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.

 

The President Lied To The American People Again. When Will Enough Be Enough?

page: 30
93
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

No, it's not. To be "wire tapped" means you are the target and your "wires" were intercepted and listened to and/or recorded.

Let's say I tapped your boss's phone. Your boss's phone was being constantly monitored under a totally legal and legitimate warrant as part of an investigation.

You call and talk to your boss.

Since your boss's telephone conversations are being monitored and/or recorded, does that somehow mean you are being 'tapped". Was YOUR phone line specifically being constantly monitored?

No, of course not. This isn't parsing words. If I have a video camera pointed at my front door and someone walks by and they're recorded, would you make the ludicrous claim I had that person under surveillance? No, of course not. That person isn't the target.

Point blank, Trump's own phone lines weren't being monitored or recorded.


If you recorded and kept the images of those people walking by your front door and then passed the recordings to an investigator who was looking to find out where those people were, then yes, you would have been spying on them.

Point blank.




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Why do you keep harping on the use of the word wiretapping. I have yet to see anyone say that they do don't accept it to generally mean surveillance.

It seems to me that the reason kettu posted: "To be "wire tapped" means you are the target and your "wires" were intercepted and listened to and/or recorded." with the words "wire tapped" and "wires" is because he is using them in the general sense and not literally so that your rebuttal does not apply.

As for the idea of incidental, the hacked Podesta e-mails are a perfect example. Podesta's email account was hacked. All the emails sent to him by other people were leaked along with the emails he sent. Those were incidental. The accounts of the people who sent those emails were not hacked.

So, just like kettu said, if Trump communicated with someone who was being intercepted his communique would be intercepted but not because he was the one under surveillance.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Are you, UKTruth under a specific surveillance order by a red light intersection camera? Does it say anywhere that you, a particular individual are to be targeted by specific cameras at specific times and places?

No.

If you happen to drive by those cameras and you are caught by them, you are unintentionally being recorded.

If later a warrant comes down about you in particular and any and all information about you running red lights is specified in that warrant, the people operating them might be able to say, "Well, let's see if we go through our footage..."

You were never the actual target despite being caught on video by the camera. To be "wire tapped" means you are the target of an active surveillance operation.

Retroactively passing along information obtained legally via a FISA warrant on a person inadvertently caught does not mean they were the target of a "wire tap".

It defies common sense and logic to use that kind of mental gymnastics to see it way.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Thank you. Your email analogy is a good one.

If your emails were being intercepted and gone over by law enforcement and I emailed you, would I be considered "wire tapped" or under survellience? Hell no. I'm not the target.

What people are insinuating is that ANYONE and EVERYONE who communicates with a person who is under an active communications surveillance warrant is somehow also the target.

How loony is that? It takes quite a bit of imagination to go down that road...



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Why do you keep harping on the use of the word wiretapping. I have yet to see anyone say that they do don't accept it to generally mean surveillance.

It seems to me that the reason kettu posted: "To be "wire tapped" means you are the target and your "wires" were intercepted and listened to and/or recorded." with the words "wire tapped" and "wires" is because he is using them in the general sense and not literally so that your rebuttal does not apply.

As for the idea of incidental, the hacked Podesta e-mails are a perfect example. Podesta's email account was hacked. All the emails sent to him by other people were leaked along with the emails he sent. Those were incidental. The accounts of the people who sent those emails were not hacked.

So, just like kettu said, if Trump communicated with someone who was being intercepted his communique would be intercepted but not because he was the one under surveillance.


Because people keep pointing to Trumps tweet calling him a liar.


Im all queued up to declare him the asshole of the century. But i won't be dishonest doing it.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

What im insinuating is that DJT didn't lie when he said he was wiretapped at Trump Tower. He may have been wrong, and if was explained to him how he was wrong he may even agree. But he's not a liar.

I spent 8 years watching Bush being called a liar for every little thing. Im sick to death of hyperbole in political discussion.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"


Liar? Idiot?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

No, it's not. To be "wire tapped" means you are the target and your "wires" were intercepted and listened to and/or recorded.

Let's say I tapped your boss's phone. Your boss's phone was being constantly monitored under a totally legal and legitimate warrant as part of an investigation.

You call and talk to your boss.

Since your boss's telephone conversations are being monitored and/or recorded, does that somehow mean you are being 'tapped". Was YOUR phone line specifically being constantly monitored?

No, of course not. This isn't parsing words. If I have a video camera pointed at my front door and someone walks by and they're recorded, would you make the ludicrous claim I had that person under surveillance? No, of course not. That person isn't the target.

Point blank, Trump's own phone lines weren't being monitored or recorded.


If you recorded and kept the images of those people walking by your front door and then passed the recordings to an investigator who was looking to find out where those people were, then yes, you would have been spying on them.

Point blank.


Can you please specify and give examples of actual case law where that has been proven the case? Where has it ever been proven by a judge or jury that those caught incidentally are considered under surveillance, the one and the same as the actual, original target?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Because people keep pointing to Trumps tweet calling him a liar.


Im all queued up to declare him the asshole of the century. But i won't be dishonest doing it.

There is no dishonesty in saying that he spoke with nothing to back up his words.

You could say that people calling him a liar are doing the same thing he did, why don't you cut them the same slack?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Kettu

What im insinuating is that DJT didn't lie when he said he was wiretapped at Trump Tower. He may have been wrong, and if was explained to him how he was wrong he may even agree. But he's not a liar.

I spent 8 years watching Bush being called a liar for every little thing. Im sick to death of hyperbole in political discussion.


Four words:

Weapons of mass destruction



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm sick of the LIES and fakeness.

Everything about him is false...his hair isn't really that colour nor is the tan real. Trump is clearly a liar.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Because people keep pointing to Trumps tweet calling him a liar.


Im all queued up to declare him the asshole of the century. But i won't be dishonest doing it.

There is no dishonesty in saying that he spoke with nothing to back up his words.

You could say that people calling him a liar are doing the same thing he did, why don't you cut them the same slack?


Because im not talking to Trump. If i had his audience, don't you think i'd tell him to STFU already?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Because im not talking to Trump. If i had his audience, don't you think i'd tell him to STFU already?

You are still defending his mistake so while you might be willing to tell him to STFU, if you had his ear, that really doesn't change what you are doing here.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: HeathenJessie

So you make an assessment based on dyed hair and fake tan?
Lol.
Weak argument in my opinion, I'd focus on actual lies not style choices, but carry on if that's what you're into.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: FamCore

So you don't care, it's business as usual? Lying as usual? Pull your head out of the sand. This isn't lying as usual. Trump has told a half century's worth of Presidential whoppers in the first two months of his term.

Where do you think we go from here if you and others continue to make lame excuses and ignore the reality that President Trump's words are often wholly divorced from that very reality?


Ya, cause we know if Hillary was in there instead, there'd be no lying. Her and Bill were the paragons of honesty.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Im not defending his mistake. Im saying is isn't a lie, or that it can't be proven to be a lie. Im a bet hedger. I won't commit solidly to something im not positive on. I don't like eating crow, so try to not put myself in a position to do it. I get called "wishy washy" because of this, and am happy to take that lump. Because I won't commit until I know. And right now, I don't know. I may suspect, sure. But i also suspect a whole lot of other conspiracy related stuff (this is ATS, afterall). And I did get to see a press conference full of "no comment"

Listen...im happy to go back and forth here with you.....but it can't happen if you are gonna be trying to mischaracterize what I've clearly stated is otherwise. My only beef is in the calling of "liar'. Im the same about "racist". For an arguement that wants to parse actual meaning of the word "wiretap", i'd think being accurate with the word "liar" would matter more.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: FamCore

So you don't care, it's business as usual? Lying as usual? Pull your head out of the sand. This isn't lying as usual. Trump has told a half century's worth of Presidential whoppers in the first two months of his term.

Where do you think we go from here if you and others continue to make lame excuses and ignore the reality that President Trump's words are often wholly divorced from that very reality?


Ya, cause we know if Hillary was in there instead, there'd be no lying. Her and Bill were the paragons of honesty.


Hillary is a turd so is Trump. No matter which one was elected we would see a myriad of lies and deceit, but that doesn't mean people should look the other way.

The fallacy of saying he is not Hillary has no bearing on holding him accountable.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Hillary is a turd so is Trump. No matter which one was elected we would see a myriad of lies and deceit, but that doesn't mean people should look the other way.


Putin fears Hillary. That's good enough for me.

At least she would have been professional about the position of president.

Not some immature bully.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
For an arguement that wants to parse actual meaning of the word "wiretap"

You are the only one that seems to be saying that this is the argument being made.

Everyone keeps pointing out that "wiretapping" (which can mean more than just wires attached to a phone line) did happen but that the article that Trump cited never said it was Trump that was "wiretapped".


edit on 25-3-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Trump is in the Whitehouse because Hillary didn't have enough sense to stay out of the running. Only a small group of people really wanted to see her run again. Trump represents everything wrong with society and she represented everything wrong in politics.

IMO she ran for herself not with any high ideals of serving the country. With Trump there is not much difference, but he talks a good game. The election was a lose lose scenario. I blame those who let them be in the top position to represent a party. Anyway, it is a done deal there is no use comparing the two anymore.




top topics



 
93
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join