So it's true if you tossed a million typewriters onto Monkey Island. I mean it ain't Shakespeare, but it's still impressive.
One of these days Oak, they will all step back from humanity far enough that their view becomes that of gods, and, as such, they will have no attachment whatsoever to the rest of us.
That will be a good day!
Go team H! The Great Pumpkin Has Risen!
Dammit, CL. If he stops throwing us those peanuts, I'M BLAMING YOU!
Yes grove, listen to the Marxist. Don't think about it. Just walk away!
At some point you have to put the peanut bag in your pocket and walk away from Monkey Island.
Earlier you indicated that the teams were Obama vs Trump, or alternatively GOP vs Dem. Now is your team of incorruptibles vs all the corruptibles.
Since you are incorruptible you get to decide that everyone else is wrong.
So, it you the Jesus vs all the sinners?
I don't have a team in this hunt. For me, I think leaks regarding misdeeds of our politicians are always a good thing.
Go all the way back to Watergate. I don't care which party you are, I want any of your corruption to be exposed by any kind of whistle-blower that's out there. I don't care what team you play for or whether I voted for you or not. Right is right. Wrong is wrong, and I want wrong exposed in our politicians whenever possible.
The larger problem at play here is that most people who do have a "team" tend to consume their news from news sources that lean their direction. That means they're watching CNN or Fox, but not both. They're reading Huffington Post or Breitbart, but not both.
That's why you get people who can take very similar issues and construe them as dramatically different based on minor circumstances surrounding them. The predictable response will be that the difference in circumstances is not minor, because the news source you like tells you that it's much worse for Party X. I'm telling you that the difference in circumstances doesn't really matter. Leaks are leaks. Exposing corruption is exposing corruption. That's regardless of the source, the methodology, or most importantly, the party being impacted.
Your point seemed to be that all views are nothing more than "team spirit". Given this, you telling me that your point has been proved is nothing more than team spirit, and, in your on view has no meaning other than that.
Cowboys and Indians!
Thanks for helping to prove my point Bric.
Oaktree, that's only your opinion as to what you saw.
Did you know that there's so much rice in Arkansas, that they have to keep it in huge grain silos? It's true. I've seen them.
Did you know that Rice spelled backwards is Ecir?
Did you know that Susan Rice is married to an executive producer at ABC?
Also, there is this to consider: http://bit.ly/2nHYK58
Well, I guess I could have worded that much better, but I think I made myself clear enough.
When the Obama team states that they were worried that the Trump team was trying to "undermine American policy" what could the Obama team mean but that this whole thing is political. Policy isn't law. Sanctions aren't law. An incoming administration can change policy, and may even lead with its chin. After all, The Obama team told the Medvidev team to pass a message on to the Putin team that after the 2012 election cycle that the Obama team would have more leeway on Nuclear Weapon dealz.
Now, that would be similar. What we see here isn't that.
BaBs, you're right about this one. My outrage meter has been pegged too many times for it to work right anymore. It needs standardization against a normal representative government for a while, without any insider shenanigans. Either side.
And Vladimir Putin knows all this has been getting worse for years. So does Xi Jinping. But while Putin is laughing at the tawdriness of these expose's, Xi is aghast that any civilized country behaves this way.
Merkel is hopeful it doesn't get so bad that NATO and the EU fall apart.
It's not looking too promising, as the Swamp Monsters wrestle over control of Washington.
Similar? How so? Her server isn't government property and had no secret information (information collected by our National security services for national security reasons) on it. She has said so herself.
Said information was hackz by ru$$ians. She said so herself.
OTOH, the information that was released by someone in our government (leaked) was not on a hackz server. It was just leaked.
How are these similar?
Let's keep it simple then.
Was it bad when the NSA leaked information about Trump and his ties to the Russians?
Was it bad when Wikileaks, likely with help from the Russians and encouragement from the Trump campaign, leaked emails from Hillary's server?
I think they're both very similar situations. I'm curious if you think one much worse than the other.
It's all Cowboys and Indians.
By Chris Davis, Susan Ellis, Toby Sells, and Maya Smith
download this issue
click here to see more »