Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by fredtoast

  1. An article based on absolutely zero evidence of anything other than wild speculation. The fact that the indictments in this case remained secret for so long proves that guy is full of shit. Anyone who has ever learned anything about how to determine "what is truth" would laugh at this story.
  2. An entire article based on a strawman argument. "In other words, a Russian “cut out” (or fifth columnist) can be defined as those “activists, academics, journalists, [or] web operators” who dissent from the shared ideology of the 14 signatories of the amicus brief. " The brief does not stigmatize everyone who disagrees with their political ideology. All it stigmatizes is people who have placed Russian interests above US interests. No one with a formal training in logic could possibly fall for this.
  3. I am not a troll, but right now I am 100% controlling how you respond. Just look at how many posts you have devoted to me that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So it is up to you. Do you want to keep playing this game of "I only respond to people who play by my made up rules" or do you want to debate the merits of the posts you have made regarding the actual topic of this thread?
  4. Ah, I see, still no proof at all to back up your claim that I am a troll. Still not discussion of the topic of the thread. Just more personal attacks and avoiding the subject. Tell me again, what is your definition of troll behavior? *HINT* If you brag about your post being a "substitue for logic" instead of commiting a logical fallacy you might be a troll.
  5. And you accuse me of dodging debate? Ad hominum argument in French is still a logical fallicy. So you got any proof or any arguments that actually contain some sort of logic? Or are you just going to keep doing nothing but throwing insults at me and running from an actual debate on the subject of this thread?
  6. I have never avoided or dodged your allegation. All I have done is directly address it by requesting proof of your claim. Was is Aristotle or Plato who said "The truth is what I say and no proof is needed"?
  7. Research is great. I think everyone should do it. The only difference between the two of us is that I am willing to engage with someone who disagrees with me. When research is used just to support what you already believe it is useless.
  8. Feeding people endless rhetoric while adamently refusing to even address any disention is not educational. It is brainwashing.
  9. I believe most people here are capable of using "google". I guess it might take some search skills to just find the rhetoric that supports your own position, but these threads are not search engines. They are intended to be for discussion.
  10. So what exactly is this guy saying? Trump is playing right along with the establishment in Washington, yet the establishment is Washington is executing a huge conspiracy to have him removed or restrict his power? The Democrats have control over the entire mainstream media and can control the thoughts of Americans yet they can not get a majority of their candidates elected across the country? I challenge people to go back and read this article and pay attention to these two points. Any national intelligence organization either here or abroad that has anything to say that supports his position is cited as an authority, but any intelligence agency that disagrees with his position is cast a puppet of the shadow government. Any "elected official" that makes any statement that supports his position is cited as an authority, yet any "elected official" that disagrees with him is in on the conspiracy. anyone with an unbiased eye can see this as nothing but rhetorical opinion. They may never uncover a smoking gun that ties Trump to colluding with the Russians to effect the election. But it is naive to act like there is no basis for an investigation when people all around Trump have lied repeatedly about contacts with the Russians.
  11. I agree 100%. But only one side is willing to actually discuss the subject matter posted.
  12. I am not going to admit I am a troll when I am not. You can not point to a single post in this thread that is troll like behavior I have made several valid points and you just don't have any answers. Even if I was trolling you could address my points without getting into a pissing contest. That is what I do when I encounter a troll. I would never let a troll make it look like I was clueless or afraid to address his points. That would be letting the troll win.
  13. Ah, Homer thinks the only rebel forces in Syria were Al Queda. How cute. If he ever gets brave enough to stick his head out of the echo chamber where he lives I'd like to educate him on the actual conflict between the different rebel forces. I'd also like to find out why he thinks the monarchies of the Persian gulf that sided with the United States are all just "foot soldiers for imperialism" while Iran and Russia were just acting out of noblesse oblige. I guess it is because he knows how honest and self sacrificing the regimes in Russia and Iran have been over the years.
  14. Summary. -Trump advisors lying their asses off about contacts with Russia can't possibly have anything to do with Trump collusion with Russia. -Dossier that has been proven to be mostly factual is "largely bogus". -Nuclear limitation agreement with Iran negotiated by Untied States was actually the work of the Russians.
  15. Here is a tip about negotiating terms with your sworn enemy. It is a good idea to get things in writing. I have a hunch, don't know why, but I believe that there have been some prior examples of sworn enemies breaking promises they made to each other that were not in writing. BTW how many of you saw the link to the video that would destroy Obama and expose him as murderer of millions of those American senior citizens that he hated so much? You all need to check that out. It is a classic.
  16. The links were rhetorical opinion pieces. When you post them I assume they represent your position. Why would you post articles that do not represent your opinion?
  17. That is all you have done in both threads where Itried to engage you in discussion. I am not going to admit that I am trying to start a fight when all I have done is disagree with you. It takes two people to fight. When I encounter a troll I don't fight. I just discuss the topic and refrain from insulting the other party. Why can't you do that? All you have done is insult me and refuse to discuss the topic. Again I suggest you go look up the definition of "troll" an apply it to the posts in these threads.
  18. Yes. That is exactly what I was talking about. I did nothing at all that would qualify as trolling in that thread. All i did was disagree with you and youb refused to have any sort of discussion. Instead all you dide was insult me by calling me a troll. Maybe you need to go back and re-read the definition of "Trolling". Everyone who disagrees with you is not a troll. In that thread you were the one who fit the definition of a troll. You refused to discuss the topic and instead just insulted me. And as I pointed out in thatr thread the best way to deal with a troll is to stick to the subject and not get into throwing around insults. If you really think I am a troll why not deal with me that way. That is what I always do. All you are doing is acting like a troll yourself. Why would you even post bitems on a message board if you are not going to defend or discuss them. Do you really think that everyone has to disagree with you or else they are a troll? Why not just defend your position.
  19. See, it is statements like this that make it hard for me to follow your logic. You claim the Democrats want this just as much as the Republicans yet the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to stop it for the exact same reasons you claim it is a bad idea. If the democrats are "in on it" then why are they fighting so hard to stop it?
  20. I'd rather discuss the actual topics in this thread. Got any answer for why it was impossible for George Papadopoulos to act as a conduit for information from the Russians to Trump. Or why anyone trying to make a serious point would call him "Baby George"? Yeah, I didn't think so. I notice that when I stump people they resort to calling me a troll instead of addressing the gaping hole in their argument.
  21. The argument that the the statute is too vague is very weak. Statutes have to be written in broad terms in order to cover a wide range of activities. A court will only find a statute to be "too vague" if a person reading the statute can not tell if it applies to his actions. But at least this is a legitimate argument worth taking to court. however the rest of this article runs toward the absurd. For example "But can there really be a compelling government interest in American citizens not speaking to foreign governments about matters connected to U.S. policy, which could include anything from oil fields to intellectual property? That seems unlikely." I can think of a bunch of examples where powerful private economic interests in the United States would feel that something like an arms reduction treaty or a peace treaty in an oil rich area could have a negative impact on their profits. They would be highly motivated to influence a foreign government to reject negotiated offers from the United States. There are private corporations that are actually more powerful than some small countries.
  22. Got a version of this in "grown up" language? I tried to read it, but never could figure out how the evil deep state forced Flynn to lie. The best I could make out this guy was claiming that it was impossible for the Russians to provide this information without doing it over the telephone. I actually try to read opposing opinions to make sure I get both sides of the story, but this story seemed to be written in some sort of extreme right-wing code. For example what does this paragraph even mean "Likewise, Baby George Papadopoulos was a 29-year old kid who got drafted onto Trump’s foreign policy advisory panel from, apparently, the phone book when the GOP foreign policy establishment boycotted to nearly a man/women the Trump campaign prior to the convention." Why does his age and where he came from make it impossible for him to have acted as a conduit for this information? Are they claiming that Trump added people to his foreign policy advisory panel and had them meet with the Russians fro absolutely no reason at all? And according to Trump himself Carter page advised him on foreign policy during the 2016 campaign, yet here is what this article says about him. "But Carter Page was a no-count volunteer who went to Moscow on his own dime and who never even met Trump." This entire article is nothing but biased bullshit garbage. I could tell by the language it was written in and confirmed when I read the entire content.
  23. He needs another big terror attack here to support his position on immigration and military spending. He is intentionally trying to provoke one. Same reason he was re-tweeting those anti-Muslim propaganda videos earlier this week.
  24. There is a big difference between military action and "Imperialism". Our military has bases all over the world to protect our economic interests, not to subjugate and oppress the natives. If we were practicing "Imperialism" then we would have taken the oil from Iraq. We have more troops in Japan (44K) than any other country on earth, but I don't see us controlling their economy. I agree that we need to cut back on our use of military to try and control the rest of the world, but we are acting more like police than landlords. If people really want to address this issue than need to see it for what it really is instead of trying to spin it into "Imperialism". Not denying that the citizens of some countries have suffered when we "decided" who their leaders would be, but there is a difference between influencing the politics of a country and making it a colony.
  25. Moderate Muslims in America are very much like moderate Muslims from the rest of the world. In fact many moderate Muslims in America were born and raised in other countries. I'd guess that a large majority of them are no more than one generation removed from foreign heritage. The people who claim "you can't condemn all Muslims for the actions of a few" are correct. People like you who condemn Muslims who are currently serving in the US military because "All Muslims are working toward worldwide Muslim control" are the ones living in a vacuum. If all Muslims everywhere except the United States are all focused on nothing but worldwide domination by Muslims, then why are so many moderate Muslims around the world voting, or fighting, or protesting to remove their conservative "war hawk" leaders?
  • Create New...