Page 6 of 7 [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Feb 2019, 2:15 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
If I were going to make an implication, it would be that it was edited to make the Russians look bad or to look like they're a greater threat than they really are. Or something along those lines. But I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is it was heavily edited and condensed.


But is it legitimately unreliable, just because it's condensed? You've been offered the full three hours of uncut questions.


I didn't say it was unreliable. However, are you saying that's not within the realm of possibility?


Because the whole three hours are available, it would leave the perpetrators up to exposure and ridicule is someone actually would try to alter it.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

23 Feb 2019, 2:36 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
If I were going to make an implication, it would be that it was edited to make the Russians look bad or to look like they're a greater threat than they really are. Or something along those lines. But I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is it was heavily edited and condensed.


But is it legitimately unreliable, just because it's condensed? You've been offered the full three hours of uncut questions.


I didn't say it was unreliable. However, are you saying that's not within the realm of possibility?


Because the whole three hours are available, it would leave the perpetrators up to exposure and ridicule is someone actually would try to alter it.


You've taken a simple observation I made and turned it into a melodrama.



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

23 Feb 2019, 3:07 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
If I were going to make an implication, it would be that it was edited to make the Russians look bad or to look like they're a greater threat than they really are. Or something along those lines. But I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is it was heavily edited and condensed.


But is it legitimately unreliable, just because it's condensed? You've been offered the full three hours of uncut questions.


I didn't say it was unreliable. However, are you saying that's not within the realm of possibility?


Because the whole three hours are available, it would leave the perpetrators up to exposure and ridicule is someone actually would try to alter it.


You've taken a simple observation I made and turned it into a melodrama.


You created the melodrama, and now you have all the information that can prove to you that he said what he said in full view of the public and on unedited video, so can you shut up about it now please so we can move on with the discussion we're trying to have? If all you can do is interrupt with irrelevant chaff that's easily disprovable you have nothing to contribute to this conversation.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

23 Feb 2019, 3:15 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
If I were going to make an implication, it would be that it was edited to make the Russians look bad or to look like they're a greater threat than they really are. Or something along those lines. But I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is it was heavily edited and condensed.


But is it legitimately unreliable, just because it's condensed? You've been offered the full three hours of uncut questions.


I didn't say it was unreliable. However, are you saying that's not within the realm of possibility?


Because the whole three hours are available, it would leave the perpetrators up to exposure and ridicule is someone actually would try to alter it.


You've taken a simple observation I made and turned it into a melodrama.


You created the melodrama, and now you have all the information that can prove to you that he said what he said in full view of the public and on unedited video, so can you shut up about it now please so we can move on with the discussion we're trying to have? If all you can do is interrupt with irrelevant chaff that's easily disprovable you have nothing to contribute to this conversation.


No I just mentioned the fact that the clip had been heavily edited. You two derailed the thread over it. There's no way to prove the clip wasn't edited, because it obviously was. The only thing that could be disproved is the strawman that Bill set up. No I will not shut up or go away. "We" includes me and every member of WP. If you want to gatekeep start your own forum.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Feb 2019, 3:30 am

EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
If I were going to make an implication, it would be that it was edited to make the Russians look bad or to look like they're a greater threat than they really are. Or something along those lines. But I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is it was heavily edited and condensed.


But is it legitimately unreliable, just because it's condensed? You've been offered the full three hours of uncut questions.


I didn't say it was unreliable. However, are you saying that's not within the realm of possibility?


Because the whole three hours are available, it would leave the perpetrators up to exposure and ridicule is someone actually would try to alter it.


You've taken a simple observation I made and turned it into a melodrama.


You created the melodrama, and now you have all the information that can prove to you that he said what he said in full view of the public and on unedited video, so can you shut up about it now please so we can move on with the discussion we're trying to have? If all you can do is interrupt with irrelevant chaff that's easily disprovable you have nothing to contribute to this conversation.


No I just mentioned the fact that the clip had been heavily edited. You two derailed the thread over it. There's no way to prove the clip wasn't edited, because it obviously was. The only thing that could be disproved is the strawman that Bill set up. No I will not shut up or go away. "We" includes me and every member of WP. If you want to gatekeep start your own forum.


Strawman? I'm just wary of anyone who tries proving - despite all evidence - that charges of Russian collusion are the product of the deep state or the mainstream media.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

23 Feb 2019, 4:01 am

EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
If I were going to make an implication, it would be that it was edited to make the Russians look bad or to look like they're a greater threat than they really are. Or something along those lines. But I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is it was heavily edited and condensed.


But is it legitimately unreliable, just because it's condensed? You've been offered the full three hours of uncut questions.


I didn't say it was unreliable. However, are you saying that's not within the realm of possibility?


Because the whole three hours are available, it would leave the perpetrators up to exposure and ridicule is someone actually would try to alter it.


You've taken a simple observation I made and turned it into a melodrama.


You created the melodrama, and now you have all the information that can prove to you that he said what he said in full view of the public and on unedited video, so can you shut up about it now please so we can move on with the discussion we're trying to have? If all you can do is interrupt with irrelevant chaff that's easily disprovable you have nothing to contribute to this conversation.


No I just mentioned the fact that the clip had been heavily edited. You two derailed the thread over it. There's no way to prove the clip wasn't edited, because it obviously was. The only thing that could be disproved is the strawman that Bill set up. No I will not shut up or go away. "We" includes me and every member of WP. If you want to gatekeep start your own forum.


What I want is for my thread to stay on topic, so stop trying to derail it please. I posted an unedited version of the video so your point is irrelevant and it's obvious you're just trying to derail.



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

23 Feb 2019, 4:03 am

It's also obvious that you're trying to avoid talking about the content of the video, which is the heads of the American intelligence community informing congress that Russia is a threat to your elections, which is the subject of my thread.

So if you don't want to talk about the content of the video, make your own thread about edited videos or whatever you want to talk about.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

23 Feb 2019, 4:18 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
If I were going to make an implication, it would be that it was edited to make the Russians look bad or to look like they're a greater threat than they really are. Or something along those lines. But I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is it was heavily edited and condensed.


But is it legitimately unreliable, just because it's condensed? You've been offered the full three hours of uncut questions.


I didn't say it was unreliable. However, are you saying that's not within the realm of possibility?


Because the whole three hours are available, it would leave the perpetrators up to exposure and ridicule is someone actually would try to alter it.


You've taken a simple observation I made and turned it into a melodrama.


You created the melodrama, and now you have all the information that can prove to you that he said what he said in full view of the public and on unedited video, so can you shut up about it now please so we can move on with the discussion we're trying to have? If all you can do is interrupt with irrelevant chaff that's easily disprovable you have nothing to contribute to this conversation.


No I just mentioned the fact that the clip had been heavily edited. You two derailed the thread over it. There's no way to prove the clip wasn't edited, because it obviously was. The only thing that could be disproved is the strawman that Bill set up. No I will not shut up or go away. "We" includes me and every member of WP. If you want to gatekeep start your own forum.


Strawman? I'm just wary of anyone who tries proving - despite all evidence - that charges of Russian collusion are the product of the deep state or the mainstream media.


I made a simple comment and you built a strawman and a melodrama out of it. And you're still going at it.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

23 Feb 2019, 4:19 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
If I were going to make an implication, it would be that it was edited to make the Russians look bad or to look like they're a greater threat than they really are. Or something along those lines. But I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is it was heavily edited and condensed.


But is it legitimately unreliable, just because it's condensed? You've been offered the full three hours of uncut questions.


I didn't say it was unreliable. However, are you saying that's not within the realm of possibility?


Because the whole three hours are available, it would leave the perpetrators up to exposure and ridicule is someone actually would try to alter it.


You've taken a simple observation I made and turned it into a melodrama.


You created the melodrama, and now you have all the information that can prove to you that he said what he said in full view of the public and on unedited video, so can you shut up about it now please so we can move on with the discussion we're trying to have? If all you can do is interrupt with irrelevant chaff that's easily disprovable you have nothing to contribute to this conversation.


No I just mentioned the fact that the clip had been heavily edited. You two derailed the thread over it. There's no way to prove the clip wasn't edited, because it obviously was. The only thing that could be disproved is the strawman that Bill set up. No I will not shut up or go away. "We" includes me and every member of WP. If you want to gatekeep start your own forum.


What I want is for my thread to stay on topic, so stop trying to derail it please. I posted an unedited version of the video so your point is irrelevant and it's obvious you're just trying to derail.


Nonsense.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

23 Feb 2019, 4:27 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
It's also obvious that you're trying to avoid talking about the content of the video, which is the heads of the American intelligence community informing congress that Russia is a threat to your elections, which is the subject of my thread.

So if you don't want to talk about the content of the video, make your own thread about edited videos or whatever you want to talk about.


More nonsense. You are not a moderator. I will post as I see fit at my own discretion.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

23 Feb 2019, 5:04 am

Coats is a lying war mongering puppet. He's a war lobbyist. He was trying to stop Germany from opposing the hideous Iraq invasion in 2003. He was trying to stop the Iran deal by Obama. Liberals now love him.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

23 Feb 2019, 5:13 am

JohnPowell wrote:
Coats is a lying war mongering puppet. He's a war lobbyist. He was trying to stop Germany from opposing the hideous Iraq invasion in 2003. He was trying to stop the Iran deal by Obama. Liberals now love him.


Yes yes, all the American intelligence experts are lying, and only you know what's really happening. :roll:



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

23 Feb 2019, 5:40 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Coats is a lying war mongering puppet. He's a war lobbyist. He was trying to stop Germany from opposing the hideous Iraq invasion in 2003. He was trying to stop the Iran deal by Obama. Liberals now love him.


Yes yes, all the American intelligence experts are lying, and only you know what's really happening. :roll:


What do you know about Daniel Coats to refute the claim?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

23 Feb 2019, 5:47 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Coats is a lying war mongering puppet. He's a war lobbyist. He was trying to stop Germany from opposing the hideous Iraq invasion in 2003. He was trying to stop the Iran deal by Obama. Liberals now love him.


Yes yes, all the American intelligence experts are lying, and only you know what's really happening. :roll:


IDK who...coats is, but apparently all the liberals love him, so I guess I should get to loving this guy I've never heard of before.


_________________
We won't go back.


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

23 Feb 2019, 5:50 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Coats is a lying war mongering puppet. He's a war lobbyist. He was trying to stop Germany from opposing the hideous Iraq invasion in 2003. He was trying to stop the Iran deal by Obama. Liberals now love him.


Yes yes, all the American intelligence experts are lying, and only you know what's really happening. :roll:


IDK who...coats is, but apparently all the liberals love him, so I guess I should get to loving this guy I've never heard of before.


Subjective partisan thinking at its finest.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

23 Feb 2019, 8:30 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Coats is a lying war mongering puppet. He's a war lobbyist. He was trying to stop Germany from opposing the hideous Iraq invasion in 2003. He was trying to stop the Iran deal by Obama. Liberals now love him.


Yes yes, all the American intelligence experts are lying, and only you know what's really happening. :roll:


Who knows, even though he's been wrong about everything ever he could be right this time :lol: He's due one.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"