It's a Dud

a reply to: introvert

It pertains to the memo, but directed at those that would want to read about such a thing.

What about those that would want to read about it from an unbiased source? Only those whom align with the same views need apply? However, if you see this as simple reporting, then their job has been done, and well I might add.

I did. Pretty simple concept as well. Not my problem if you see things (propaganda) where it doesn't exist.

Except you didn't.

The text of the memo was crap as well. Proved nothing whatsoever.

Unlike your posts here, it verified may suspicions that the factions of the FBI were weaponized against political opponents. Today, further corroborating proof. I will grant you this. Factual evidence of what passed in front of the FISA judges has yet to be seen in full. So 'nothing whatsoever' is an outright lie.

Ok. What is the magic number it passed to become propaganda?

1 actually.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert

Why did you call it an 'event'? How many others have used the same term? Are you listening to propaganda? Can't you think for yourself?

I used the term event. Is it parroted throughout the media? Can you not see the difference?

Just being against Trump is not identity politics. Jesus, you're regurgitating phrases you don't even know what it means.

Yes, indeed it is.

It's cute how you really want to discredit my stance that the verbiage used is of no concern. Deflection need not apply.

JinMi,

Don't worry too much about Introvert.
Rarely responds with facts, references or citations to any post
Pulls stuff out of her ass and deflects

If JinMi's argument was worth a damn, he wouldn't have to have backup from someone such as yourself to step in with the ad hom logical fallacies to encourage them.

If it wasn't worth a damn, you wouldn't need to defend against it. Hell you wouldn't even need to respond.

Speaking of ad hom logical fallacies, your post directed to me are ripe with such. (Even though this one wasn't)

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: M5xaz

When did I ever dispute that? All I'm saying is that letting that idea cloud your judgement about your own side isn't doing you any favors. I'm sure you feel just a strongly about Democrats as others do about Trump, that extremism is making people ignore both sides of the story and only listen to theirs.

I would say don't fall into the trap but it seems you already have. Both sides are corrupt, don't let bias blind you from that fact.

Sorry.

Face reality.

Only Nixon at the time did what he did.

Here, this time, only Dems/Hillary/Obama did this, which is far worse than what Nixon did.

Only them.

a reply to: M5xaz

Prove your point ?

Yes, you did. You stated above that the original memo had to be "confirmed" by another source.

So it was a dud.

Thank you.

Yes, I prove you do not know what deflect means:

Nice copy and paste. It may look good when you posted it, but considering that I am actually talking about the topic at hand, it is not deflection. Not sure why I should have to explain something as simple as that.

Oh well.

Plenty of "duds" out there that I'm sure have a difficult time with such basic things.

The Grassley memo, which you obviously have not heard of, let alone read, provides new information not in the original memo and confirms coordination between the extended Clinton circle and the Obama administration in the effort to damage then-candidate Trump.

Provides new information that was not in the original memo?

Cool.

Again, you prove my point.

In case you don't know, and clearly you don't, political candidates in normal democracies have no say in drafting FISA intercepts against their opponents.

What's a "normal" democracy and do all democracies have a FISA court?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert

Why did you call it an 'event'? How many others have used the same term? Are you listening to propaganda? Can't you think for yourself?

I used the term event. Is it parroted throughout the media? Can you not see the difference?

Just being against Trump is not identity politics. Jesus, you're regurgitating phrases you don't even know what it means.

Yes, indeed it is.

It's cute how you really want to discredit my stance that the verbiage used is of no concern. Deflection need not apply.

JinMi,

Don't worry too much about Introvert.
Rarely responds with facts, references or citations to any post
Pulls stuff out of her ass and deflects

If JinMi's argument was worth a damn, he wouldn't have to have backup from someone such as yourself to step in with the ad hom logical fallacies to encourage them.

We all prefer to stick to facts, but when you start with ad homs, be prepared that people will respond in kind:

JinMi's arguments are very good.

In your fantasy, while providing ZERO facts or references, you imagine yourself more knowledgeable than:
- the Congressional Intel committee
- The Grassley memo
- the Nunes meno

a reply to: JinMI

What about those that would want to read about it from an unbiased source? Only those whom align with the same views need apply? However, if you see this as simple reporting, then their job has been done, and well I might add.

Are we talking about biases or propaganda? Those are two separate things and you cannot conflate the two.

Also, we could play "what about" till the cows come home. It is not a logical argument.

Except you didn't.

I did, actually. I gave you a simple explanation. Whether or not you want to accept it or not and create a conspiracy where none exist is not my problem.

Unlike your posts here, it verified may suspicions that the factions of the FBI were weaponized against political opponents. Today, further corroborating proof. I will grant you this. Factual evidence of what passed in front of the FISA judges has yet to be seen in full.

So it needed further corroboration?

See. I told you it was a dud. The media was right.

So 'nothing whatsoever' is an outright lie.

Perhaps you do not know what the definition of "lie" is.

1 actually.

But you said 2 or 3 could easily be dismissed.

Are you backtracking now?

a reply to: M5xaz

We all prefer to stick to facts, but when you start with ad homs, be prepared that people will respond in kind:

Ah, the good ole "he started it" argument.

This isn't kindergarten.

JinMi's arguments are very good.

Not really. Much like yourself, he is stepping on his own toes.

In your fantasy, while providing ZERO facts or references, you imagine yourself more knowledgeable than: - the Congressional Intel committee - The Grassley memo - the Nunes meno

In my fantasy? Wait, you just made that up and you have the balls to talk about my fantasy?

I never said I imagine myself more knowledgeable than those you listed.

But go ahead and keep making things up as you go along.

a reply to: introvert

Are we talking about biases or propaganda? Those are two separate things and you cannot conflate the two.

LOL!!! In terms of press/news/media they are married. For the record, I'm not the one who conflated the two terms. See the OP for those who are.

I did, actually. I gave you a simple explanation. Whether or not you want to accept it or not and create a conspiracy where none exist is not my problem.

I love it when we can see eye to eye.

So it needed further corroboration? See. I told you it was a dud. The media was right.

So that there is further supporting information to the premise that indicates a dud? What planet are you living on where this makes any logical sense?

Perhaps you do not know what the definition of "lie" is.

Perhaps, however my posts aren't any indication.

But you said 2 or 3 could easily be dismissed. Are you backtracking now?

Not at all. Felt the need to provide corroborating evidence to the manipulation and propaganda that I claimed. It's a much better option than simply taking my word for it.......

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: M5xaz

"What's a "normal" democracy and do all democracies have a FISA court?"

Hmmm.
That's a tough one.
How about something not like Zimbabwe or Venezuela.

Most normal democracies have a FISA-like court system for national security issues, like Canada for example.
Except the Canadian system has not been corrupted for political purposes, at least not yet.

And yes, you did claim to be more knowledgeable than the Nunes and Grassley memo, by calling them propaganda without any supporting information to defend your claim of propaganda.

Given you are asking these basic questions, it is quite obvious you have ZERO knowledge to contribute to this thread, just BS and deflection.

a reply to: JinMI

LOL!!! In terms of press/news/media they are married. For the record, I'm not the one who conflated the two terms. See the OP for those who are.

No. Biases and the use of propaganda techniques are two separate things. You do not get to resort to discussing biases when you cannot defend your claim on their use of propaganda.

I love it when we can see eye to eye.

I'm glad you love it. I'd love it if you could come up with some sort of valid argument to refute my assertion.

Can you prove this was deliberate propaganda, or is it based on your "feels"?

Perhaps, however my posts aren't any indication.

Neither are mine, so I'm not sure why you posted that statement.

Not at all. Felt the need to provide corroborating evidence to the manipulation and propaganda that I claimed. It's a much better option than simply taking my word for it.......

But you didn't post any corroborating evidence. You simply said "1 actually", which actually contradicts what you said earlier.

At this point we are just going in circles. You're not making much sense, you're contradicting yourself and I'm beginning to think your backup is drunk.

At least I hope so.

a reply to: M5xaz

Hmmm. That's a tough one. How about something not like Zimbabwe or Venezuela. Most normal democracies have a FISA-like court system for national security issues, like Canada for example. Except the Canadian system has not been corrupted for political purposes, at least not yet.

It shouldn't be a tough one. I was not seriously asking you. I was being a smartass due to your absurd comment.

That one flew right over your head.

And yes, you did claim to be more knowledgeable than the Nunes and Grassley memo, by calling them propaganda without any supporting information to defend your claim of propaganda.

That makes no sense. What you described is called making unsubstantiated claims, not claiming one is more knowledgeable.

Given you are asking these basic questions, it is quite obvious you have ZERO knowledge to contribute to this thread, just BS and deflection.

What are you talking about? What basic questions?

And again, how can I be deflecting if I am talking about the topic of the OP?

a reply to: introvert

No. Biases and the use of propaganda techniques are two separate things. You do not get to resort to discussing biases when you cannot defend your claim on their use of propaganda.

Last I checked, you didn't have the ability nor authority to tell me what I can or can not do. In this case, the use of propaganda is clear. The fact that you would dismiss it because using the same terminology ad nauseum is of no consequence to you is not at all my problem. The bias is also fairly clear in the same terminology. Deal with it.

I'm glad you love it. I'd love it if you could come up with some sort of valid argument to refute my assertion. Can you prove this was deliberate propaganda, or is it based on your "feels"?

See the OP and the term 'dud' that is used across multiple differing news sources. Can you come up with a valid argument against? Na, just fling out half handed insults, we know you you roll!

Neither are mine, so I'm not sure why you posted that statement.

The subject of the memo in the OP and the documents released today fly in the face of your claim that 'nothing whatsoever' was proved is a lie.

At this point we are just going in circles. You're not making much sense, you're contradicting yourself and I'm beginning to think your backup is drunk.

I'll take this as your resignation from the argument. When you can form a real argument without resort to same ol' introvert tactics, lemme know.

a reply to: JinMI

Last I checked, you didn't have the ability nor authority to tell me what I can or can not do.

True. If you want to change the subject to biases instead of claims of media propaganda, I guess that is your right.

Not sure why you have to deflect in your own thread, but you do what you like.

In this case, the use of propaganda is clear.

Clear based on what criteria? I asked for one and you contradicted yourself.

So you are not being very clear.

The fact that you would dismiss it because using the same terminology ad nauseum is of no consequence to you is not at all my problem. The bias is also fairly clear in the same terminology. Deal with it.

I dismiss it because all you did was post some links and say "Oh look! They use the same words!".

That is not proof of propaganda techniques being employed in and of itself.

Deal with it.

See the OP and the term 'dud' that is used across multiple differing news sources. Can you come up with a valid argument against? Na, just fling out half handed insults, we know you you roll!

I did come up with a valid argument. It is a fitting word to use to describe the memo.

What you have to do is prove it is a deliberate propaganda technique being used by those media outlets.

If you cannot, then this thread is based on nothing more than your feelings of their reporting.

The subject of the memo in the OP and the documents released today fly in the face of your claim that 'nothing whatsoever' was proved is a lie.

Again, you must not know the definition of "lie". Also, if the memo needed further corroboration, it was a big "nothing whatsoever".

I'll take this as your resignation from the argument. When you can form a real argument without resort to same ol' introvert tactics, lemme know.

I've given you many real arguments. The problem is watching you deflect and contradict yourself like someone that has no clue what they are talking about.

a reply to: introvert

I've given you many real arguments. The problem is watching you deflect and contradict yourself like someone that has no clue what they are talking about.

Except you haven't...again.

a reply to: JinMI

LOL Don't like the word "DUD" how about "ABJECT FAILURE"?

So now that the piece of contrived propaganda known as the "Memo" is shown to be the BS that we expected from these imbeciles, the cult45 bubble belief is "oooh media conspiracy".

Next it will be lizard overlords mind controlling with microwaves.

Is there any bit of BS you "people" wont swallow to affirm your bassackwards beliefs?

Damn!

K~

Triggered disinfo tries to debunk orchestrated MSM propaganda---insults own intelligence in embarrassing failed attempt. Priceless!

They were all using the word "Dark" in lockstep about Trump the other day. Somebody here posted a graphic. So obvious.

Now that the Grassley-Graham memo is further unredacted the Dem Memo actually will be the true dud on arrival I betcha.

a reply to: aethertek

Hey, "abject failure" would certainly be a perspective apart from the narrative, so even though I think you are absolutely wrong, you get credit for thinking outside the box.

Sorry too say there is far too much evidence available that negates your premise. Stay strong, methinks there is a tough road for you extreme folks coming up.

a reply to: JinMI

It’s difficult to tell if it is a coordinated effort or if it is simple group-think. Either way, the criticism is completely superficial and dismisses the entire point.

This is a continuation of Newsgate. The talking points are put out swiftly, and spread through the news.

originally posted by: carewemust
ONLY the Special Counsel that the White House signed-off on yesterday can help us now.

Jeff Sessions is our (the USA's) only hope!

No .

Now they call it a dud? Did they realize how stupid nothingburger sounded being repeated by their acolytes?