Bob Mueller speaking at 11 A.M

[biggestal99]

@westaussie

I would never presume to call any of your posts jibberish (sic).

“Gibberish” is also used as an imprecation to denigrate or tar ideas or opinions the user disagrees with or finds irksome.

you irked Sneaky. congrats.

Allan

[westaussie]

It does seem to rile some posters that I insist on the English spelling and using sic when the American spelling has been used. I don’t understand why it upsets some.

[Paul_Thomson]

@Jezcoe

The job of the Special Council was to investigate Russia’s attempts to interfere with the election and matters arising from that.

The right wing fever dream of what you think should be investigated was not part of what the Special Council’s directive.

Mueller started his address with - "The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This INCLUDED investigating any links or co-ordination between the Russian government and any individuals associated with the Trump campaign. "

Notice the scope of the order, and the fact that this was not limited to only links or co-ordination between the Russian government and any individuals associated with the Trump campaign. We know now that Russia was involved in assembling the Clinton-Steele dosier in order to undermine Trump’s credibility. Why did Mueller not investigate this arm of Russian interference. That was, by his own admission, the order he was given when he took the job. He neglected the Democrat side of Russian’ interference…

[wiley8425]

Because it’s usually used in this country to denote lack of intelligence, which of course is in itself stupid.

[conan]

When you have a whiner drying being a new network doesn’t toe his party propaganda…too funny.

Embrace the differences lib.

[Jezcoe]

@Paul_Thomson

@Jezcoe

The job of the Special Council was to investigate Russia’s attempts to interfere with the election and matters arising from that.

The right wing fever dream of what you think should be investigated was not part of what the Special Council’s directive.

Mueller started his address with - "The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This INCLUDED investigating any links or co-ordination between the Russian government and any individuals associated with the Trump campaign. "

Notice the scope of the order, and the fact that this was not limited to only links or co-ordination between the Russian government and any individuals associated with the Trump campaign. We know now that Russia was involved in assembling the Clinton-Steele dosier in order to undermine Trump’s credibility. Why did Mueller not investigate this arm of Russian interference. That was, by his own admission, the order he was given when he took the job. He neglected the Democrat side of Russian’ interference…

Russians were involved in giving information that went into the Steele Dossier.

It was not a Russian intelligence operation.

Hope that helps.

[Vigilante]

@westaussie

I would never presume to call any of your posts jibberish (sic).

He doesn’t understand what you said. You’ll get him after you have been here awhile

[WuWei]

@biggestal99

@westaussie

I would never presume to call any of your posts jibberish (sic).

“Gibberish” is also used as an imprecation to denigrate or tar ideas or opinions the user disagrees with or finds irksome.

you irked Sneaky. congrats.

Allan

No. It is not used that way in this case. But thanks for stopping by.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Russians were involved in giving information that went into the Steele Dossier.

It was not a Russian intelligence operation.

Hope that helps.

How do you know that?

[Vigilante]

@biggestal99

@westaussie

I would never presume to call any of your posts jibberish (sic).

“Gibberish” is also used as an imprecation to denigrate or tar ideas or opinions the user disagrees with or finds irksome.

you irked Sneaky. congrats.

Allan

ROTFLOL

[WuWei]

@Vigilante

@westaussie

I would never presume to call any of your posts jibberish (sic).

He doesn’t understand what you said. You’ll get him after you have been here awhile

Do you “get him”?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@IBC

@wiley8425

I already did. If you’re waiting for the government to address it, you’ll be waiting a long time. We might as well wait for the government to fix lobbying too. I’m sure they’ll get right on that too

I’m certainly not waiting on the government to do anything about it. They’ve already demonstrated they aren’t going to do anything about it.

I’m just pointing out that being pissed off at the Russians is a case of misplaced outrage. That should be directed at our own government for letting it happen.

So get mad at the homeowner who doesn’t put a security system in and not the criminals from Baltimore who broke into their house?

Shouldn’t it be both? At least after the first break in.

[IBC]

@CaughtInTheMiddle

So get mad at the homeowner who doesn’t put a security system in and not the criminals from Baltimore who broke into their house?

Shouldn’t it be both? At least after the first break in.

Your analogy is flawed. A more apt analogy would be:

Should the Golden State Warriors get pissed at a team that beats them by shooting 3s? Should their fans? Or should they focus on playing better defense?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@IBC

@CaughtInTheMiddle

So get mad at the homeowner who doesn’t put a security system in and not the criminals from Baltimore who broke into their house?

Shouldn’t it be both? At least after the first break in.

Your analogy is flawed. A more apt analogy would be:

Should the Golden State Warriors get pissed at a team that beats them by shooting 3s? Should their fans? Or should they focus on playing better defense?

Holy crap.

I used an example of a crime (both are), you used an example of a basketball game (which isn’t).

That’s really dumb.

[IBC]

@CaughtInTheMiddle

Holy crap.

I used an example of a crime (both are), you used an example of a basketball game (which isn’t).

That’s really dumb.

1. You do understand the nature of an analogy, right? Way to blow by the point.

2. The principle works the same using your own analogy. If you had a buddy that was a notorious burglar who got burgled and he came to you pissing and moaning about it, what would your response be? I’d imagine you’d look at him and bemusedly exclaim “dude, you’re a freaking burglar, how can you honestly be pissed or expect me to feel sorry/outraged for you?” Then, you can advise him to shore up his own security.

3. Your scenario assumes the innocence of the homeowner. Indeed, it assumes the homeowner isn’t him/herself engaged in the practice of robbing houses. That’s the flaw in your scenario. That’s the flaw my analogy exposed. You really should read analogies for what they are.

[biggestal99]

@WuWei

No. It is not used that way in this case. But thanks for stopping by.

Thats why sometimes written word is sometimes misunderstood.

so exactly how do you interperet gibberish in this case.

Meaningless and nonsensical?

Allan

Allan

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@IBC

@CaughtInTheMiddle

Holy crap.

I used an example of a crime (both are), you used an example of a basketball game (which isn’t).

That’s really dumb.

1. You do understand the nature of an analogy, right? Way to blow by the point.

2. The principle works the same using your own analogy. If you had a buddy that was a notorious burglar who got burgled and he came to you pissing and moaning about it, what would your response be? I’d imagine you’d look at him and bemusedly exclaim “dude, you’re a freaking burglar, how can you honestly be pissed or expect me to feel sorry/outraged for you?” Then, you can advise him to shore up his own security.

3. Your scenario assumes the innocence of the homeowner. Indeed, it assumes the homeowner isn’t him/herself engaged in the practice of robbing houses. That’s the flaw in your scenario. That’s the flaw my analogy exposed. You really should read analogies for what they are.

Oh, I didn’t realize you were taking Russia’s side over the US.

Now it makes sense.

[IBC]

@CaughtInTheMiddle

Oh, I didn’t realize you were taking Russia’s side over the US.

Now it makes sense.

Lol. No. I’m not. I’m saying the US has no moral authority to be outraged when we have done the same and considerably worse in the game of international politics.
I’m saying our outrage should be directed at those who did such a crappy job of preventing the meddling and our energy spent on preventing it from happening again.

[Paul_Thomson]

@Jezcoe

Russians were involved in giving information that went into the Steele Dossier.

It was not a Russian intelligence operation.

Where was that in Mueller’s report? How do you know Steele’s sources were not linked to Russian Intelligence agencies. Who investigated the provenance of the Clinton-Steele dossier material?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@IBC

@CaughtInTheMiddle

Oh, I didn’t realize you were taking Russia’s side over the US.

Now it makes sense.

Lol. No. I’m not. I’m saying the US has no moral authority to be outraged when we have done the same and considerably worse in the game of international politics.
I’m saying our outrage should be directed at those who did such a crappy job of preventing the meddling and our energy spent on preventing it from happening again.

Or you could be mad at the people that broke in and took our stuff and our security people.

It’s interesting that you’re more mad at one than the other.