Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar

View Single Post
Old 02-04-2018, 05:42 PM   #39
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I am going to attempt to be fair here, but if you object to the way I have condensed your comments I will accept your corrections.
I don't agree that you're going to attempt to be fair, and I'll explain why I feel this way below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
First, a point you skipped from my earlier post, do you, Venom, support or condemn misrepresenting somebody's comments in this forum, lying, putting words in somebody's mouth, etc? Yes or no. If yes, please explain how you justify this, and if no, I wish you would call it out regardless of who is doing it. Every time I have asked this specifically of you you have avoided answering and have written about my conduct. You should be able to answer this without any reference to me or any relation to my actions or positions. Even if I am the biggest lying, disingenuous hypocriet who has ever walked the earth, you should be able to decide for yourself what you are for or against and whether you think it is right for someone to misrepresent my comments or anyone else's comments.
No, I don't support such things, but it's not as simple as that. Do you support it? As you've stated in this post of yours, you do not. Despite that, your track record shows that you only appear to target those who political oppose you. So, if this were an honest question, which I don't believe it is, I would be able to simply say yes or no and leave it at that, but I don't believe your question to be an honest one. Considering I don't believe you to be genuine in much of your stances, considering that you've now repeatedly asked that I take posters who happen to be your political opponents to task for what you perceive as hypocrisy and yet you don't take those politically aligned with you to task. Is it because you don't see them as hypocrites, it's merely how you wish to spend your time on the board, you simply don't care because they're echoing your views, or something else?

You do consistently say you're against this, yet you only seem to take offense when a political opponent of yours does something which you perceive as breaking one of these rules. As stated, you don't critique Mojopin or Phoenix, and I don't think you're required to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Now, about your specific points about me projecting, being dishonest, Mojopin and Phoenix. I will try to be clear and specific here, but I am getting tired of it. I was thanking Mojopin for standing up for the idea that it is chicken shit to misrepresent my comments in an attack against something I wrote. No more, no less. It is something I asked for weeks ago and I found zero support for it. I found that frustrating and disappointing. However, the larger point here is that I don't want anybody using those tactics in general or in this forum on either side of the political ideology. It is wrong if I do it. It is wrong if Phoenix does it. It is wrong if you do it. It is wrong if Mojopin does it. I don't know how much clearer I can make this or how I can spell it out. Thanking him for a specific thing is not a blanket endorsement for everything he writes, does or thinks. Nor is it a blanket condemnation of everything anyone else does, writes or thinks. I can't believe you are making me spell this out. I know you are smarter than this, but I feel like you are making me spell out how this works as if you were some kind of imbecile, which I don't think either of us believes. When it comes to misstating somebody else's statements, I am against it, blanket. If you feel that makes me a hypocrite, I can completely live with that, but I hope I don't have to retrace this issue with you again. Most of what you used to question my integrity referred to some comments between Mojopin and Phoenix from a different thread that had nothing to do with what I was referring to in my comments here. I have not read those comments in that other thread but to the extent that anybody misrepresented anybody else's comments, I oppose that, and to the extent that anybody condemned that practice, I endorse it. That seems pretty consistent with what I have been saying here.
You're now saying it's wrong for anyone, to include you and me, to do such a thing. I'd find that agreeable if I felt it were genuine. You've take exception to such examples of hypocrisy and only asked that I then do the same to those who you disagree with, but never asked that others in agreement with you be targeted. Furthermore, you've never pointed to the failure of others in political agreement with you to abide by what you felt were standards which should be met. You've broken such standards yourself when it suited the argument. I understand that you felt attacked by others, but if you want to preach principles, facing opposition on a message board shouldn't result in dropping your own standards.

As for Mojopin, yes, I know what you applauded him for. You thanked him for a specific thing, a thing that his posts showed he didn't truly care about. It's evident that you read these threads. Mojo took zero issue putting words in Spectral's mouth and you didn't see a need to point out that he did so. His response to me failed to zero in on what I pointed to (the idea that Spectral offered other sources in response, which he did not), but he largely excused his response as being a result of him inferring things from Spectral. To me, this is a nice spin on his complaints -- when Terran assigns something to you that you didn't explicitly say, it's putting words in your mouth, but when Mojo says something another poster didn't explicitly say, he's inferring things. That's per Mojo, of course, yet it seemed that you thought his protest was genuine; I do not.

So, you're saying that you're against them doing it, but the only posters you really seem to come out against are those not politically aligned with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
2. There is nothing wrong with discussing a biased memo. This is exactly what we should be discussing. My point was that the critique of something being flawed due to implicit bias rings hollow on a forum where I can only get one person to even address the question of the memo specifically, Nunes recused himself because his actions demonstrated that he was biased in favor of working with the White House. I think this is accepted as fact. So, if that recusal means anything, or the principles upon which the recusal mean anything, then this whole memo becomes rather impotent. Add to that Republicans on the committee saying it is no big deal, and I think we have something of a dud.
As I've stated before, what I discuss from the memos is classified information that isn't disputed as being true or not to people who read this. People, as I explained to Phoenix, can certainly claim it's simply false, but the real way to try to dismiss it is focusing on the idea that it's cherry picked. That, however, isn't enough in my view, because the FBI itself pointed out how integral the dossier was. Is there damning information that was omitted? That's quite possible, but if it existed, why did the FBI need the dossier to go to the FISC? I can understand viewing the memo as biased, but imagine how hard it is to accept something which doesn't have actual undisputed underlying facts, was paid for by your political opponent, and was delivered by a foreign operative who was later fired for breaking agreements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
3. I don't think we should treat anybody as beyond reproach or above the law, although the current political atmosphere of partisanship seems to be poisoning the process in every direction simultaneously. I think that is a pretty big problem.
That is what many of the Left are arguing, that it's dangerous to question these institutions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
4. I disagree here. I don't think any of the shit with Hilary Clinton's emails was egregious or willful or caused much problem. On the overall scale of what harm this server caused, I think we are still looking for the problem of mass destruction. On the one hand, was there some problem with her emails? Sure. Did anything happen because of it? ........... So, egregious seems a bit of a stretch. More like inconsequential.
A egregious is a stretch? You don't think the head of an intelligence agency, despite being told to not do it, who insisted on hosting a private server that wasn't even properly secured and contained classified information isn't an egregious act? The FBI has pushed for charges for people that did far less mishandling of classified information. It seems that Hillary was more concerned with her privacy that protecting this classified information. In her position at the time, she cannot make that call.

You do understand that she had Top Secret information on that server, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN
Top secret is the highest level of government classification and is defined by the government as material that if disclosed "reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."
He was arrested, and the FBI, last I read, didn't believe that he intended to share these documents with anyone. You may read what the FBI filed against him early on here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
5. I think you may be correct about people on the left, but again, I think we need to move past that and look at this from a non partisan issue and just come together to object to foreign agents meddling in our electoral process regardless of motive or partisan affiliation. Seems like Republicans could take time out from playing defense on this and just uniformly and loudly oppose this, regardless of what the left is doing about it.
The two issues are inherently connected, and therefore you cannot simply ignore what seems to be obvious corruption to focus on what you want to be a nonpartisan issue. Ironically, despite what it seems to most often be portrayed as, what are reported to be Russian ads both attacked and supported a variety of candidates and took a number of pro-liberal and pro-conservative stances, often contradicting each other. When I'm told by the Left that they want to focus on foreign meddling, meaning now the foreign meddling that was the Steele dossier, but reported Russian bots and ads, they seem to most often use them as a way to claim this presidency is illegitimate. If you're concerned over foreign meddling, where is the concern for the Steele dossier being so important for the FBI, per the FBI, to go to the FISC? While I think it's ludicrous to suggest ignoring it, how is that even feasible when it seems that the process to investigate foreign meddling, which it seems you don't count the Steele dossier, when many of the very corrupt people appear to be involved in that? Why would I even dream that to be nonpartisan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
6. I think we need to see what the facts are before we start making judgments about the proper or improper use of this dossier. We already have committee members saying that the memo cherry picks information about the role of this dossier and is deliberately misleading, so I am hesitant to be deliberately mislead. Quick thought experiment. Let's say I hate my neighbor because his dog keeps crapping on my flower patch. I hire a private firm to research and document this because I want to send this fucker to jail forever. I use my private funds to hire a private firm with the express biased intention of destroying this asshole's life for all eternity. I mean, this whole thing is biased to all fuck. Then my private firm discovers that he is a secret agent for Russia, turns this evidence over to the proper authorities, who follow the legal process to follow accepted procedure from then on. So, the fact that the dossier had a biased intent does not mean that it could not still be part of a legitimate process. Add to that Nunes' bias, the cherry picking, etc, and I have a hard time feeling like the sky is falling over this. Having said that, if people did break laws or act badly, they should absolutely be held accountable, but at this point, it seems like there are a lot of unanswered questions. To be clear, anybody who acted improperly should be held accountable, regardless of partisan affiliation. I have no objection to moving this towards fuller transparency and investigation.
We have seen facts which indicate it was improperly used. The FBI doesn't deny the declassified facts about how the dossier was used. You don't think it's improper to not tell the FISC about the facts the FBI omitted, or that it used the dossier to corroborate itself?

That's not an analogy of what the Steele dossier or the process. Lets say this: You're running for election and your opponent wants dirt on you to ruin your chances. Your opponent pays a firm that pays a foreign agent to get this dirt. This foreign agent speaks with people who spoke with Russians about the bad things you did. That foreign agent takes the second hand accounts of what you said, compiles it into a dossier, and gives it to the authorities. The authorities, some of whom have ignored your opponent openly breaking a series of laws and carried out and investigation against your opponent which was not the accepted process, take your dossier. They look at the dossier, say they can't confirm it, but there are news articles based upon the dossier which corroborate it, so they head to the FISC based upon this. At the FISC, they use the dossier and it's self-corroboration, which isn't a thing nor normal, to get permission to spy on people related to your campaign. The people involved in this later testify that they knew the person who put the dossier together was anti-you, paid by your opponents, and they couldn't corroborate anything as they fired the foreign agent because they knew he was leaking to the very media they used to corroborate the dossier, but they didn't tell the courts.

I'm not critical of the dossier because it was obviously financed and performed from an incredibly biased position, I'm critical of the dossier because of the horrible job the FBI did with it. A job so terrible that it seems to be their own political biases at play, which is to say corruption.

Now I am curious, what do you think the meddling that the Trump and/or linked people are accused of is?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
 

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 PM.