Dr.Dross wrote:
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?"
I will start with this one.... br br br "No... (
show 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?[/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.