Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

Repeating part of an article I posted on a prior page, Putin wouldn't be in a "race". He could just do whatever he wanted. 

Even if the Pentagon were to build the missile, however, a big question remains: Where could the United States put it? An intermediate-range missile based in the United States cannot reach Russia, so it will not cause much alarm in the Kremlin. And it is unlikely that the United States could persuade NATO, Japan or South Korea to deploy it.
So, U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a loser all around. Russian officials probably are celebrating the news.

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/10/19/the-trump-administration-is-preparing-a-major-mistake-on-the-inf-treaty/

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
Well, here’s the thing, either Russia is violating the treaty or it isn’t. Either way, what Russia wants is to be able to increase its nuclear arsenal in ways it currently cannot, because Putin’s goal is for Russia to regain its superpower status. Make Russia Great Again. If Putin tears up the agreement then they’d look like bad guys, though, right? So why not get the guy they put in power to point fingers and do it for him, then while the deal is being renegotiated you can build whatever you want, slide in some clause that allows for what you’ve already built, and voila! Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly Latvia if you still need it) are yours again.

 You make the incorrect assumption that Putin wants a nuclear arms race in Europe.  The opposite is true.

 He doesn't need one. He needs the perception of one for home, and the ability to do what he wants without being further sanctioned, which is why all he needs to do is tell Trump to tear up the treaty so he he can build what he wants.
ETA: Besides, where is Europe going to get more nuclear weapons? They've spent the last 3 decades reducing their systems to a bare minimum. The UK won't have a replacement for the 4 Trident carrying Vanguard-class subs until 2030. The French have under 300 warheads, the US has warheads in Belgium (10-20), Germany (10-20), Italy (60-70), Netherlands (10-20), and Turkey (60-70).

The Trump bipartisan $716 billion defense budget includes $58 billion to begin developing such missiles, as noted by Scott Ritter above and discussed here:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-12/news/hill-wants-development-banned-missile

South_Mountaineer said:
Repeating part of an article I posted on a prior page, Putin wouldn't be in a "race". He could just do whatever he wanted. 

Even if the Pentagon were to build the missile, however, a big question remains: Where could the United States put it? An intermediate-range missile based in the United States cannot reach Russia, so it will not cause much alarm in the Kremlin. And it is unlikely that the United States could persuade NATO, Japan or South Korea to deploy it.
So, U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a loser all around. Russian officials probably are celebrating the news.

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/10/19/the-trump-administration-is-preparing-a-major-mistake-on-the-inf-treaty/

 And here's my repeat of a reply to Ridski:

The Trump bipartisan $716 billion defense budget includes $58 billion to begin developing such missiles, as noted by Scott Ritter above and discussed here:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-12/news/hill-wants-development-banned-missile

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
@nohero's statement that "Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election)" is such an outrageous lie that he makes Joe McCarthy look like a choir boy. 

Translation of the above: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"  People can read if they want to, since I provided a link.

And readers can confirm that what I posted above are comments of mine from that link.  And none are about Clinton emails.
To paraphrase Joseph Welch, you've reached the "Have you no sense of integrity sir?" stage in your campaign of McCarthyism. Decency was abandoned long ago.

Some thoughts:

1. It is true that you have pointed to excerpts from that link which are not about Clinton emails.  They're also not about any other election issue, so I don't know why you went to all that trouble to gather them. 
2. Regarding "McCarthyism".  As Inigo Montoya would say, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."  As one description puts it, "Since the time of McCarthy, the word McCarthyism has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security, and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."  There's nothing "McCarthyist" about providing a citation to what you wrote, and inviting people to read it for themselves.
3. Also regarding "McCarthyism".  On your thread-which-I-will-not-name-because-of-the-misuse-by-Tulsi-of-9/11, you have used that tactic to smear the first responders who rescue victims of bombings in the areas being attacked by Syrian Army and allied forces.  People can go there and read that for themselves, as well.
4. Related to (2), this is an example of how people often fling accusations against others, when they are the ones engaged in the practice.  Other examples can be found on this message board.

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
Well, here’s the thing, either Russia is violating the treaty or it isn’t. Either way, what Russia wants is to be able to increase its nuclear arsenal in ways it currently cannot, because Putin’s goal is for Russia to regain its superpower status. Make Russia Great Again. If Putin tears up the agreement then they’d look like bad guys, though, right? So why not get the guy they put in power to point fingers and do it for him, then while the deal is being renegotiated you can build whatever you want, slide in some clause that allows for what you’ve already built, and voila! Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly Latvia if you still need it) are yours again.

 You make the incorrect assumption that Putin wants a nuclear arms race in Europe.  The opposite is true.

 He doesn't need one. He needs the perception of one for home, and the ability to do what he wants without being further sanctioned, which is why all he needs to do is tell Trump to tear up the treaty so he he can build what he wants.
ETA: Besides, where is Europe going to get more nuclear weapons? They've spent the last 3 decades reducing their systems to a bare minimum. The UK won't have a replacement for the 4 Trident carrying Vanguard-class subs until 2030. The French have under 300 warheads, the US has warheads in Belgium (10-20), Germany (10-20), Italy (60-70), Netherlands (10-20), and Turkey (60-70).

The Trump bipartisan $716 billion defense budget includes $58 billion to begin developing such missiles, as noted by Scott Ritter above and discussed here:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-12/news/hill-wants-development-banned-missile

 Really? Even better! They can make us the bad guy AND waste our money as we dismantle the treaty they need us to so they can build more mid-range missiles.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
@nohero's statement that "Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election)" is such an outrageous lie that he makes Joe McCarthy look like a choir boy. 

Translation of the above: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"  People can read if they want to, since I provided a link.

And readers can confirm that what I posted above are comments of mine from that link.  And none are about Clinton emails.
To paraphrase Joseph Welch, you've reached the "Have you no sense of integrity sir?" stage in your campaign of McCarthyism. Decency was abandoned long ago.

Some thoughts:

1. It is true that you have pointed to excerpts from that link which are not about Clinton emails.  They're also not about any other election issue, so I don't know why you went to all that trouble to gather them. 

Because they expose your statement as a lie.

nohero said:

2. Regarding "McCarthyism".  As Inigo Montoya would say, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."  As one description puts it, "Since the time of McCarthy, the word McCarthyism has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security, and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."  There's nothing "McCarthyist" about providing a citation to what you wrote, and inviting people to read it for themselves.

McCarthy was a notorious liar ("poorly supported accusations"). Your statement "Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election)" is a lie. The fact that you provided the citation was helpful because it enables readers to see that you lied.

nohero said:

3. Also regarding "McCarthyism".  On your thread-which-I-will-not-name-because-of-the-misuse-by-Tulsi-of-9/11, you have used that tactic to smear the first responders who rescue victims of bombings in the areas being attacked by Syrian Army and allied forces.  People can go there and read that for themselves, as well.

The first responders engage in additional activities that go beyond saving lives. They play a key role in regime-change propaganda calling for US involvement in the war.

nohero said:

4. Related to (2), this is an example of how people often fling accusations against others, when they are the ones engaged in the practice.  Other examples can be found on this message board. 

In your case, the practice is obsessive. This latest example of your searching back two years to find a post by me and then fabricating a lie about it, is a manifestation of your disorder.

ridski said:

Really? Even better! They can make us the bad guy AND waste our money as we dismantle the treaty they need us to so they can build more mid-range missiles.

 Did you know that Putin forced Obama to push the Iran nuclear deal? He's all-powerful. Kompromat.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
@nohero's statement that "Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election)" is such an outrageous lie that he makes Joe McCarthy look like a choir boy. 

Translation of the above: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"  People can read if they want to, since I provided a link.

And readers can confirm that what I posted above are comments of mine from that link.  And none are about Clinton emails.
To paraphrase Joseph Welch, you've reached the "Have you no sense of integrity sir?" stage in your campaign of McCarthyism. Decency was abandoned long ago.

Some thoughts:

1. It is true that you have pointed to excerpts from that link which are not about Clinton emails.  They're also not about any other election issue, so I don't know why you went to all that trouble to gather them. 

Because they expose your statement as a lie.

nohero said:

2. Regarding "McCarthyism".  As Inigo Montoya would say, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."  As one description puts it, "Since the time of McCarthy, the word McCarthyism has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security, and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."  There's nothing "McCarthyist" about providing a citation to what you wrote, and inviting people to read it for themselves.

McCarthy was a notorious liar ("poorly supported accusations"). Your statement "Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election)" is a lie. The fact that you provided the citation was helpful because it enables readers to see that you lied.

nohero said:

3. Also regarding "McCarthyism".  On your thread-which-I-will-not-name-because-of-the-misuse-by-Tulsi-of-9/11, you have used that tactic to smear the first responders who rescue victims of bombings in the areas being attacked by Syrian Army and allied forces.  People can go there and read that for themselves, as well.

The first responders engage in additional activities that go beyond saving lives. They play a key role in regime-change propaganda calling for US involvement in the war.

nohero said:

4. Related to (2), this is an example of how people often fling accusations against others, when they are the ones engaged in the practice.  Other examples can be found on this message board. 

In your case, the practice is obsessive. This latest example of your searching back two years to find a post by me and then fabricating a lie about it, is a manifestation of your disorder.

 Saved for posterity.

nohero said:

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:
Do you want me to expand the the thread title to include:
"Who committed more sexual misconduct Bill or Scott?"

 Sure - Go for it! - I'll start:
Scott Ritter was caught trying to solicit a 15 year old for sex and exposed himself - went to jail.

Your turn . . .

Well, there's Anthony Weiner, who was famous for similar photo-sharing.  Back when Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue, right up until the election), he mused about "Carlos Danger's" responsibility for what he apparently hoped was a new "smoking gun": "What are the odds that Weiner was surreptitiously monitoring/copying Huma's communications w/ HRC, thus the huge batch of recovered emails?"

 What planet are you on?  Paul Surovell was not obsessed with Clinton's emails.  Another nohero fiction. 

He's on Earth.   You might want to visit here some time.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Repeating part of an article I posted on a prior page, Putin wouldn't be in a "race". He could just do whatever he wanted. 

Even if the Pentagon were to build the missile, however, a big question remains: Where could the United States put it? An intermediate-range missile based in the United States cannot reach Russia, so it will not cause much alarm in the Kremlin. And it is unlikely that the United States could persuade NATO, Japan or South Korea to deploy it.
So, U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a loser all around. Russian officials probably are celebrating the news.

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/10/19/the-trump-administration-is-preparing-a-major-mistake-on-the-inf-treaty/

 And here's my repeat of a reply to Ridski:
The Trump bipartisan $716 billion defense budget includes $58 billion to begin developing such missiles, as noted by Scott Ritter above and discussed here:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-12/news/hill-wants-development-banned-missile

Thanks for the article, which supports what I've been saying. The article confirms the US is pretty far from producing a system.  Also, the funding is to encourage Russia to reverse course and not go forward with its systems that violate the treaty.  Some quotes which show that --

Lawmakers voted in November to require the Defense Department to establish a program to begin development of a new missile system that if tested would violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

 Defense Secretary Jim Mattis briefed NATO defense ministers on the administration’s plans at a Nov. 9 meeting in Brussels. Mattis told reporters afterward that Washington is focused on trying to bring Russia back into compliance and does not intend to abandon the pact.

A U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal that the idea behind beginning the GLCM research is “to send a message to the Russians that they will pay a military price” for violation of this treaty. “We are posturing ourselves to live in a post-INF [Treaty] world…if that is the world the Russians want,” the official added.

If the United States ever decides to deploy the new missiles, development would likely take years and cost several billion dollars.

Obsession:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/hillary-clinton?page=next&limit=300#discussion-replies-3289784

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Repeating part of an article I posted on a prior page, Putin wouldn't be in a "race". He could just do whatever he wanted. 

Even if the Pentagon were to build the missile, however, a big question remains: Where could the United States put it? An intermediate-range missile based in the United States cannot reach Russia, so it will not cause much alarm in the Kremlin. And it is unlikely that the United States could persuade NATO, Japan or South Korea to deploy it.
So, U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a loser all around. Russian officials probably are celebrating the news.

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/10/19/the-trump-administration-is-preparing-a-major-mistake-on-the-inf-treaty/

 And here's my repeat of a reply to Ridski:
The Trump bipartisan $716 billion defense budget includes $58 billion to begin developing such missiles, as noted by Scott Ritter above and discussed here:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-12/news/hill-wants-development-banned-missile

Thanks for the article, which supports what I've been saying. The article confirms the US is pretty far from producing a system.  Also, the funding is to encourage Russia to reverse course and not go forward with its systems that violate the treaty.  Some quotes which show that --

Lawmakers voted in November to require the Defense Department to establish a program to begin development of a new missile system that if tested would violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

 Defense Secretary Jim Mattis briefed NATO defense ministers on the administration’s plans at a Nov. 9 meeting in Brussels. Mattis told reporters afterward that Washington is focused on trying to bring Russia back into compliance and does not intend to abandon the pact.

A U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal that the idea behind beginning the GLCM research is “to send a message to the Russians that they will pay a military price” for violation of this treaty. “We are posturing ourselves to live in a post-INF [Treaty] world…if that is the world the Russians want,” the official added.

If the United States ever decides to deploy the new missiles, development would likely take years and cost several billion dollars.

 You've got to be very naive to believe the PR that $58 billion has been allocated to "send a message."

Obsession:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/democrats-can-we-agree?page=next&limit=1230#discussion-replies-3258700

sbenois said:
Obsession:


https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/democrats-can-we-agree?page=next&limit=1230#discussion-replies-3258700

One post = Obsession in sbenois Land.  

Obsession:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/judicial-watch-presentation-on-clinton-e-mail?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3254402

Obsession:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/comments/u/sbenois

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Repeating part of an article I posted on a prior page, Putin wouldn't be in a "race". He could just do whatever he wanted. 

Even if the Pentagon were to build the missile, however, a big question remains: Where could the United States put it? An intermediate-range missile based in the United States cannot reach Russia, so it will not cause much alarm in the Kremlin. And it is unlikely that the United States could persuade NATO, Japan or South Korea to deploy it.
So, U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a loser all around. Russian officials probably are celebrating the news.

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/10/19/the-trump-administration-is-preparing-a-major-mistake-on-the-inf-treaty/

 And here's my repeat of a reply to Ridski:
The Trump bipartisan $716 billion defense budget includes $58 billion to begin developing such missiles, as noted by Scott Ritter above and discussed here:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-12/news/hill-wants-development-banned-missile

Thanks for the article, which supports what I've been saying. The article confirms the US is pretty far from producing a system.  Also, the funding is to encourage Russia to reverse course and not go forward with its systems that violate the treaty.  Some quotes which show that --

Lawmakers voted in November to require the Defense Department to establish a program to begin development of a new missile system that if tested would violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

 Defense Secretary Jim Mattis briefed NATO defense ministers on the administration’s plans at a Nov. 9 meeting in Brussels. Mattis told reporters afterward that Washington is focused on trying to bring Russia back into compliance and does not intend to abandon the pact.

A U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal that the idea behind beginning the GLCM research is “to send a message to the Russians that they will pay a military price” for violation of this treaty. “We are posturing ourselves to live in a post-INF [Treaty] world…if that is the world the Russians want,” the official added.

If the United States ever decides to deploy the new missiles, development would likely take years and cost several billion dollars.

 You've got to be very naive to believe the PR that $58 billion has been allocated to "send a message."

 The article says 58 million, not billion. So I'm not as naive as you suggest. 

Obsession:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/before-you-opine-on-a-bernie-loss-watch-this?page=next&limit=60#discussion-replies-3236996

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Repeating part of an article I posted on a prior page, Putin wouldn't be in a "race". He could just do whatever he wanted. 

Even if the Pentagon were to build the missile, however, a big question remains: Where could the United States put it? An intermediate-range missile based in the United States cannot reach Russia, so it will not cause much alarm in the Kremlin. And it is unlikely that the United States could persuade NATO, Japan or South Korea to deploy it.
So, U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a loser all around. Russian officials probably are celebrating the news.

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/10/19/the-trump-administration-is-preparing-a-major-mistake-on-the-inf-treaty/

 And here's my repeat of a reply to Ridski:
The Trump bipartisan $716 billion defense budget includes $58 billion to begin developing such missiles, as noted by Scott Ritter above and discussed here:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-12/news/hill-wants-development-banned-missile

Thanks for the article, which supports what I've been saying. The article confirms the US is pretty far from producing a system.  Also, the funding is to encourage Russia to reverse course and not go forward with its systems that violate the treaty.  Some quotes which show that --

Lawmakers voted in November to require the Defense Department to establish a program to begin development of a new missile system that if tested would violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

 Defense Secretary Jim Mattis briefed NATO defense ministers on the administration’s plans at a Nov. 9 meeting in Brussels. Mattis told reporters afterward that Washington is focused on trying to bring Russia back into compliance and does not intend to abandon the pact.

A U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal that the idea behind beginning the GLCM research is “to send a message to the Russians that they will pay a military price” for violation of this treaty. “We are posturing ourselves to live in a post-INF [Treaty] world…if that is the world the Russians want,” the official added.

If the United States ever decides to deploy the new missiles, development would likely take years and cost several billion dollars.

 You've got to be very naive to believe the PR that $58 billion has been allocated to "send a message."

 The article says 58 million, not billion. So I'm not as naive as you suggest. 

 You are correct. My apologies. I'm going to write Ritter.

Here are a few thoughts:

1) Ripping up the INF treaty was an early Xmas present for Putin.

2) Bolton tries to buddy up with Putin in order to back the imminent war with Iran

3) Trump will partner Putin in the next nuclear arms race to deal with the world's largest threat - China

4) The divisiveness seen in this thread portrays the ultimate goal of Russia - to sow divisiveness in the among political parties.  The campaign has successfully put Bernie supporters against Hillary supporters.  The Republicans and the tea party merged into the Trump party - the democrats split into two camps.

5) The role of social media and the FB algorithm was weaponized by either Russia, China or some 400 pound guy in bed.  The volume in the FB echo chambers have risen to untenable levels.

Hopefully the Dem 2020 candidate will become apparent sooner then later.  Bernie and Hillary folks will need to compromise a bit.

I don't think Avenatti is our guy - but an attitude like his to take on Trump might be needed.  I do like his - "What I believe" statement - which is pinned to the top of his twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti

Taking a doc like this and have Dems unite behind it would be a great first step.  Infighting will only divide.

There's something called a "tell", where how a person reacts or what a person says gives away more than they intend.  One example of a "tell" occurs as a person is strenuously objecting to a statement or writing which disagrees with them, especially if they take it personally.  If a response is more on the insulting side, and less on the substantive, to-the-point side, that can be a tell that the objected-to writing probably was on the mark.  With those preliminaries out of the way, here we go:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
@nohero's statement that "Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election)" is such an outrageous lie that he makes Joe McCarthy look like a choir boy. 

Translation of the above: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"  People can read if they want to, since I provided a link.

And readers can confirm that what I posted above are comments of mine from that link.  And none are about Clinton emails.
To paraphrase Joseph Welch, you've reached the "Have you no sense of integrity sir?" stage in your campaign of McCarthyism. Decency was abandoned long ago.

Some thoughts:

1. It is true that you have pointed to excerpts from that link which are not about Clinton emails.  They're also not about any other election issue, so I don't know why you went to all that trouble to gather them. 

Because they expose your statement as a lie.

 Except, they don't. I had written that the email obsession was "to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election".  Leaving aside the probably hyperbole that you might have mentioned some other issue along the way, the emails were your major focus.  Your response confirms that, since you didn't give an example of "any other issue" that you addressed, in all those quotes.  So the statement isn't a lie. 

paulsurovell said:
.

nohero said:

2. Regarding "McCarthyism".  As Inigo Montoya would say, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."  As one description puts it, "Since the time of McCarthy, the word McCarthyism has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security, and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."  There's nothing "McCarthyist" about providing a citation to what you wrote, and inviting people to read it for themselves.

McCarthy was a notorious liar ("poorly supported accusations"). Your statement "Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election)" is a lie. The fact that you provided the citation was helpful because it enables readers to see that you lied.

 Whether it was a lie has already been addressed.  Assuming for the sake of argument that it was not true, it still doesn't meet any definition of "McCarthyism".  It's an accusation you often fling, and this is an example of how you're using it without any basis, but just as an ugly label to pin on someone.  See introduction to this post on spotting a "tell" and what the "tell" signifies.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

3. Also regarding "McCarthyism".  On your thread-which-I-will-not-name-because-of-the-misuse-by-Tulsi-of-9/11, you have used that tactic to smear the first responders who rescue victims of bombings in the areas being attacked by Syrian Army and allied forces.  People can go there and read that for themselves, as well.

The first responders engage in additional activities that go beyond saving lives. They play a key role in regime-change propaganda calling for US involvement in the war.

That's your weakest argument in favor of your smear yet.  The "additional activities" include documenting the atrocities of Assad and his allies.  They "play a key role" by rescuing people and documenting atrocities; you disagree with how others use those facts, but in a classic "McCarthyite" manner you use it as the basis for your insinuation that they are guilty of collaboration with terrorists.  

paulsurovell said:.

nohero said:

4. Related to (2), this is an example of how people often fling accusations against others, when they are the ones engaged in the practice.  Other examples can be found on this message board. 

In your case, the practice is obsessive. This latest example of your searching back two years to find a post by me and then fabricating a lie about it, is a manifestation of your disorder.

I assume the meaning of this last comment is that by noting your email obsession, I'm the one obsessed with something.  The "searching back two years" wasn't exactly difficult.  I remembered the stupid comment that I quoted, and MOL let me search where "paulsurovell" used the word "Weiner".  It showed up right near the top of the list.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Definitely easier than composing this post.  Bye 'til next time!

jamie said:
Hopefully the Dem 2020 candidate will become apparent sooner then later.  Bernie and Hillary folks will need to compromise a bit.
I don't think Avenatti is our guy - but an attitude like his to take on Trump might be needed.  I do like his - "What I believe" statement - which is pinned to the top of his twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti
Taking a doc like this and have Dems unite behind it would be a great first step.  Infighting will only divide.

In response, I'm going to point to the 2016 Democratic Platform.  The "Hillary folks" did compromise already, involving Bernie's partisans in the drafting and putting Bernie issues in the document.  The Democrats should have united behind that, but some chose not to.

The "Bernie folks" should consider compromising, to unite the opposition to Trump.  Things not to do include participating in drafting the platform, and then endorsing another candidate in the general election (see, e.g., Cornel West).  Another thing not to do is be divisive and insulting at the convention, so that what should be a commercial for the nominee instead featured a lot of theater aimed against the nominee.

It would be nice to hear that kind of nonsense won't happen again, but that's not what's we're hearing right now.

nohero said:
There's something called a "tell", where how a person reacts or what a person says gives away more than they intend.  One example of a "tell" occurs as a person is strenuously objecting to a statement or writing which disagrees with them, especially if they take it personally.  If a response is more on the insulting side, and less on the substantive, to-the-point side, that can be a tell that the objected-to writing probably was on the mark.  With those preliminaries out of the way, here we go:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
@nohero's statement that "Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election)" is such an outrageous lie that he makes Joe McCarthy look like a choir boy. 

Translation of the above: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"  People can read if they want to, since I provided a link.

And readers can confirm that what I posted above are comments of mine from that link.  And none are about Clinton emails.
To paraphrase Joseph Welch, you've reached the "Have you no sense of integrity sir?" stage in your campaign of McCarthyism. Decency was abandoned long ago.

Some thoughts:

1. It is true that you have pointed to excerpts from that link which are not about Clinton emails.  They're also not about any other election issue, so I don't know why you went to all that trouble to gather them. 

Because they expose your statement as a lie.

 Except, they don't. I had written that the email obsession was "to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election".  Leaving aside the probably hyperbole that you might have mentioned some other issue along the way, the emails were your major focus.  Your response confirms that, since you didn't give an example of "any other issue" that you addressed, in all those quotes.  So the statement isn't a lie. 

paulsurovell said:
.

nohero said:

2. Regarding "McCarthyism".  As Inigo Montoya would say, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."  As one description puts it, "Since the time of McCarthy, the word McCarthyism has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security, and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."  There's nothing "McCarthyist" about providing a citation to what you wrote, and inviting people to read it for themselves.

McCarthy was a notorious liar ("poorly supported accusations"). Your statement "Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election)" is a lie. The fact that you provided the citation was helpful because it enables readers to see that you lied.

 Whether it was a lie has already been addressed.  Assuming for the sake of argument that it was not true, it still doesn't meet any definition of "McCarthyism".  It's an accusation you often fling, and this is an example of how you're using it without any basis, but just as an ugly label to pin on someone.  See introduction to this post on spotting a "tell" and what the "tell" signifies.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

3. Also regarding "McCarthyism".  On your thread-which-I-will-not-name-because-of-the-misuse-by-Tulsi-of-9/11, you have used that tactic to smear the first responders who rescue victims of bombings in the areas being attacked by Syrian Army and allied forces.  People can go there and read that for themselves, as well.

The first responders engage in additional activities that go beyond saving lives. They play a key role in regime-change propaganda calling for US involvement in the war.

That's your weakest argument in favor of your smear yet.  The "additional activities" include documenting the atrocities of Assad and his allies.  They "play a key role" by rescuing people and documenting atrocities; you disagree with how others use those facts, but in a classic "McCarthyite" manner you use it as the basis for your insinuation that they are guilty of collaboration with terrorists.  

paulsurovell said:.

nohero said:

4. Related to (2), this is an example of how people often fling accusations against others, when they are the ones engaged in the practice.  Other examples can be found on this message board. 

In your case, the practice is obsessive. This latest example of your searching back two years to find a post by me and then fabricating a lie about it, is a manifestation of your disorder.

I assume the meaning of this last comment is that by noting your email obsession, I'm the one obsessed with something.  The "searching back two years" wasn't exactly difficult.  I remembered the stupid comment that I quoted, and MOL let me search where "paulsurovell" used the word "Weiner".  It showed up right near the top of the list.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Definitely easier than composing this post.  Bye 'til next time!

 Bullseye   

Ouch

sbenois said:

Bullseye   

Ouch

 And I must tip my hat to your not-obsessive-at-all providing of some "greatest hits" citations about Mr. Surovell and emails.  I assume that some sort of search-functioning was involved.  Below is a picture of what may be my favorite "obsession" from that batch - successive posts which pair the "Bernie bitter-ender" philosophy with "Look, Hillary's emails!"

Easy peasy lemon squeezy!

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
Well, here’s the thing, either Russia is violating the treaty or it isn’t. Either way, what Russia wants is to be able to increase its nuclear arsenal in ways it currently cannot, because Putin’s goal is for Russia to regain its superpower status. Make Russia Great Again. If Putin tears up the agreement then they’d look like bad guys, though, right? So why not get the guy they put in power to point fingers and do it for him, then while the deal is being renegotiated you can build whatever you want, slide in some clause that allows for what you’ve already built, and voila! Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly Latvia if you still need it) are yours again.

 You make the incorrect assumption that Putin wants a nuclear arms race in Europe.  The opposite is true.

 They've been trying to get out of the treaty for years.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
Well, here’s the thing, either Russia is violating the treaty or it isn’t. Either way, what Russia wants is to be able to increase its nuclear arsenal in ways it currently cannot, because Putin’s goal is for Russia to regain its superpower status. Make Russia Great Again. If Putin tears up the agreement then they’d look like bad guys, though, right? So why not get the guy they put in power to point fingers and do it for him, then while the deal is being renegotiated you can build whatever you want, slide in some clause that allows for what you’ve already built, and voila! Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly Latvia if you still need it) are yours again.

 You make the incorrect assumption that Putin wants a nuclear arms race in Europe.  The opposite is true.

 They've been trying to get out of the treaty for years.

 Source?

nohero said:

sbenois said:Bullseye   





Ouch

 And I must tip my hat to your not-obsessive-at-all providing of some "greatest hits" citations about Mr. Surovell and emails.  I assume that some sort of search-functioning was involved.  Below is a picture of what may be my favorite "obsession" from that batch - successive posts which pair the "Bernie bitter-ender" philosophy with "Look, Hillary's emails!"

 These two emails by themselves prove that your statement:

"Mr. Surovell was obsessed with Secretary Clinton's emails (to the exclusion of any other issue up until the election)"

is a lie.

nohero said:

jamie said:
Hopefully the Dem 2020 candidate will become apparent sooner then later.  Bernie and Hillary folks will need to compromise a bit.
I don't think Avenatti is our guy - but an attitude like his to take on Trump might be needed.  I do like his - "What I believe" statement - which is pinned to the top of his twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti
Taking a doc like this and have Dems unite behind it would be a great first step.  Infighting will only divide.

In response, I'm going to point to the 2016 Democratic Platform.  The "Hillary folks" did compromise already, involving Bernie's partisans in the drafting and putting Bernie issues in the document.  The Democrats should have united behind that, but some chose not to.
The "Bernie folks" should consider compromising, to unite the opposition to Trump.  Things not to do include participating in drafting the platform, and then endorsing another candidate in the general election (see, e.g., Cornel West).  Another thing not to do is be divisive and insulting at the convention, so that what should be a commercial for the nominee instead featured a lot of theater aimed against the nominee.
It would be nice to hear that kind of nonsense won't happen again, but that's not what's we're hearing right now.

 Both sides compromised. And Bernie and well over 90% of his supporters united behind Hillary. At least as high a percentage as Hillary supporters who united behind Obama in 2008.

You've been on a two-year OCD delusion that appears to be permanently engraved in what's left of your brain.