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.

 

Donald Trump has just directly accused Obama of wiretapping Trump residence.

page: 322
158
<< 319  320  321    323  324  325 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't even think you imagine that you're on "rational ground" with your ridiculous argument. I think your posts are generally designed to increase post counts in certain topics. You repeat ad nauseam the same insipid arguments denying clear and obvious facts.

You understand that perjury is "lying under oath." That's the way you described it YOURSELF at the beginning of this stupidity.

You try (and fail) to argue from the dictionary which is a logical fallacy.

You argue from ignorance, another logical fallacy.

You misrepresent, intentionally misconstrue, misquote what other people claim, etc. which are all specific cases of the general case of lying.

Your statements, arguments, claims, and absurd tactics clearly identify you as a Trump worshipper. Now, do I think you are "really" that? Nope.

It's what your posts portray on ATS when your posts drop the coy reasonable/rational masquerade.

One of the goals of most of your posting, I've realized, is merely to increase post count on a given discussion, just as others intend to direct traffic to obscure websites and/or get hits for Youtoob videos. That's a big part of what goes on in these political threads ... ATS, in many ways, is being used by some as a laboratory for social media and/marketing experimentation.

There's no further reason for our interaction. These posts purely intended to seed off-topic irrelevancies that are made under your member name are little more than static from this point on in my estimation.

/shrug
edit on 19-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted.




posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I made a clear, obvious statement of fact, observable by any rational person that isn't blinded by Trump worship

no you are now exposed as a parrot of the resist movement

good day



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I wasn't referring to your narrow and somewhat circular hairsplitting over lying; I am referring to your nonchalance towards mental illness in high places.


The law is not hair splitting.
I have the actual definitions of perjury and how it is different to lying to back up my point of view.

I have no nonchalance towards mental illness in high places, but that does not mean I am going to declare a person mentally ill because they tweeted at 3am about Obama. I would suggest that it is nonchalant to use such flimsy criteria to not just suggest, but declare a case of mental illness.
edit on 19/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



So? What if you cannot perjure yourself without lying?


That means your argument is null and void.



There are legal ramifications to committing perjury.


Exactly what I said earlier. Perjury is lying with specific consequences.

The act of lying is still...lying.



You are indeed projecting your opinions onto me because you made a conclusion that my views about the media professionalism (which I have never mentioned) are somehow at odds with my views on Trump's professionalism. You made up your own story based on your own opinions and standards to fit an insult you wanted to hurl. Now that will not work with me. I just call it out as the BS it is.


You have mentioned your views on the media many times. You said CNN should be shut down because of their "fake news" lies, yet in this very thread have excused the lies of Trump.

Hypocrisy.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

I made a clear, obvious statement of fact, observable by any rational person that isn't blinded by Trump worship

no you are now exposed as a parrot of the resist movement

good day



LOL ... if by "good day" that means that your posts inserting irrelevancies are over, that's wonderful.

You have a good day too!



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I'm done wasting precious moments of my life with this garbage.

Those of you trying vainly to keep truthful and meaningful discourse alive ... I salute you!



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't even think you imagine that you're on "rational ground" with your ridiculous argument. I think your posts are generally designed to increase post counts in certain topics. You repeat ad nauseam the same insipid arguments denying clear and obvious facts.

You understand that perjury is "lying under oath." That's the way you described it YOURSELF at the beginning of this stupidity.

You try (and fail) to argue from the dictionary which is a logical fallacy.

You argue from ignorance, another logical fallacy.

You misrepresent, intentionally misconstrue, misquote what other people claim, etc. which are all specific cases of the general case of lying.

Your statements, arguments, claims, and absurd tactics clearly identify you as a Trump worshipper. Now, do I think you are "really" that? Nope.

It's what your posts portray on ATS when your posts drop the coy reasonable/rational masquerade.

One of the goals of most of your posting, I've realized, is merely to increase post count on a given discussion, just as others intend to direct traffic to obscure websites and get hits for Youtoob videos.

There's no further reason for our interaction. These posts purely intended to seed off-topic irrelevancies that are made under your member name are little more than static from this point on in my estimation.

/shrug


You are again wrong.
Perjury is not 'lying under oath'
You can lie under oath and not commit perjury.
The definitions have been posted for you. I suggest you read them to avoid making continual mistakes about the definition of perjury.

I am not arguing from a dictionary - I am arguing on the basis of law. This is the entire basis of this discussion as the Clinton impeachment case was used to suggest that lying is grounds to make a declaration that the President is unfit for office. It is actually only myself here who has stuck to the very context of the discussion.

Your deflections and irrelevant analysis of my post history do nothing more than underline that you have no argument. You probably knew this when you made the absurd claim that perjury is the same as lying and now can;t get yourself out of that ridiculous position.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm done wasting precious moments of my life with this garbage.

Those of you trying vainly to keep truthful and meaningful discourse alive ... I salute you!


Look firmly in the mirror because your entire contribution has been nothing more than claiming the President's tweet was insane (which makes no sense by the way as a tweet can't possibly be insane) and an irrational argument that perjury is the same as lying in the context of a discussion about impeachment and fitness for office.

Your introduction of stupid arguments that lying has to be the same as perjury because to commit perjury you have to lie was irrelevant to the context of the entire discussion and complete hogwash to boot in terms of any comparison to perjury and lying. You couldn't even get the definition of perjury right after 20 pages.

edit on 19/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



So? What if you cannot perjure yourself without lying?


That means your argument is null and void.



There are legal ramifications to committing perjury.


Exactly what I said earlier. Perjury is lying with specific consequences.

The act of lying is still...lying.



You are indeed projecting your opinions onto me because you made a conclusion that my views about the media professionalism (which I have never mentioned) are somehow at odds with my views on Trump's professionalism. You made up your own story based on your own opinions and standards to fit an insult you wanted to hurl. Now that will not work with me. I just call it out as the BS it is.


You have mentioned your views on the media many times. You said CNN should be shut down because of their "fake news" lies, yet in this very thread have excused the lies of Trump.

Hypocrisy.


Nope, the argument is actually a fact.
Perjury is different to lying for all the legal reasons that you can not escape.

Lets be clear, you said "Perjury is lying...by it's very definition". That was incorrect as has been demonstrated with actual definitions.
You also said "a lie is still a lie" which is wholly different from saying that perjury is the same as lying.

The fact you have to keep shifting words around, changing what you are saying post to post, is evidence enough that you don't have any solid ground to stand on.

Perjury is illegal, lying is not.
To commit perjury you have to be under oath, you can tell the same lie and not commit perjury as long as you are not under oath.
You can actually lie under oath and not commit perjury.

The differences are clear and more importantly, the CONTEXT of this entire discussion was Bill Clinton's impeachment as a precedent for declaring a President can be unfit for office if he lies. It was a falsehood, because, guess what... perjury is not the same as lying. Clinton, according to the impeachment papers I posted was impeached for perjury. He had already lied about his affair with Monica when not under oath and there was no impeachment until he actually committed perjury.

Your arguments in context are wrong, and out of context are pointless garbage.


edit on 19/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

There is a axiom in law that says let him who would be deceived ,be deceived ...Its a game that is played out in a court ,so the rules matter .It has its own language .Websters is of little help .



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Nope, the argument is actually a fact. Perjury is different to lying for all the legal reasons that you can not escape.


As I have said many times, the difference lies in the consequences and the context in which the lie is told.

You've already admitted that you have to have a lie for perjury to take place.



You also said "a lie is still a lie" which is wholly different from saying that perjury is the same as lying.


That hold true. A lie is a lie. The difference, again, is the context in which the lie is told.

Tell a lie to your wife. It's still a lie.

Tell a lie to the courts. It's still a lie.

Only difference are the consequences of telling that lie.



You can actually lie under oath and not commit perjury.


But you cannot commit perjury without lying, as you have admitted.



Your arguments in context are wrong, and out of context are pointless garbage.


My arguments, within proper context, are completely correct. You are trying to make an asinine argument, saying perjury is not lying, and in doing so have become the proverbial pigeon on a chess board.





posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Nope, the argument is actually a fact. Perjury is different to lying for all the legal reasons that you can not escape.


As I have said many times, the difference lies in the consequences and the context in which the lie is told.

You've already admitted that you have to have a lie for perjury to take place.



You also said "a lie is still a lie" which is wholly different from saying that perjury is the same as lying.


That hold true. A lie is a lie. The difference, again, is the context in which the lie is told.

Tell a lie to your wife. It's still a lie.

Tell a lie to the courts. It's still a lie.

Only difference are the consequences of telling that lie.



You can actually lie under oath and not commit perjury.


But you cannot commit perjury without lying, as you have admitted.



Your arguments in context are wrong, and out of context are pointless garbage.


My arguments, within proper context, are completely correct. You are trying to make an asinine argument, saying perjury is not lying, and in doing so have become the proverbial pigeon on a chess board.




So we can conclude that lying is not the same as perjury - for all the reasons I have stated for many pages and you have stated (some of them here).

Your arguments are clearly not in context, because if they were you would have understood several pages ago that the very reasons that lying is different to perjury was the CONTEXT of why Bill Clinton was impeached and why lying alone has no precedent to declare a President unfit for office. Trying to pretend you were in context to prop up your stupid argument just shows you are prepared to keep digging until you are so far entrenched that no one can see you anymore.

Case in point; "a lie is still a lie" is completely irrelevant to the context.

You ran off with some completely irrelevant BS as to why you thought "Perjury is lying...by it's very definition", either because you had no clue about the context and were playing the man and not the ball, or because you just don't understand the actual definitions and are too lazy to look them up.
edit on 19/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


I have no nonchalance towards mental illness in high places, but that does not mean I am going to declare a person mentally ill because they tweeted at 3am about Obama. I would suggest that it is nonchalant to use such flimsy criteria to not just suggest, but declare a case of mental illness.


If that treat were a single episode, it might simply be a stress reaction. Unfortunately, his mental illness is patently obvious.

www.theatlantic.com...

www.nytimes.com...

If you really believe the nonsense you have been posting it's time for you to stop hiding your head in the sand. If you do not believe it, why are you trying to make matters worse?



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


I have no nonchalance towards mental illness in high places, but that does not mean I am going to declare a person mentally ill because they tweeted at 3am about Obama. I would suggest that it is nonchalant to use such flimsy criteria to not just suggest, but declare a case of mental illness.


If that treat were a single episode, it might simply be a stress reaction. Unfortunately, his mental illness is patently obvious.

www.theatlantic.com...

www.nytimes.com...

If you really believe the nonsense you have been posting it's time for you to stop hiding your head in the sand. If you do not believe it, why are you trying to make matters worse?


The NYT? the Atlantic? Why would their claims or the people they have interviewed be any less partisan than yours?
I am actually not making a claim, unless you consider me rejecting a claim that 'Trump is insane' is somehow a claim of my own.
If you want your claim of Trump's insanity to be anything more than complete nonsense then step up and prove it. A NYT and Atlantic article is not going to cut it.


I wonder if you even realise that characterising a view that Trump is not insane as being 'nonsense' and that the only sensible view is that Trump is in fact insane, is rather odd?

Here is a view from Pyschology Today

Trump's mental health is a trending topic on the Internet, on the air, and in newspapers. A petition requesting he be required to submit to a psychiatric evaluation has already received 8000 signatures. This is well meaning, but inaccurate and misguided.

Trump's consensus diagnosis among amateur, at-a-distance diagnosticians is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. They have reviewed the DSM definition (which I wrote) and found him to meet all the criteria: grandiose self-importance; preoccupations with being brilliant and successful; feeling special and having to hang out with special people; requiring constant admiration; feeling entitled; being exploitive; lacking empathy; being envious; and being arrogant. Bingo. Trump is all this in spades.

But they ignore the further requirement that is crucial in defining all mental disorders—the behaviors also must cause clinically significant distress or impairment. Trump is clearly a man singularly without distress and his behaviors consistently reap him fame, fortune, women, and now political power.

He has been generously rewarded, not at all impaired by it. Dismissing Trump as simply mad paradoxically reduces our ability to deal with his actions. Trump isn't crazy.

The American Psychiatric Association has a useful ethics policy that explicitly prohibits the diagnosis of politicians at a distance. In the 1964 presidential election, liberal psychiatrists had taken cheap shot against the radically conservative Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater—publicizing their “diagnosis” that he was too mentally ill to be a safe custodian of the nuclear button. They had no right to use a professional credential to slur Goldwater in this way, medicalizing what was essentially no more than a political disagreement. The psychiatrists and psychologists who are now publicly diagnosing Trump feel compelled by the higher call of national interest to break any restrictions against diagnosis at a distance. But the argument fails because their diagnosis is poorly informed and simply wrong. Please stop calling Trump mentally ill and please stop talking about psychiatric evaluations or impeachment. This embarrasses us more than it does Trump. And the people around Trump are even more dangerous than he in the long run.

www.psychologytoday.com...

Is this view insane too? Is everyone talking nonsense if they don't think Trump is insane?
I would have thought that the only safe ground to say someone is talking nonsense is the ground whereby one calls for legitimate proof in the face of outlandish and partisan claims.
edit on 19/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
www.huffingtonpost.com...


The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee on Sunday announced that evidence provided by President Donald Trump’s administration does not prove his unsubstantiated claim that his predecessor Barack Obama ordered wiretapping on Trump Tower during last year’s campaign. “Was there a physical wiretap of Trump Tower? No, there never was,” Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said on “Fox News Sunday.”



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   


Nunes is very sensibly discussing all elements of this, including the unmasking and leaking of surveillance that was carried out on General Flynn.
He calls that the 'only crime' they know has been committed. Surveillance that swept up Flyyns information which was then unmasked and leaked.
He said that people inside the intelligence service did this with the intent of hurting Flynn and the President.

He also gave a categorial answer to whether he had seen any evidence of collusion between Trump, any of his campaign and the Russians. He said no, as of information up to today.


edit on 19/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

He also gave a categorial answer to whether he had seen any evidence of collusion between Trump, any of his campaign and the Russians. He said no, as of information up to today.



But that's not what this thread is about. It's about Trump's claim that the Obama administration "ordered" surveillance of Trump tower.

That is about the only thing you should have been referencing in the Fox Interview and (surprisingly) you made absolutely no mention of.

When asked twice during the interview if there was any evidence of the claims made by Trump in his tweets, not only did he twice express that there was nothing at all to suggest that nor any FISA warrants expressly requesting it...but also that he confirmed that the information he received included information forwarded to him from the FBI to further strengthen that position. That is what this thread is about and that is what has now been debunked.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

He also gave a categorial answer to whether he had seen any evidence of collusion between Trump, any of his campaign and the Russians. He said no, as of information up to today.



But that's not what this thread is about. It's about Trump's claim that the Obama administration "ordered" surveillance of Trump tower.

That is about the only thing you should have been referencing in the Fox Interview and (surprisingly) you made absolutely no mention of.

When asked twice during the interview if there was any evidence of the claims made by Trump in his tweets, not only did he twice express that there was nothing at all to suggest that nor any FISA warrants expressly requesting it...but also that he confirmed that the information he received included information forwarded to him from the FBI to further strengthen that position. That is what this thread is about and that is what has now been debunked.


Re-read and let's not go round in circles.
I have zero regard for what you want me to talk about., nor is this 300+ page discussion purely about the claim of Obama "wire-tapping".
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 19/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
I have zero regard for what you want me to talk about.,


LOL

Then stop responding to me.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth
I have zero regard for what you want me to talk about.,


LOL

Then stop responding to me.


You have reading comprehension issues, obviously.
I have zero regard for what you want me to talk about, not for what you want to talk about.
In other words drop your obsession with trying to control others inputs and focus on your own points of view.
edit on 19/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
158
<< 319  320  321    323  324  325 >>

log in

join