's being actively investigated by the FBI and others) is wrong other than because you simply disagree with it.

washingtonpost.com...
www.independent.co.uk...

You sure seem confident on this point for having no access to any actual classified materials.

Maybe, just maybe, you're not being fully honest with yourself?

Or maybe you just enjoy auto-gaslighting yourself.

edit on 15-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Complete and utter garbage.




Trump - Russian connections....FAR DEEPER than anyone ever imagined


The only name in Russian Oil is GazProm.

One of the seven sisters.

Keep going around thread to thread saying the same thing.

Some day someone needs to explain to be what real estate has to do with oil.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


Disprove one, and the next accusation will soon follow.


Too bad he has yet to disprove anything. Eventually the evidence will pile up and he will be forced to defend himself. Too bad for him the rest of the world doesn't play by his rules. No wonder he has to vent his frustration on twitter.

ETA: Did you just call your own analogy "stupid?"


There is already evidence of Clinton via her "foundation" getting $150 million for approving the sale of 20% of American uranium to the Russians

Where is your outrage ?



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: muse7

Complete and utter garbage.




Trump - Russian connections....FAR DEEPER than anyone ever imagined


The only name in Russian Oil is GazProm.

One of the seven sisters.

Keep going around thread to thread saying the same thing.

Some day someone needs to explain to be what real estate has to do with oil.


Is that a serious question?

Aren't oil and real estate essentially the same?

Oil can be an asset of a property



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: muse7

Some day someone needs to explain to be what real estate has to do with oil.




I drink your milkshake!



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: muse7

Complete and utter garbage.




Trump - Russian connections....FAR DEEPER than anyone ever imagined


The only name in Russian Oil is GazProm.

One of the seven sisters.

Keep going around thread to thread saying the same thing.

Some day someone needs to explain to be what real estate has to do with oil.


Is that a serious question?

Aren't oil and real estate essentially the same?

Oil can be an asset of a property



Not in the US as the land is LEASED from the STATE.

The STATE says YEA orNEA on where to drill.

I recall a guy blocking lots of LAND for the purpose of exploration.

So YEA serious question deserves a serious answer without the political hackery.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: UKTruth
You just debunked your entire line of reasoning.
You can revel in what you call Karma all you like, but Trump supporters are just enjoying his win and looking forward to his Presidency, while you churn yourself up with fake news.


In the sentence above you just wrote:



Yet here you state the news coming from MI6 and intelligence sources in the US is fake news:



Fake news is legitimately fake news. Not biased news. Not fast loose hard biased twisting of facts smothered under opinions.

There was a 'Boston Tribune' article about how a store owner and an employee in Florida shot 20 looters in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane in Florida. That never happened. There is no such thing as the Boston Tribune. There are other examples of wholly fabricated stories that circulated and qualify as fake news.

Any other use of the term is just an attempt to undermine an opposing source.

So where's the evidence this is fake news? You're consistent, right? You aren't just writing BS meaningless words when it suits your agenda are you?

MI6, GCHQ, and real intelligence sources are investigating it. So how is it fake, you have evidence right?

Is this sort of the same how you and your lying miserable friends kept saying the Russians didn't try to affect the election despite 17 intelligence agencies all saying otherwise?

What's hilarious is you are contradicting yourself literally within two posts.


There is no evidence, unfortunately for his detractors.


You don't work in the intelligence world do you? So how exactly do you know?

Serious question. Please try to answer this question, I'd really be fascinated to know how you know an MI6 operatives intel (now corroborated as something that's being actively investigated by the FBI and others) is wrong other than because you simply disagree with it.

washingtonpost.com...
www.independent.co.uk...

You sure seem confident on this point for having no access to any actual classified materials.

Maybe, just maybe, you're not being fully honest with yourself?

Or maybe you just enjoy auto-gaslighting yourself.


Yet another person who thinks they can decide for everyone else what fake news is. Sorry, but you can't. I am not sure why you think your definition is in any way more valid than others.

Now what does my classification of fake news in relation to the Buzzfeed document have to do with the burden of proof being on the accuser? The burden is on you to prove the information contained within is true (if you want to use it's content as the basis of any judgement on Trump or Russia), as it is the content of the document that forms the accusations.

Like I said to the previous poster, I will await your evidence with great anticipation.


edit on 15/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Yet another person who thinks they can decide for everyone else what fake news is. Sorry, but you can't. I am not sure why you think your definition is in any way more valid than others.


You don't even have a definition for fake news, it's whatever you want it to be when the situation suits you.

You're a lying hack.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


Disprove one, and the next accusation will soon follow.


Too bad he has yet to disprove anything. Eventually the evidence will pile up and he will be forced to defend himself. Too bad for him the rest of the world doesn't play by his rules. No wonder he has to vent his frustration on twitter.

ETA: Did you just call your own analogy "stupid?"


There is already evidence of Clinton via her "foundation" getting $150 million for approving the sale of 20% of American uranium to the Russians

Where is your outrage ?


WE ARE OUTRAGED!!!!

We are done with Clinton, we are done with Trump. We have someone better in the works.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: UKTruth
Yet another person who thinks they can decide for everyone else what fake news is. Sorry, but you can't. I am not sure why you think your definition is in any way more valid than others.


You don't even have a definition for fake news, it's whatever you want it to be when the situation suits you.

You're a lying hack.


I always recognize truth. I recognize the above statement.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: UKTruth
Yet another person who thinks they can decide for everyone else what fake news is. Sorry, but you can't. I am not sure why you think your definition is in any way more valid than others.


You don't even have a definition for fake news, it's whatever you want it to be when the situation suits you.

You're a lying hack.


I have my judgement on what is fake news, just like you (your definition is a personal judgement and nothing more)
Now I will ask again. What evidence do you have that the Buzzfeed report is true? ...and try and keep the personal stuff out of it as this is not the mudpit.
edit on 15/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

And your judgement and opinon are your own, not anyone else's.

What gives you the right to decide what's true or not, and then push your opinions on others?

I personally like tomato soup over split pea soup, but I'm not going to go on a crusade calling split pea "fake soup" and trying to ban people from being able to eat it.

Democrats never called Breitbart "fake news" (despite the fact it often times doesn't use credible sources and intentionally uses misleading headlines and sensational language).

So now that the GOP is in power, its time to consolidate that power. It's time to silence dissenting opinions.

How very dictator-ish ...



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

And your judgement and opinon are your own, not anyone else's.

What gives you the right to decide what's true or not, and then push your opinions on others?

I personally like tomato soup over split pea soup, but I'm not going to go on a crusade calling split pea "fake soup" and trying to ban people from being able to eat it.

Democrats never called Breitbart "fake news" (despite the fact it often times doesn't use credible sources and intentionally uses misleading headlines and sensational language).

So now that the GOP is in power, its time to consolidate that power. It's time to silence dissenting opinions.

How very dictator-ish ...


My personal opinions are as valid as yours.
But that is really not the point.
The burden of proof is not on me to prove the document is fake, it is on you to prove the accusations are true. If we move to a world where everything is true unless proven fake, we'll be in a terrible position. Happily, civilised society does not work like that.

Now, what proof do you have the the document is true?

edit on 15/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Yeah, it's a general rule that you cannot prove a negative. It's not about proving something false, but proving it true. That does apply to both sides, bias tends to obfuscate the general rules.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: UKTruth

Yeah, it's a general rule that you cannot prove a negative. It's not about proving something false, but proving it true. That does apply to both sides, bias tends to obfuscate the general rules.


Indeed, more than a general rule, it's common sense.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
The burden of proof is not on me to prove the document is fake, it is on you to prove the accusations are true.


Are you daft? You made a positive claim.



You don't work in the intelligence community. You have no idea if there's classified evidence.

And you refuse to back up your claim.



Yet you have the gall to call MI6, GCHQ, and intel from the rest of the agencies fake news? When you are the one making up the fake news that you know for a fact there's no evidence?

That makes you an intentionally contradicting deceitful sack of filth.

I'm willing to be an adult and say I have no idea if the intel is true because get this -- I don't have access to the MODs intelligence database.

edit on 15-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Mr. Trump IS THE 45th President of the United States . Liberals can either Deal with that or just Kill themselves already . . Geez...........



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   


Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: UKTruth
The burden of proof is not on me to prove the document is fake, it is on you to prove the accusations are true.


Are you daft? You made a positive claim.



You don't work in the intelligence community. You have no idea if there's evidence.

And you refuse to back up your claim.



Yet you have the gall to call something fake news? When you're the one making up the fake news that you know for a fact there's no evidence?

That makes you an intentionally contradicting deceitful sack of filth.

I'm willing to be an adult and say I have no idea if the news is true because get this -- I don't have access to the MODs intelligence database.


There is no evidence the document is true. Your position that we can't possibly know if there is evidence, therefore we can't say the document is fake another fallacy. You cannot claim something is true because we don't know if there is evidence.

Once again, the burden is on you. You have to provide the evidence. I can legitimately discard the document as fake until such evidence is provided.

That's how it works, like I said. I eagerly await your evidence.



edit on 15/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

Then there's the falacy-falacy:



The fallacy fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong. A true statement can be defended using false logic, so using false logic to defend an opinion is not proof of the opinion being wrong. This is where one needs to make a clear distinction between "sound", "valid" (including the distinction between scientific validity and logical validity) and "true", instead of taking all of them as synonymous.

Link

Basically, you don't automatically "win" an argument by pointing out a logical fallacy.

EDIT: But you don't automatically "loose" either. In fact, no one "wins" or "looses" -- its up to other individuals to judge the validity of the evidence and arguments presented.
edit on 15-1-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join