The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[Fargo]

Ok so you will state 100% to me that not one American life was lost due to the publication of the so called Pentagon papers? Bull **** Sir

Isn’t that kind of a two-way street though? Weren’t the Pentagon papers related to the lives of US servicemembers being endangered or thrown away for political expediency?

 

[jamil]

This is a circular argument that only feeds predetermined beliefs. Keep in mind that numerous investigations were conducted into Benghazi, outside of the DoJ, and that the Obama administration and partially blamed the intelligence community for the event... so, if your belief is to hold water, the intelligence community happily went along with the narrative the WH put out, and weren't concerned in the least, with fault being placed in their laps. I, personally, find that difficult to believe.

You’ll need to point out what parts are circular. Which parts are “if a then b”, and which parts are “if b then a”. He said a lot of things.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You’ll need to point out what parts are circular. Which parts are “if a then b”, and which parts are “if b then a”. He said a lot of things.

The belief that the intelligence services and the MSM are corrupt, thus allowing every instance where one thinks the incorrect decision was reached to be chalked up to their purposeful efforts to suppress the truth. That pretty much covers the entire post.

 

[Alpo]

Ok so you will state 100% to me that not one American life was lost due to the publication of the so called Pentagon papers? Bull **** Sir

That isn't the point, though, is it? You've called something "treason" and then been shown you were wrong. You've blamed the deaths of our boys in Nam on the release of the Pent Papers. You've been shown to be wrong. (As a side note for those who don't know the history, the Tet Offensive occurred in 1968.)

The reason our boys died in the quantities they did is because of bad decisions by Johnson and Nixon and their minions, and lies by military brass....throw the CIA in there as well.

Look to the rule, not the exception.

 

[jamil]

The belief that the intelligence services and the MSM are corrupt, thus allowing every instance where one thinks the incorrect decision was reached to be chalked up to their purposeful efforts to suppress the truth. That pretty much covers the entire post.

I think it’s reasonable to suspect corruption given the facts. Which came first, the belief that the FBI/media is corrupt, or the revelations which might lead a reasonable person to suspect corruption?

If this is circular reasoning, so is your belief in Trump/Russian collusion.

 

[Trigger Time]

That isn't the point, though, is it? You've called something "treason" and then been shown you were wrong. You've blamed the deaths of our boys in Nam on the release of the Pent Papers. You've been shown to be wrong. (As a side note for those who don't know the history, the Tet Offensive occurred in 1968.)

The reason our boys died in the quantities they did is because of bad decisions by Johnson and Nixon and their minions, and lies by military brass....throw the CIA in there as well.

Look to the rule, not the exception.

I still believe the release of top secret and other classified documents is treason. You can call me wrong or site whatecer court ruling you want but I stand by my belief. You can relish in whatever victory you feel you have in proving me wrong or whatever. Still not even my point in the larger picture of things. You went on some rant about Vietnam and that was just one site in my arguement about traitors releasing classified materials. I care about the NOW. I think we need to put people who release materials in front of a military firing squad
I agree that Johnson specifically and military brass are the reasons we even entered Vietnam and had our men killed. It was all a sham.

 

[BugI02]

In the case of the Pentagon Papers, the government was lying to its citizens in a huge way. Someone needed to blow the whistle, and I'm glad they did.

Whither Snowden?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think it’s reasonable to suspect corruption given the facts. Which came first, the belief that the FBI/media is corrupt, or the revelations which might lead a reasonable person to suspect corruption?

If this is circular reasoning, so is your belief in Trump/Russian collusion.

If that was my stated belief, you'd be absolutely right.

 

[AtTheMurph]

[video]http://guyspeed.com/files/2016/06/Salma-Hayek-strip-scene.gif[/video]

 

[Alpo]

TT: I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. However, mistake coverups and outright lies and fabrications that government employees conceal under the aegis of top secret classification ought to be punished. They are the anathema of democracy. One of the reasons we distrust our government so much today is because government changed for the worse starting back in the 60's. Vietnam was a big part of that. But subsequent administrations continue to circumvent the law (Iran-Contra, e.g.), conceal wrongdoing (civilian collateral "damage" as a result of the CIA drone program under Obama, e.g.) and outright lie to Congress (Clapper), to us (pick any president after Ike), and to our allies (pick any president after Hoover).

Somehow, we need to get this information into the sunshine. You call the disclosures "treason". I think in some cases, you may be correct. In others, I would call it "patriotism".

 

[jamil]

If that was my stated belief, you'd be absolutely right.

Oh. In the past it seems that you acted unaware of what every collusion denier already knows. It’s not safe to say it in public. I mean. You’re safe here being a collusion denier. But other places you might want to keep that to yourself. But anyway that’s why I assumed you’re a collusion believer.

 

[Trigger Time]

TT: I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. However, mistake coverups and outright lies and fabrications that government employees conceal under the aegis of top secret classification ought to be punished. They are the anathema of democracy. One of the reasons we distrust our government so much today is because government changed for the worse starting back in the 60's. Vietnam was a big part of that. But subsequent administrations continue to circumvent the law (Iran-Contra, e.g.), conceal wrongdoing (civilian collateral "damage" as a result of the CIA drone program under Obama, e.g.) and outright lie to Congress (Clapper), to us (pick any president after Ike), and to our allies (pick any president after Hoover).

Somehow, we need to get this information into the sunshine. You call the disclosures "treason". I think in some cases, you may be correct. In others, I would call it "patriotism".

But the problem is who gets to decide? Once it gets released it's too late whether its proven right or wrong. We dont need social justice warriors in the military

 

[Alpo]

That's where the courts come in.

Let's assume for a moment that 9-11 was an internal conspiracy. Don't you think the citizens would have a right to know? Don't you think they should demand justice re; the conspirators? If it is all hidden under a "top secret" classification, America would no longer be the republic many of us believe it to be. It would be a police state. Orwellian.

 

[Trigger Time]

Great letter to general mccrybaby navy seal.
An Open Letter to Admiral William McRaven | US Defense Watch

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh. In the past it seems that you acted unaware of what every collusion denier already knows. It’s not safe to say it in public. I mean. You’re safe here being a collusion denier. But other places you might want to keep that to yourself. But anyway that’s why I assumed you’re a collusion believer.

Im a collusion neutral. I don't have all the facts.

 

[jamil]

Im a collusion neutral. I don't have all the facts.

I’m not sure it’s safe to be openly neutral in public either. Probably safe on INGO. But out there in the wild online, people will shame you mercilessly for being agnostic. You’re either with the mob or against it.

 

[T.Lex]

You’re either with the mob or against it.

QFT

 

[Hawkeye]

Im a collusion neutral. I don't have all the facts.

You do not give me, at least, the impression that you are “collusion neutral”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[T.Lex]

You do not give me, at least, the impression that you are “collusion neutral”.

I think there continues to be confusion (deliberate or otherwise) both here and in the MSM about "collusion" v. Russia interference in the election.

Here (and among reasonably informed people out in the real world), I think there's a consensus that Russia DID actively try to manipulate the 2016 election. There may be reasonable disagreement as to whether it was effective or not, but - much like we've meddled in elections across the globe over the years - Russia tried to meddle in ours.

The Trump collusion thing is a MUCH higher cloudier issue, and requires a couple extra questions. One is: collusion to do what? I have no doubt that Trump would've - and maybe did - try to use Russian sources for dirt on HRC. Just like she was apparently do to him. Ok. Fine. Whatever. I think there hasn't been enough facts presented in public to establish whether that was:
a) illegal; or
b) all there was.

I still don't think there was any direct conspiracy to do anything illegal between Trump/Trump campaign executives* and Putin/other Russian agents regarding the election. That would've required a degree of organization that I don't think his campaign had.

*I take Manafort out of that group. I think he was dirty, and colluded with Russians his entire career. I just don't think he kept that hidden from Trump and the campaign. He may've been some sort of well paid sleeper, but that's it. He was in it for himself.

 

[Hawkeye]

I think there continues to be confusion (deliberate or otherwise) both here and in the MSM about "collusion" v. Russia interference in the election.

Here (and among reasonably informed people out in the real world), I think there's a consensus that Russia DID actively try to manipulate the 2016 election. There may be reasonable disagreement as to whether it was effective or not, but - much like we've meddled in elections across the globe over the years - Russia tried to meddle in ours.

The Trump collusion thing is a MUCH higher cloudier issue, and requires a couple extra questions. One is: collusion to do what? I have no doubt that Trump would've - and maybe did - try to use Russian sources for dirt on HRC. Just like she was apparently do to him. Ok. Fine. Whatever. I think there hasn't been enough facts presented in public to establish whether that was:
a) illegal; or
b) all there was.

I still don't think there was any direct conspiracy to do anything illegal between Trump/Trump campaign executives* and Putin/other Russian agents regarding the election. That would've required a degree of organization that I don't think his campaign had.

*I take Manafort out of that group. I think he was dirty, and colluded with Russians his entire career. I just don't think he kept that hidden from Trump and the campaign. He may've been some sort of well paid sleeper, but that's it. He was in it for himself.

Strange monologue to append to my post. I don’t see that it has much to do with my comment re Kut. But maybe I’m missing your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk