Dr.Dross

Recent polls, if you care to believe them, has Trump at the lowest approval rating ever.

Dr.Dross

Someone is impersonating you. Your (its, his, hers) post is totally flawed and illogical. The DHS, from whom that 3 page evaluation came from regarding the Muslim Ban, is the one responsible for such evaluations. As to your low-info comments: "...it is based on the cherrypicked findings of one agency, and has not been vetted or verified by other intelligence and security agencies." It does have the advantage of agreeing with you, which is why you chose to mention it." It does not have to be "vetted or verified by other intelligence and security agencies." DHS has the final decision based on information from "other intelligence and security agencies." You have the system reversed for spinning purposes.

The rest is just, well, weird. Most of what you have to say has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. The paragraph beginning "Concerning the 'Russians are coming' is littered with absurdities. For an example of one straw man. You declare, "The election was not hacked": no one ever claimed it was. The hacked DNC emails were true: no one ever said they were not. Then this odd thing: "the president of McAfee said that if the evidence points to the Russian government, that is pretty conclusive proof that they did not do it, because hackers are so good at covering their tracks." That is idotic, specious. Hackers get caught all the time. They ARE humans.

I love this one from that paragraph: "Now that the dirty deeds of the DNC are exposed, it's the Russians, it's the Russians!" That sounds like a rapist defense: "Look at how she was dressed; she wanted it."

This is classic blindness or inattentiveness or spurious: "the FBI was giving Hillary a mulligan." A "mulligan"? Really? By announcing days before the election that their investigation into more emails may lead to "an indictment." I play golf. That is not a mulligan but a two-stroke penalty.

Now we have one of the finest examples of a false premise: "I notice that you, too, have made no effort to claim any of the emails published by Wiki were false, or planted, or anything other than true, yet you blame the Russians for your own party's dirty tricks." One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. This sentenced is so screwed up it will be hard to adequately parse. Never mind. No one--NO ONE--ever blamed Russia for whatever "dirty tricks" may have been on the DNC computer. Ridiculous conclusion which never entered the picture. The fundamental lack of morality in concentrating on what the hackers revealed as opposed to condemning--no matter what they revealed--the hackers is very telling of where your priorities are. You need to make significant adjustments.

This is classic Right Wing idiocy: "The Sioux, (or Lakota, if you prefer) are certainly concerned about "their" land. Did you ever consider how they came into possession of most of it? By exterminating the Indians who already lived there." How did we get most of the West? You want to give it back? Those Western States are now part of the US of A now. By your comment you are suggesting that any treaties, agreements, pacts, or whatever between the US and the Native American reservations are meaningless and can be ignored because they killed to get it centuries earlier?

JW

Do your own research, dammit, I don't work for you. I will give you a hint though, the FBI came to Priebus, not the other way around as you and your propaganda sites report.

Dr.Dross

Too funny. You guys never produce any research. And always the same sad excuse. Why? If you did any your ideological bubble would explode. "Egads, facts: hate 'em!" you would scream.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I posted a map of the pipeline route to show that it barely grazes the Indian land in question. This reminds me of all the Liberal doomsayers when the AK pipeline was built. Chicken Little strikes again.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I will start with this one....


"Now we have one of the finest examples of a false premise: "I notice that you, too, have made no effort to claim any of the emails published by Wiki were false, or planted, or anything other than true, yet you blame the Russians for your own party's dirty tricks." One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. This sentenced is so screwed up it will be hard to adequately parse. Never mind. No one--NO ONE--ever blamed Russia for whatever "dirty tricks" may have been on the DNC computer."

For weeks, we heard nothing BUT how "the Russians" hacked our election, and "all 17 US intelligence agencies agree," both of which are bullshit. One has EVERYTHING to do with the other, because the Liberal mantra was "the Russians did it." I have not heard one Liberal take responsibility for, or acknowledge that it was the airing of the DNC's dirty laundry and dirty tricks that got you so upset. You accuse "the Russians" of "influencing our elections," (that or hacking, you people can't seem to make up your minds) when the fact is that YOU got caught rigging the primary. Deflection, anyone?

Concerning parsing a sentence, your grammatical shortfalls are not my concern.

********

"The election was not hacked": no one ever claimed it was.

For weeks, you Liberals claimed little else. Not "someone hacked the DNC emails." It was THE RUSSIANS HACKED OUR ELECTION! You cannot deny this. Even on OPP there was post after post after post after post of Liberals repeating the same false claim.

*****

"For an example of one straw man.if the evidence points to the Russian government, that is pretty conclusive proof that they did not do it, because hackers are so good at"

At what? What I said was the president of McAfee, who knows a little more about hacking than you do, said that if the evidence is pointing to the Russians they probably didn't do it, hackers are good at covering their tracks. Yes, hackers get caught all the time. Even more of them DON'T get caught. The evidence shows that someone using techniques sometimes used by the Russian Government, (among others, including our OWN government) hacked the DNC. It does not prove the Russian government had anything to do with it.
I drive a GMC. Someone committed a robbery using a GMC. I'm guilty because I drive one. That is your reasoning, or rather, your lack of it.

******


"This is classic Right Wing idiocy: "The Sioux, (or Lakota, if you prefer) are certainly concerned about "their" land. Did you ever consider how they came into possession of most of it? By exterminating the Indians who already lived there." How did we get most of the West? You want to give it back? Those Western States are now part of the US of A now. By your comment you are suggesting that any treaties, agreements, pacts, or whatever between the US and the Native American reservations are meaningless and can be ignored because they killed to get it centuries earlier?"[/quote]

I also posted a map of the pipeline's route. It sort of barely clips a corner of one reservation. Once more, Chicken Little is alive and well, just like with the AK pipeline. Such an environmental [non]disaster.
One more thing: Your comment about Hillary and the mulligans. James Comey had no business involved in the investigation, as he has realized considerable financial gain from his association with the Clintons via the Clinton Foundation. In his nationally televised statement, he essentially re-wrote the US Code that Hillary knowingly violated, saying they had decided not to prosecute because "she meant no harm." That is not a criteria in the law. Hillary was briefed on classified material the same as all other State Department personnel' and she signed a statement to that effect. For her to claim ignorance is one more lie; and for an investigator who has made a lot of money off of the Clintons to claim that it was not a prosecutable offense because she meant no harm (when there are people who meant no harm in jail right now for less,) is ridiculous.

Dr.Dross

Too overwhelmingly funny and sad. How does "barely Graze" work with a spill work? Will the spill stop and say, "Hey, we barely grazed sacred land; let's flow towards Bismark."

Dr.Dross

I will start with this one....


"Now we have one of the finest examples of a false premise: "I notice that you, too, have made no effort to claim any of the emails published by Wiki were false, or planted, or anything other than true, yet you blame the Russians for your own party's dirty tricks." One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. This sentenced is so screwed up it will be hard to adequately parse. Never mind. No one--NO ONE--ever blamed Russia for whatever "dirty tricks" may have been on the DNC computer."

"For weeks, we heard nothing BUT how "the Russians" hacked our election, and "all 17 US intelligence agencies agree," both of which are bullshit. One has EVERYTHING to do with the other, because the Liberal mantra was "the Russians did it." I have not heard one Liberal take responsibility for, or acknowledge that it was the airing of the DNC's dirty laundry and dirty tricks that got you so upset. You accuse "the Russians" of "influencing our elections," (that or hacking, you people can't seem to make up your minds) when the fact is that YOU got caught rigging the primary. Deflection, anyone?

Concerning parsing a sentence, your grammatical shortfalls are not my concern.

********

"The election was not hacked": no one ever claimed it was.

For weeks, you Liberals claimed little else. Not "someone hacked the DNC emails."
*****

"For an example of one straw man.if the evidence points to the Russian government, that is pretty conclusive proof that they did not do it, because hackers are so good at"

At what? What I said was the president of McAfee, who knows a little more about hacking than you do, said that if the evidence is pointing to the Russians they probably didn't do it, hackers are good at covering their tracks. Yes, hackers get caught all the time. Even more of them DON'T get caught. The evidence shows that someone using techniques sometimes used by the Russian Government, (among others, including our OWN government) hacked the DNC. It does not prove the Russian government had anything to do with it.
I drive a GMC. Someone committed a robbery using a GMC. I'm guilty because I drive one. That is your reasoning, or rather, your lack of it.

******


"This is classic Right Wing idiocy: "The Sioux, (or Lakota, if you prefer) are certainly concerned about "their" land. Did you ever consider how they came into possession of most of it? By exterminating the Indians who already lived there." How did we get most of the West? You want to give it back? Those Western States are now part of the US of A now. By your comment you are suggesting that any treaties, agreements, pacts, or whatever between the US and the Native American reservations are meaningless and can be ignored because they killed to get it centuries earlier?"[/quote]

I also posted a map of the pipeline's route. It sort of barely clips a corner of one reservation. Once more, Chicken Little is alive and well, just like with the AK pipeline. Such an environmental [non]disaster.
One more thing: Your comment about Hillary and the mulligans. James Comey had no business involved in the investigation, as he has realized considerable financial gain from his association with the Clintons via the Clinton Foundation. In his nationally televised statement, he essentially re-wrote the US Code that Hillary knowingly violated, saying they had decided not to prosecute because "she meant no harm." That is not a criteria in the law. Hillary was briefed on classified material the same as all other State Department personnel' and she signed a statement to that effect. For her to claim ignorance is one more lie; and for an investigator who has made a lot of money off of the Clintons to claim that it was not a prosecutable offense because she meant no harm (when there are people who meant no harm in jail right now for less,) is ridiculous.

Apple and orange comparisons, false dichotomies and premises may work for your low-info followers and tribe but not in reality. Your above post is ludicrous. Without logic. Crazy, down the rabbit hole stuff. Whatever you are on, get off.

It truly pains me to respond to you. It is like humoring an addict. Your first point: ""For weeks, we heard nothing BUT how "the Russians" hacked our election": never once! Where did you get that idea? How could the Russians hack our election for weeks when one day, the 20th, was election day?

Sorry, your BS is so entangled it is hard to unravel. You said "I have not heard one Liberal take responsibility for, or acknowledge that it was the airing of the DNC's dirty laundry and dirty tricks that got you so upset." It was being illegally hacked that got them so upset, and of course they did not like their secrets bared. Not appealing. Then you add this incongruity: "You accuse "the Russians" of "influencing our elections," (that or hacking, you people can't seem to make up your minds) when the fact is that YOU got caught rigging the primary. Deflection, anyone?" It is fairly conclusive that Russia purposely hacked Hillary and the DNC (why not Trump and the RNC?) to influence the election.

Are you really such a blithering airhead? How do you possibly conflate these two points: "The election was not hacked": no one ever claimed it was. For weeks, you Liberals claimed little else. Not "someone hacked the DNC emails." How could they possibly say for weeks the election was hacked when the election had not yet taken place? Do you begin to see how bizarre your statements are? There were questions after the election if voting machines had been tampered with, but it seems they were not.

As sophisticated as Hackers get, so do their trackers. That links to Russia were found you take as proof it was not Russia. But the detailed tracking of many deceptive fronts that appeared to be the source was continually narrowed and narrowed to actual sources. Reverse hackers can also be brilliant. Or are you disposed to think that they are less skilled than hackers?

Loki Loc: Georgia

I also posted a map of the pipeline's route. It sort of barely clips a corner of one reservation. Once more, Chicken Little is alive and well, just like with the AK pipeline. Such an environmental [non]disaster.
One more thing: Your comment about Hillary and the mulligans. James Comey had no business involved in the investigation, as he has realized considerable financial gain from his association with the Clintons via the Clinton Foundation. In his nationally televised statement, he essentially re-wrote the US Code that Hillary knowingly violated, saying they had decided not to prosecute because "she meant no harm." That is not a criteria in the law. Hillary was briefed on classified material the same as all other State Department personnel' and she signed a statement to that effect. For her to claim ignorance is one more lie; and for an investigator who has made a lot of money off of the Clintons to claim that it was not a prosecutable offense because she meant no harm (when there are people who meant no harm in jail right now for less,) is ridiculous.

Apple and orange comparisons, false dichotomies and premises may work for your low-info followers and tribe but not in reality. Your above post is ludicrous. Without logic. Crazy, down the rabbit hole stuff. Whatever you are on, get off.

It truly pains me to respond to you. It is like humoring an addict. Your first point: ""For weeks, we heard nothing BUT how "the Russians" hacked our election": never once! Where did you get that idea? How could the Russians hack our election for weeks when one day, the 20th, was election day?

Sorry, your BS is so entangled it is hard to unravel. You said "I have not heard one Liberal take responsibility for, or acknowledge that it was the airing of the DNC's dirty laundry and dirty tricks that got you so upset." It was being illegally hacked that got them so upset, and of course they did not like their secrets bared. Not appealing. Then you add this incongruity: "You accuse "the Russians" of "influencing our elections," (that or hacking, you people can't seem to make up your minds) when the fact is that YOU got caught rigging the primary. Deflection, anyone?" It is fairly conclusive that Russia purposely hacked Hillary and the DNC (why not Trump and the RNC?) to influence the election.

Are you really such a blithering airhead? How do you possibly conflate these two points: "The election was not hacked": no one ever claimed it was. For weeks, you Liberals claimed little else. Not "someone hacked the DNC emails." How could they possibly say for weeks the election was hacked when the election had not yet taken place? Do you begin to see how bizarre your statements are? There were questions after the election if voting machines had been tampered with, but it seems they were not.

As sophisticated as Hackers get, so do their trackers. That links to Russia were found you take as proof it was not Russia. But the detailed tracking of many deceptive fronts that appeared to be the source was continually narrowed and narrowed to actual sources. Reverse hackers can also be brilliant. Or are you disposed to think that they are less skilled than hackers?[/quote]

*************************************************

"It truly pains me to respond to you. It is like humoring an addict. Your first point: ""For weeks, we heard nothing BUT how "the Russians" hacked our election": never once! Where did you get that idea? How could the Russians hack our election for weeks when one day, the 20th, was election day?"

Responding to you is a pain, because it is not like responding to a moron, it IS responding to one. For weeks AFTER the election, you clown. After. Are you really that obtuse? How much simpler do I have to make things before your less than adequate comprehension begins to function? By the way, dummy, elections were held on the 8th, NOT the 20th. Lose a few days somewhere?

******

"It is fairly conclusive that Russia purposely hacked Hillary and the DNC (why not Trump and the RNC?) to influence the election."

The only thing conclusive is that Hillary was probably hacked by multiple actors because she deliberately used unapproved servers, since her convenience was more important than security, and the DNC got hacked by someone who used the same techniques as the Russian government and our own government both use.

*******


"As sophisticated as Hackers get, so do their trackers. That links to Russia were found you take as proof it was not Russia. But the detailed tracking of many deceptive fronts that appeared to be the source was continually narrowed and narrowed to actual sources. Reverse hackers can also be brilliant. Or are you disposed to think that they are less skilled than hackers?"

Have you noticed that cites and sources usually accompany my statements, and nothing but your opinion usually accompanies yours?

"That links to Russia were found you take as proof it was not Russia." For the third time, (or is it the fourth,) you moron, I said that the president of McAfee made this statement. I realize you have reading comprehension issues, but this is getting tiresome. You simply ignore anything that doesn't fit your own little divorced-from-reality fantasy.

Dr.Dross

If I were to say how I truly feel, that your posts are nearly lunacy and not worth wasting my time, you win. You are way beyond dense.

Like this lie: "Have you noticed that cites and sources usually accompany my statements, and nothing but your opinion usually accompanies yours?" Please re-read my thread. Then also look at your posts where no "cites or sources" were mentioned.

This is a perfect example of how truly dense you are. Take a breath and see what you did here. This is your statement: ""That links to Russia were found you take as proof it was not Russia." For the third time, (or is it the fourth,) you moron, I said that the president of McAfee made this statement. I realize you have reading comprehension issues, but this is getting tiresome. You simply ignore anything that doesn't fit your own little divorced-from-reality fantasy.[/quote]"
Simple question to quash your objection and enhance your stupidity: what was the purpose of mentioning McAfee's statement? An accident? Or did not mean it to be part of your argument against a Russia connection? Do you see now how utterly foolish you are? The McAfee statement was being used by you to prove a Russian non-involvement. I never said you made this statement but you made it crucial to your stance.

Loki Loc: Georgia

*********

Like this lie: "Have you noticed that cites and sources usually accompany my statements, and nothing but your opinion usually accompanies yours?" Please re-read my thread. Then also look at your posts where no "cites or sources" were mentioned.

Just to humor you, I went back over the entire thread. Not once did you provide any link to anything. You claimed a 35 page report was issued, but I can claim that a 40 page report saying something entirely different was issued. You offer no proof, just your statement. Not once in this thread have you provided anything in the way of proof. Look back yourself.

**********
"Simple question to quash your objection and enhance your stupidity: what was the purpose of mentioning McAfee's statement? An accident? Or did not mean it to be part of your argument against a Russia connection? Do you see now how utterly foolish you are? The McAfee statement was being used by you to prove a Russian non-involvement. I never said you made this statement but you made it crucial to your stance."

A simple answer that you might possibly be able to comprehend. My purpose in mentioning McAfee's statement was to show that an expert in the field of hacking stated that with a trail of breadcrumbs so obvious, the Russians, who are quite sophisticated, probably did not do the hacking. Do you see now how utterly foolish YOU are? You are incapable of understanding any but the simplest, most basic statements. Sometimes, apparently, even these are beyond you. The McAfee statement was used by me to offer an alternative explanation. File that with your non-existent cites and sources you demanded I look up on this thread. I don't know if an understanding of this is above your pay grade, but there is a difference between making an unsupported statement, and providing a reference other than your own opinion as to it's veracity.
Your posts are disjointed ramblings. You offer no cites. Claiming the existence of a "35 page report" and proving it are two different things.

Remember that the next time you call me or anyone else a liar, dipshit.

Dr.Dross

Remarkable you cannot see the error in your thinking. I am truly Flabbergasted. Seriously. You back what I said in order to contradict what I said. Good trick.

As to the 35 page memorandum on Dakota Access: google "35 page memorandum on Dakota Access." Viola.

I do not recall nor do I see where in any of my posts I called you a liar. If I did I apologize but if I did not more proof of your inability to see and assess the truth. Please post where I called you a liar. Disputing your ridiculous claims is not calling you a liar. I believe that you foolishly believe what you claim.

JW

Look at all the work Loki went to in order to give you what you asked for and look at your response. You refute nothing, you offer no independent thought, you don't even depart from your propaganda.

I gave you a hint where to start looking. Respond to that and I will discuss further with you.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Ah, yes. the report was NOT authored by the DHS, as you claimed, but by the Department of the Interior; or rather by ONE single OBAMA appointee of the Department of the Interior. From ABC News:

The 35-page legal analysis of the pipeline’s potential environmental risks and its impact on treaty rights of the Standing Rock Sioux and other indigenous tribes was authored in December by then-Interior Department Solicitor Hilary C. Tompkins, an Obama appointee who was -- at the time -- the top lawyer in the department.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-withdraws-legal-memo-found-ample-legal/story?id=45696135

You will note that no scientists authored this tome, just one Obama-appointed lawyer.
You will also note that nowhere does the pipeline cross reservation land, but "ancestral lands" which is ridiculous, since none of these so-called "ancestral lands" are owned by the tribe, or it's members as far as I have been able to determine, but have been privately owned for generations.
*********
As far as your calling me a liar, you cannot remember what you posted this very evening? Let me refresh whatever it is you call a memory.

Like this lie: "Have you noticed that cites and sources usually accompany my statements, and nothing but your opinion usually accompanies yours?" Please re-read my thread. Then also look at your posts where no "cites or sources" were mentioned.

How was that a lie, doofus? Not once in this entire thread did you offer anything in the way of proof, as you claimed you did, until I pointed it out. The "proof" that you offered showed you to be the liar, as the "memorandum" was not authored by DHS as you claim, but by one single Obama appointed lawyer in the Interior Department.

Who is the liar?

teabag09

I agree. 55% is pretty low. Mike