OT: DemCrap just keeps unraveling...

[Jim Thompson]

OT: DemCrap just keeps unraveling...

<http://lidblog.com/crowdstrike-hired-by-dnc-to-prove-russians-hacked-election/>

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:58:48 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

> OT: DemCrap just keeps unraveling...
>
> <http://lidblog.com/crowdstrike-hired-by-dnc-to-prove-russians-hacked-
election/>

This blaming the Russians for *everything* has gone way beyond a joke IMV.

[Jim Thompson]

The Dems have adopted McCarthyism to their fascist style sheet.

[bill....@ieee.org]

Nobody is blaming the Rusians for everything. How much they did intervene in the US elections is an open question, and what kind of an effect those interventions had is even more uncertain. It does seem that the Russians favoured Trump, and the interesting question is how effective their interventions were.

The indeniable fact that the Trump team were in contact with Russian intelligence during the election campaign creates a problem (though they may not have realised that they were in contact with Russian intelligence).

The rule that you never use a conspiracy to explain what can be explained by stupidity seems particuarly relevant here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[whit3rd]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 11:58:57 AM UTC-7, Jim Thompson wrote:
> OT: DemCrap just keeps unraveling...

I don't get it. An organization hired an investigator, and turned the results over
to a possibly-interested FBI.

Why is this 'unraveling'? Does scatology add something to the story?

[k...@notreal.com]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:52:01 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:50:55 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
><cu...@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:58:48 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> OT: DemCrap just keeps unraveling...
>>>
>>> <http://lidblog.com/crowdstrike-hired-by-dnc-to-prove-russians-hacked-
>>election/>
>>
>>This blaming the Russians for *everything* has gone way beyond a joke IMV.
>
>The Dems have adopted McCarthyism to their fascist style sheet.

The difference is that McCarthy was right.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No one really expects you to understand.

[bill....@ieee.org]

Which McCarthy? The one that claimed that there were 205 communists in the State Department, the one that claimed 57, or the one that claimed 81?

Far-right works rather better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[jurb...@gmail.com]

They're not going to stop, either for four or eight years.

During that time you'll find that democrats are no better than anyone else. It seems they try to prove it every day.

People with this shit do not understand how this government works. First of all to actually affect an election, you have to go to the states. We have fifty elections every year, and then the delegates go to the electoral college. I do believe that in that case the federal government has the right and should require a paper trail, but my wishes and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

But the claim is they leaked certain information which changed the results. Well first of all, how did they get it ? And then not to mention, how was it so bad that it changed the outcome of a Presidential election ? I never read any of that shit because my mind was made up a long time before the election. I bet most others' were as well. There was the ABC crowd, Anyone But Clinton. In fact, sixty million of them showed up at the polls, the REAL polls, not the opinion polls that had her winning by a landslide.

As far as what Trump is doing, you take the good with the bad. Two California cities have voted to impeach Trump. Are they really that fucking stupid ? They have no idea how government works. Cities do not vote to impeach, congress does. He has to be impeached by the house and tried in the senate to be put out. Both of them are full of republicans. They are full of republicans because the US People have spoken, and I am pretty sure they said they are sick of the fucking democrats and liberals, and want boys to go to the boysroom.

Democrats CAUSED Trump to get elected, and now they are whining about it. They are not going to stop unless we shoot them. Good thing they like gun control, they are less likely to shoot back. Fukum, and the Prius they rode in on.

[Tom Del Rosso]

Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:50:55 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> <cu...@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:58:48 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> OT: DemCrap just keeps unraveling...
>>>
>>> <http://lidblog.com/crowdstrike-hired-by-dnc-to-prove-russians-hacked-
>>> election/>
>>
>> This blaming the Russians for *everything* has gone way beyond a
>> joke IMV.
>
> The Dems have adopted McCarthyism to their fascist style sheet.

But this late-onset concern about the Russians is coming from people who
still aren't quite sure if Algier Hiss was a spy or not.

Communists in every country were always more concerned about party than
country. When the Dems think the Russians acted against their party,
then they get mad. See any similarity?

[Tom Del Rosso]

When the NY Times reported on the Venona documents and wrote that "now
the left will have to re-evaluate the McCarthy period" I knew they would
do no such thing. It didn't take a few months before they acted as if
they never heard of Venona.

[alie...@gmail.com]

Well, they don't have W to kick around any more...


Mark L. Fergerson

[bill....@ieee.org]

Venona said that there were Russian spies in the State Department, at the time when McCarthy said that it was infested with Communists. In so far as Russian spies would have had enough sense to make sure that they couldn't be identified as Communists, Venona didn't "confirm" McCarthy's claims, which seem to have been based on a paranoid misinterpretation of the results of more or less routine enquiries.

McCarthy's claim that there were Russian spies in the State Department may have been correct, but the intellectual process he used to come to that conclusion was fatally flawed, and there is no evidence that anybody that he went after actually was a Russian spy.

Since any rational interpretation of McCarthyism would concentrate on irrational witch-hunting, it wouldn't need to be redone just because it was subsequently found that there actually were a few witches who might have been found by a more rational search.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 2:47:07 AM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> They're not going to stop, either for four or eight years.
>
> During that time you'll find that democrats are no better than anyone else. It seems they try to prove it every day.
>
> People with this shit do not understand how this government works. First of all to actually affect an election, you have to go to the states. We have fifty elections every year, and then the delegates go to the electoral college. I do believe that in that case the federal government has the right and should require a paper trail, but my wishes and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.
>
> But the claim is they leaked certain information which changed the results. Well first of all, how did they get it ? And then not to mention, how was it so bad that it changed the outcome of a Presidential election ? I never read any of that shit because my mind was made up a long time before the election. I bet most others' were as well. There was the ABC crowd, Anyone But Clinton. In fact, sixty million of them showed up at the polls, the REAL polls, not the opinion polls that had her winning by a landslide.

The opinion polls gave a her a roughly 70% chance of winning, and Trump a 30% chance. They weren't predicting any kind of landslide. Nate Silver, just before the election, did point out that while Clinton's chances of winning were better than Trump's, they weren't that much better, and that one of his sporting contest predictions with the same odds had just been falsified (as happens for once in roughly three of such predictions at those odds).

> As far as what Trump is doing, you take the good with the bad. Two California cities have voted to impeach Trump. Are they really that fucking stupid ? They have no idea how government works. Cities do not vote to impeach, congress does. He has to be impeached by the house and tried in the senate to be put out. Both of them are full of republicans. They are full of republicans because the US People have spoken, and I am pretty sure they said they are sick of the fucking democrats and liberals, and want boys to go to the boysroom.

Somebody with more sense than Jurb would have noted that what the American People might have been saying is that Trump produced a more seductive set of lies than Clinton, mainly because Trump thought that the American people were more gullible than Clinton did.

> Democrats CAUSED Trump to get elected, and now they are whining about it.

That's not the reaction I see. To me it looks more like a mature reaction to the situation that has put an incompetent egomaniac into the White House and let him appoint a cabinet of incompetent liars. Flynn was incompetent enough to lie to Congress about a matter where he could be shown to be lying, and the Democrats nailed him for it.

> They are not going to stop unless we shoot them. Good thing they like gun control, they are less likely to shoot back. Fukum, and the Prius they rode in on.

Shooting Democrats wouldn't be a constructive reaction. Shooting Republicans wouldn't do anything useful either - you'd improve the gene pool but incite the terminally confused - like Jurb - into acts of violence that would make the situation even worse.

All the Democrats have to do is watch Trump and his clown car carefully, and nail them whenever they do anything obviously stupid. So far Trump has tried to ban Muslim immigrants twice, and been slapped down by the courts both times, and he tried to junk Obamacare, but so incompetently that he didn't get enough Republican support to make it stick.

There are going to be lot more stupidities for Democrats to nail - neither Trump nor the Republicans seem to be capable of learning from experience - and eventually even people as ill-informed as Jurb are going to realise just how incompetent Trump and his team are.

As I've mentioned before Trump and his team remind me of the "List Pym Fortuyn" a Dutch political party formed around the charismatic but psychopathic politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn_List

You had to be prepared to work with Pim Fortuyn to join the party, which meant that you had to be pretty desperate for political power. Donald Trump's cabinet has to be made up of people equally desperate for power, and equally unlikely to be given it by any sane party leader.

The coalition that include this crew of desperate people fell apart within a year. Happily, the Dutch constitution makes it relatively easy to ditch an incompetent cabinet, and the early election that followed slung most of the incompetents out of parliament. The US error-correction mechanisms can't react as promptly.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Tom Del Rosso]

McCarthy accused General Marshall of being a communist. Most
anti-communists never made such a claim. Of course he was crazy as well
as stupid, but that's why his name should not have become the label for
anti-communism.

Democrats denied that Hiss was a spy and started hating Nixon when he
proved them wrong.

[bill....@ieee.org]

Anti-communists aren't crazy? Communism is an unfortunate belief system, but it's not the only unfortunate belief system around, and concentrating one's attention on communism to the exclusion of all the other -isms isn't exactly sane.

> Democrats denied that Hiss was a spy and started hating Nixon when he
> proved them wrong.

Nixon did a lot of other stuff to make himself unpopular. His involvement in the Hiss trial does seem to show him behaving in much the same kind of way he did during Watergate, so the left may have had something of lead on Congress in developing a justified low opinion of Nixon.

Nixon may not have known about the fake typewriter, but if he had it would have been perfectly in character.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 09:47:03 -0700, jurb6006 wrote:

> Fukum, and the
> Prius they rode in on.

ROTFL! Best laugh I've had today; thanks! :-D

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 5:22:53 AM UTC+10, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:50:55 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> > <cu...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:58:48 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >>> OT: DemCrap just keeps unraveling...
> >>>
> >>> <http://lidblog.com/crowdstrike-hired-by-dnc-to-prove-russians-hacked-
> >>> election/>
> >>
> >> This blaming the Russians for *everything* has gone way beyond a
> >> joke IMV.
> >
> > The Dems have adopted McCarthyism to their fascist style sheet.
>
> But this late-onset concern about the Russians is coming from people who
> still aren't quite sure if Algier Hiss was a spy or not.

The evidence still isn't conclusive.

> Communists in every country were always more concerned about party than
> country. When the Dems think the Russians acted against their party,
> then they get mad. See any similarity?

It's a little difficult to see any real similarity. The Democrats are primarily interested in the fact that the Russians seem to have intervened to influence a US election. The fact that there might have been collusion between the Trump team and the Russians is even more worrying, granting the usual US anxieties about foreign intervention in their elections (though they seem to think that it is perfectly okay for the US to stage coups in other countries).

Becoming a Democrat isn't exactly a life changing decision, and the party doesn't maintain a stable of ideologues to make sure that party philosophy is pure and self-consistent. Communism was much more like a religion - not least in being violently opposed to established religions.

The regular Republicans are equally sloppy, but the right wing lunatic fringe, including - but not limited to - the Tea Party, do seem to have cult-like features, and a collection of half-baked ideologues that James Arthur takes rather more seriously than they deserve.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

Cursitor Doom does seem to read only the Express, and to be insensitive to comic elements of it's content. It's understandable that he finds an ancient joke recycled to be amusing, rather than tedious - his standards aren't high.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

To this day, the DNC will not allow FBI access to their servers! If the Russians did influence the election then we need to send a great big collective THANK YOU for keeping Hillary out of the White House. Putin quite possibly saved the world.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 08:07:16 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:

> To this day, the DNC will not allow FBI access to their servers! If the
> Russians did influence the election then we need to send a great big
> collective THANK YOU for keeping Hillary out of the White House. Putin
> quite possibly saved the world.

Yes, and he's shown incredible cool-headedness in the face of the deluge
of provocation he's been subjected to. He is surely deserving of the
Nobel Peace Prize, but as we know they only award that, like all the
other NPs, to toadies who know how to play ball and do as they're told.

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 8:07:20 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

> To this day, the DNC will not allow FBI access to their servers!

Nor will the FBI allow DNC access to their servers.

Allowing access is a SECURITY HOLE, of course the victims of a security
breach closed it. That's just common sense.

[k...@notreal.com]

Or terrorists.

[bitrex]

On 04/01/2017 12:47 PM, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

> Democrats CAUSED Trump to get elected, and now they are whining about it. They are not going to stop unless we shoot them. Good thing they like gun control, they are less likely to shoot back. Fukum, and the Prius they rode in on.

What a pack of bizarre, hateful, sociopathic weirdos.

If there were ever a Christ in this so-called Christian nation, he
ejected from this place long ago.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 16:36:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 8:07:20 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> To this day, the DNC will not allow FBI access to their servers!
>
>Nor will the FBI allow DNC access to their servers.

That makes as much sense as anything else you've said.

>
>Allowing access is a SECURITY HOLE, of course the victims of a security
>breach closed it. That's just common sense.

Without access to the servers the FBI can't assess the veracity of the
accusations. You really are stupid. You do the Democrats well.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Democrats seem to have forgotten that they were promoting Trump.

How the Hillary Clinton Campaign Deliberately “Elevated” Donald Trump
"Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be “elevated”
to “leaders of the pack” and media outlets should be told to “take them
seriously.”

The strategy backfired — royally."
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

"Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on
Republicans nominating Trump" --John Podesta (Clinton campaign manager)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442243/hillary-clinton-campaign-left-promoted-trump-gop-primary-too-clever-half

If we take them at their word, the national Democrats were working
with the Russians, right? <grin>

Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 7:53:38 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> On 04/01/2017 12:47 PM, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Democrats CAUSED Trump to get elected, and now they are whining about it. They are not going to stop unless we shoot them. Good thing they like gun control, they are less likely to shoot back. Fukum, and the Prius they rode in on.
>
> What a pack of bizarre, hateful, sociopathic weirdos.

One jurb does not a "pack" make. But he's right about the Democrat
establishment and media causing Trump to get elected. Trump couldn't
have won without all that free press and attention.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[bill....@ieee.org]

The Clinton campaign merely recognised that the rest of the Republican candidates were even less attractive than Trump. From that point of view, the national Republicans were also working with the Russians.

Trump was profoundly unattractive, but less repulsive than people like Ted Cruz, and less inept than Jeb Bush.

It does look like simple incompetence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-opponents-find-an-ally-republican-incompetence/2017/01/03/4056347a-d1fb-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.e1e582c67271

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 1:07:20 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > Democrats CAUSED Trump to get elected, and now they are whining about it. They are not going to stop unless we shoot them. Good thing they like gun control, they are less likely to shoot back. Fukum, and the Prius they rode in on.
>
> To this day, the DNC will not allow FBI access to their servers! If the Russians did influence the election then we need to send a great big collective THANK YOU for keeping Hillary out of the White House. Putin quite possibly saved the world.

Fred Bloggs is something of a misogynist, and in this case it has lead him into a serious error of judgement. Hillary, for all her faults, is a serious politician who could get things done. She isn't going to start a war inadvertently.

Trump performance to date doesn't suggest that he's up to much more than putting his foot in his mouth. He couldn't even persuade the Republicans to dump Obamacare. He's precisely the kind of incompetent who could start a war without meaning to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

Trump couldn't have won without the years of exposure on "The Apprentice".

People silly enough to watch that program (and there were a lot of them) were also silly enough to vote for Trump in droves. They also went to pro-Trump rallies, which the main-stream media naturally covered.

The Democrats were right to recognise that the Republicans hadn't realised what an advantage the TV exposure had given Trump, and how viscerally repulsive their mainstream candidates - like Ted Cruz - were.

Both the Democrats and the mainstream media put a lot of effort into demonstrating how inconsistent Trump was, and how his claims weren't all that factual, but not enough to put off the desperate voters in the rust-belt states who were being told the kind of lies they wanted to hear.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Larry Sheldon]

On 4/2/2017 18:53, bitrex wrote:

> If there were ever a Christ in this so-called Christian nation, he
> ejected from this place long ago.

True, that.

But He is expected back at any moment, for the Status Check.


--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal

[bitrex]

On 03/31/2017 11:23 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 11:58:57 AM UTC-7, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> OT: DemCrap just keeps unraveling...
>>

>> I don't get it. An organization hired an investigator, and turned the results over
>> to a possibly-interested FBI.
>>
>> Why is this 'unraveling'? Does scatology add something to the story?
>
> No one really expects you to understand.
>

Remember folks, that a variation on "You couldn't understand" is the
closest thing you'll ever get to a concession of defeat out of a Team
Trumper in a political discussion, who's painted themselves into some
corner or other, as usual.

Once the pouty toddler shows up the job's done, cuz everyone knows it's
foolish to debate with children.

[bitrex]

On 04/01/2017 09:59 PM, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

> You had to be prepared to work with Pim Fortuyn to join the party, which meant that you had to be pretty desperate for political power. Donald Trump's cabinet has to be made up of people equally desperate for power, and equally unlikely to be given it by any sane party leader.
>
> The coalition that include this crew of desperate people fell apart within a year. Happily, the Dutch constitution makes it relatively easy to ditch an incompetent cabinet, and the early election that followed slung most of the incompetents out of parliament. The US error-correction mechanisms can't react as promptly.
>

Yeah, you definitely do have to be one of the biggest suckpoops known to
mankind to sign on for this one. The reaction Trump produces in most
"normal" people is an irresistible urge to give him the finger; like if
this guy wanted to sell you a used car at $4000 off Blue Book value
you'd still do it, just because you'd feel better from doing it than
getting the discount at the end of the day.

[bitrex]

What Howard Roark and whatever the characters in Atlas Shrugged were
called didn't seem to ever realize is that the real reason the world was
against them was because they were insufferable assholes who treated
everyone like garbage, not because they were misunderstood geniuses that
everyone envied.

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 5:04:00 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 16:36:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 8:07:20 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> To this day, the DNC will not allow FBI access to their servers!

> >Allowing access is a SECURITY HOLE, of course the victims of a security
> >breach closed it. That's just common sense.
>
> Without access to the servers the FBI can't assess the veracity of the
> accusations. You really are stupid. You do the Democrats well.

Presumably, the 'servers' were reconfigured promptly, when the breach became known. Any
and all pertinent information (logs and such) would be in the possession of the FBI
by now, because the (private investigator) IT consultants were directed to hand it to 'em.
You didn't read the article at all, did you? It's in there.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 23:36:47 -0400, bitrex
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 03/31/2017 11:23 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 11:58:57 AM UTC-7, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> OT: DemCrap just keeps unraveling...
>>>
>>> I don't get it. An organization hired an investigator, and turned the results over
>>> to a possibly-interested FBI.
>>>
>>> Why is this 'unraveling'? Does scatology add something to the story?
>>
>> No one really expects you to understand.
>>
>
>Remember folks, that a variation on "You couldn't understand" is the
>closest thing you'll ever get to a concession of defeat out of a Team
>Trumper in a political discussion, who's painted themselves into some
>corner or other, as usual.

No, I really don't expect lefties, like you and whit to be able to
read and understand simple English.

>
>Once the pouty toddler shows up the job's done, cuz everyone knows it's
>foolish to debate with children.

Obviously, ShortBit.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 23:01:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 5:04:00 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 16:36:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 8:07:20 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> To this day, the DNC will not allow FBI access to their servers!
>
>> >Allowing access is a SECURITY HOLE, of course the victims of a security
>> >breach closed it. That's just common sense.
>>
>> Without access to the servers the FBI can't assess the veracity of the
>> accusations. You really are stupid. You do the Democrats well.
>
>Presumably, the 'servers' were reconfigured promptly, when the breach became known. Any
>and all pertinent information (logs and such) would be in the possession of the FBI
>by now, because the (private investigator) IT consultants were directed to hand it to 'em.
>You didn't read the article at all, did you? It's in there.
>

Idiot. The FBI wanted to look at the evidence for themselves. You
know, chain if evidence, and all that. Without it, there *IS* no
evidence.

You and ShortBit really are as stupid as stone.

[whit3rd]

Licensed private investigators' findings are acceptable in a court of law.

> You and ShortBit really are as stupid as stone.

Sadly, that's as perceptive as your comments ever get.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:35:23 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 10:01:11 AM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 23:01:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 5:04:00 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 16:36:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 8:07:20 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> To this day, the DNC will not allow FBI access to their servers!
>> >
>> >> >Allowing access is a SECURITY HOLE, of course the victims of a security
>> >> >breach closed it. That's just common sense.
>> >>
>> >> Without access to the servers the FBI can't assess the veracity of the
>> >> accusations. You really are stupid. You do the Democrats well.
>
>> >Presumably, the 'servers' were reconfigured promptly, when the breach became known. Any
>> >and all pertinent information (logs and such) would be in the possession of the FBI
>> >by now, because the (private investigator) IT consultants were directed to hand it to 'em.
>> >You didn't read the article at all, did you? It's in there.
>
>> Idiot. The FBI wanted to look at the evidence for themselves. You
>> know, chain if evidence, and all that. Without it, there *IS* no
>> evidence.
>
>Licensed private investigators' findings are acceptable in a court of law.

Bullshit.

>> You and ShortBit really are as stupid as stone.
>
>Sadly, that's as perceptive as your comments ever get.

No, that's simply stating the obvious, dumbshit.

[John Robertson]

Really?

http://www.claydugas.com/legal-process/is-evidence-gathered-by-a-private-investigator-admissible-in-court/

>
>>> You and ShortBit really are as stupid as stone.
>>
>> Sadly, that's as perceptive as your comments ever get.
>
> No, that's simply stating the obvious, dumbshit.
>

You guys really need to counter the claims, not the people if you ever
want intelligent discourse, or a chance of opening folks minds up to
alternative ideas or concepts.

So what are you going to be? Adults or primary school children?

John

[k...@notreal.com]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:52:08 -0700, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com>
wrote:

You're just as stupid as whit. Do you think the FBI/Justice is going
to prosecute a case based on a PI?

>>>> You and ShortBit really are as stupid as stone.
>>>
>>> Sadly, that's as perceptive as your comments ever get.
>>
>> No, that's simply stating the obvious, dumbshit.
>>
>
>You guys really need to counter the claims, not the people if you ever
>want intelligent discourse, or a chance of opening folks minds up to
>alternative ideas or concepts.

Claims? The *fact* is that there are no facts. The DNC wouldn't let
the FBI do their job.

>
>So what are you going to be? Adults or primary school children?

When they learn to read...

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:59:18 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 23:36:47 -0400, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On 03/31/2017 11:23 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 11:58:57 AM UTC-7, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>> OT: DemCrap just keeps unraveling...
> >>>
> >>> I don't get it. An organization hired an investigator, and turned the
> >>> results over to a possibly-interested FBI.
> >>>
> >>> Why is this 'unraveling'? Does scatology add something to the story?
> >>
> >> No one really expects you to understand.
> >>
> >
> >Remember folks, that a variation on "You couldn't understand" is the
> >closest thing you'll ever get to a concession of defeat out of a Team
> >Trumper in a political discussion, who's painted themselves into some
> >corner or other, as usual.
>
> No, I really don't expect lefties, like you and whit to be able to
> read and understand simple English.

Krw uses "understand" to mean "agree with krw's opinion". The inflexible nature of what's left of krw cognitive apparatus doesn't accommodate any other option.

> >Once the pouty toddler shows up the job's done, cuz everyone knows it's
> >foolish to debate with children.
>
> Obviously, ShortBit.

Krw is in his second childhood.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney