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.

 

Paddock. the conspiracy ideas have Begun. Assange says FBI did it! what,s your take?!

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: interupt42

They leaked things embarrassing to the United States while the Republicans happened to be in power. The DNC leaks were clearly intended to influence the election, or, at least, undermine Clinton if she won!


The Hillary campaign undermined herself . She didn't dispute the data , she only tried to muddy the water of where the data came from. I say to that "who cares where it came from, if its the truth".

Also In regards to influencing the election. The DNC leaks were less damaging in influencing the election than how the HIllary campaign was actually successful in rigging the DNC election, for Hillary to beat beat Bernie.

Its funny how the left whines about how the Russians influenced the election, but completely overlooks how Hillary worked with the MSM and the DNC to rig the election for herself as well.

and no I'm no republican nor supporter of the Trumpster.



edit on 481031America/ChicagoWed, 11 Oct 2017 09:48:02 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I'm struggling with how anyone can see anything conspiratorial in this shooting.

Literally everything I've seen (no I haven't seen every theory), falls apart with even elementary school logic.

Occam's Razor and all...



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




Well more proof that Julian Assange is a lying idiot.


Regardless of the veracity of what Assange said.

The FBI has a long history of using COINTEL PRO.

So it shouldn't be dismissed outright.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: NotTheCIA

So you've got nothing at all - ZERO - to back up your wild claims about Wikileaks and Assange. Instead you have to resort to petty insults and personal attacks to cover up the fact that you are just talking out of your rear end.

Just as I expected, so thanks, hahaha.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So trump did this?



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

After months of leaks and what not.

What makes you think Trump has control of government agencies?



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: NotTheCIA

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: NotTheCIA

So far the authenticity of his documents have not been dis-proven.


Their implications have been.

Half you people can't even decided if they're talking about Pizza for lunch or Children.

The idea the documents are verifiable for anything at all with their given context is mostly stupidity.



Wrong again , deflection on your part, and your partisanship.

Stupidity is overlooking the contents , because its your home team that did the do doo.


The pizzagate or context of the documents has nothing todo with your claim that Assange provides incorrect documents. He just publishes the unedited documents which neither the DNC or Hillary have disputed as being invalid.

As a matter fact it caused DWS her job as the head of the DNC and numerous apologies from the DNC and the MSM.




Claims such crap is valid is partisanship in itself.


Note I'm a libertarian who felt that Bernie was the better choice for this election and I did not vote for Trump.

So you may want to look at the mirror to see who is the partisan political party cheerleader here.




edit on 531031America/ChicagoWed, 11 Oct 2017 09:53:54 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Didn't he appoint the director?

You think the fbi formed an eloborate conspiracy here without the knowledge of the higher ups?



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadingOne

I gave you far more than zero you ignoramus.

If you had even a shed on critical thinking ability you could figure the rest out yourself.

Disproving a clever lie isn't the same amount of work as an easy one. Forgive my laziness in enlightening you personally, but you come off as an asshole that is for-Assange, and your mind is made up despite facts I could potentially give you anyway. That's how things work here.

He's still a liar, just a clever one. Yuck it up, you're not even the sheep, but it's lice.


edit on 11-10-2017 by NotTheCIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

"Assange has never had an unverified document!"

Is this supposed to mean ANYTHING when the 'subjectivity' of said documents made them impossible to decipher?

Nope, it means absolutely nothing.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

So when Bernie said 'vote for Hillary',

you took that as "I'm with Bernie."

Not that I even care, you twats say anything you want here to anyone, I literally voted for Trump, and that still won't change the fact you're all #s to anyone you talk to.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Did the DNC publicize their back room dealings? No? Well who did, then? That's who made them look bad.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Prove they weren't altered and are in fact 'authentic' documents.

They can't.

Idiots.

As if I even need concrete evidence to burn down that twigy argument.

Such jokers.
edit on 11-10-2017 by NotTheCIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: NotTheCIA
a reply to: interupt42

"Assange has never had an unverified document!"

Is this supposed to mean ANYTHING when the 'subjectivity' of said documents made them impossible to decipher?

Nope, it means absolutely nothing.


Wrong yet again.

Yes it means something and enough so that heads rolled due to the contents of the documents. The head of the DNC and a MSM political analyst were forced out because of the documents among others.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Just answer the post above yours and I'll continue my day.

Prove nothing Assange released was altered.

You can't.

Save your cucked reply time. I don't need it. Enjoy being delusional.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: NotTheCIA
a reply to: DJW001

Prove they weren't altered and are in fact 'authentic' documents.

They can't.

Idiots.

As if I even need concrete evidence to burn down that twigy argument.

Such jokers.


Personal assaults a key sign you lost an argument.

So you are suggesting that the Hillary campaigns and the DNC incompetence was so great, that they didn't even challenge the lies and they fired and made apologizes based on lies ?



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: NotTheCIA
a reply to: interupt42

Just answer the post above yours and I'll continue my day.

Prove nothing Assange released was altered.

You can't.

Save your cucked reply time. I don't need it. Enjoy being delusional.


Just did.

So you are suggesting that the Hillary campaign and the DNC incompetence was so great, that they didn't even challenge the lies and they fired and made apologizes based on lies ?



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

???

Personally? No. Rich people don't act like poor people with insecurities.

Many people have called him a liar though. Now you're a liar suggesting otherwise, as if this isn't true. It's honestly hilarious, like I'm the first person to suggest Wikileaks is Disinfo(Fake News). Thanks for making me feel special. But I'm not even close to the first to suggest this. Rofl I even voted for Trump, and hold this opinion, meanwhile, talking to captain blinders over here. I'd bet actual money you'd have aneurysm having a single day to not blaming crap on Hillary Clinton.
edit on 11-10-2017 by NotTheCIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: interupt42

Did the DNC publicize their back room dealings? No? Well who did, then? That's who made them look bad.


They made themselves look bad not the person who released the information.

Using your logic you would be suggesting that its OK to be racist as long as its only done behind closed doors?

Following your same logic. Trump shouldn't be frowned upon for his "Grab them by the P" remark?
edit on 091031America/ChicagoWed, 11 Oct 2017 10:09:08 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: NotTheCIA
a reply to: ReadingOne

I gave you far more than zero you ignoramus.

If you had even a shed on critical thinking ability you could figure the rest out yourself.

Disproving a clever lie isn't the same amount of work as an easy one. Forgive my laziness in enlightening you personally, but you come off as an asshole that is for-Assange, and your mind is made up despite facts I could potentially give you anyway. That's how things work here.

He's still a liar, just a clever one. Yuck it up, you're not even the sheep, but it's lice.



Listen, I understand that you are upset and angry, it must be quite embarrassing for you to make baseless claims and be called out on it. Still, here is a friendly suggestion for you before your lashing out escalates even further: Go read the T&C of ATS that you agreed to when you signed up. Then perhaps you should dial it down a few notches with the harrassement and personal attacks. I have been reading ATS for a long time and I have seen the ban hammer drop once in a while. Just saying.

Best of luck.




top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join