Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It's time to START??

HAHAHAHA!

They've been talking about nothing butRussia!!! ever since Nov 2016!

---

There's a difference in responding to and investigating what is going on concerning the Russians, and the message the democrats will run on. This is about them being forced to consider Running on what Russia has done instead of running with a different message, like jobs.

It doesn't surprise me you don't understand the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It doesn't surprise me that you posted something that counterfactual.

---

Relating to or expressing what has not happened or is not the case is what counterfactual means. What I posted is that the Democrats are debating it.

So what's your point? That I'm smart, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
What DID Russia do, exactly? Spend a total of 0.004% of total ad revenue on ads not necessarily related to the campaign? Spend on ads that reached fewer than a couple hundred million people each when the average American sees as many as 5,000 ads per day?

omg

the horror

granny, get 'yer guns

they're everywhere

really

---

Every once in a while I like to remind readers how you kiki and SIG always, I'll say that again, ALWAYS, defend Russia. It's a constant with you two comrades and all the evidence we need to prove you troll America on their behalf.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Weren't we investigating Russia since the Golden Shower incident?

Jeebers...

Throw a little bit of North Korea missile scares and Rapey Weinsten scandals in the mix and we've already forgotten that Russia is a thing.

lol... no... I didn't miss anything since I've been gone. If I didn't know better, I would have thought that I just stepped out of a time machine and it was February again.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Apparently you don't keep up on the news. And apparently you don't actually read whats been posted.

Quote:

---

The new files come from two offshore services firms as well as from 19 corporate registries maintained by governments in jurisdictions that serve as waystations in the global shadow economy. The leaks were obtained by German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and a network of more than 380 journalists in 67 countries.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists:
https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/paradise-papers-ex
poses-donald-trump-russia-links-and-piggy-banks-of-the-wealthiest-1-percent/

A trove of 13.4 million records exposes ties between Russia and
U.S. President Donald Trump’s billionaire commerce secretary, the
secret dealings of the chief fundraiser for Canadian Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau and the offshore interests of the queen of England
and more than 120 politicians around the world.


from the Headline, I can't tell
if this news is relevant or just a tease.
... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Huh....

I wonder if Clinton is one of the 120 politicians there.

While it's true she didn't directly sell a great deal of Uranium to Russia, she did sell it to Canadian interests who later sold it to Russia.

---

I'm at that point again. The point where I just ignore you. Here's why. Where is your link showing what you claim is true? Or showing it was reported by a reputable news outlet. Also, I notice that a Clinton story involving Russia is an outrage you must repeat, yet everything involving Trump is nothing to see here. What's up with that shit? Are you also a comrade or comrade sympathizer?

---

We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not be exported by Russia without a license — which Rosatom does not have — but even so, this 20 percent figure is especially misleading. (*See update below.) At the Fact Checker, we have described it a bit more precisely as “mining licenses for about 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capacity.” But we were out of date; it turns out “20 percent” is an especially stale number.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/31/the-rep
eated-incorrect-claim-that-russia-obtained-20-percent-of-our-uranium/?utm_term=.1352db29d7ad

Quote:

---

Where is your link showing what you claim is true? Or showing it was reported by a reputable news outlet.

---

Quote:

---

Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

After the Obama administration approved the sale of a Canadian mining company with significant U.S. uranium reserves to a firm owned by Russia’s government, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assured Congress and the public the new owners couldn’t export any raw nuclear fuel from America’s shores.

“No uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC declared in a November 2010 press release that announced that ARMZ, a subsidiary of the Russian state-owned Rosatom, had been approved to take ownership of the Uranium One mining firm and its American assets.

A year later, the nuclear regulator repeated the assurance in a letter to Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican in whose state Uranium One operated mines.

“Neither Uranium One Inc. nor AMRZ holds a specific NRC export license. In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the exports of uranium for use in reactor fuel,” then-NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko wrote to Barrasso.

The NRC never issued an export license to the Russian firm, a fact so engrained in the narrative of the Uranium One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post’s official fact-checker site this week. “We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not be exported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have,” the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.

NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 and 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license — which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal — the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the “other parties to Export.”

The move escaped notice in Congress.

Officials at RSB, Cameco and Rosatom did not return repeated phone calls or emails seeking comment.

Uranium One's American arm, however, emailed a statement to The Hill on Wednesday evening confirming it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law.

“None of the US U308 product produced to date has been sold to non-US customers except for approximately 25% which was sold via book transfer at the conversion facilities to customers from Western Europe and Asia," executive Donna Wickers said. “Any physical export of the product from conversion facilities to non-US destinations is under the control of such customers and subject to NRC regulation.”

The United States actually imports the majority of the uranium it uses as fuel. In 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 24 percent of the imports came from Kazakhstan and 14 percent came from Russia.

The sale of Uranium One to a Russian state-owned firm, however, has created political waves that have led to multiple congressional investigations. Republicans say they want to learn how the sale could have been approved and whether there was political interference.

“The more that surfaces about this deal, the more questions it raises," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement released after this story was published. Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has launched an investigation into Uranium One.

"It now appears that despite pledges to the contrary, U.S. uranium made its way overseas as a part of the Uranium One deal," Grassley said in the statement. "What’s more disturbing, those transactions were apparently made possible by various Obama Administration agencies while the Democrat-controlled Congress turned a blind eye.

“Americans deserve assurances that political influence was not a factor in all this. I’m increasingly convinced that a special counsel — someone with no prior involvement in any of these deals — should shine a light on this ordeal and get answers for the American people.”

Government officials told The Hill that the NRC was able to amend the export license affecting Uranium One because of two other decisions previously made by the Obama administration as part of a Russian “reset” in President Obama’s first term.

First, Obama reinstated a U.S.-Russia civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement. President George W. Bush had signed the agreement in 2008, but withdrew from it before it could take effect after Russia became involved in a military conflict with the former Soviet republic of Georgia, a U.S. ally, and after new concerns surfaced that Moscow was secretly aiding Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

Obama re-submitted the agreement for approval by the Democrat-controlled Congress in May 2010, declaring Russia should be viewed as a friendly partner under Section 123 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 after agreeing to a new nuclear weapons reduction deal and helping the U.S. with Iran.

“I have concluded: (1) that the situation in Georgia need no longer be considered an obstacle to proceeding with the proposed Agreement; and (2) that the level and scope of U.S.-Russia cooperation on Iran are sufficient to justify resubmitting the proposed agreement to the Congress,” Obama said in a statement sent to Congress.

Congress took no action, which allowed the deal to become effective 90 days later.

The other step that allowed uranium from the Russian-controlled mines in the United States to be exported came in 2011, when the Commerce Department removed Rosatom, Uranium One’s owner, from a list of restricted companies that could not export nuclear or other sensitive materials or technologies without special approval under the Export Administration Regulations.

“This final rule removes the Federal Atomic Power of Russia (Rusatom) now known as the Russian State Corporation of Atomic Energy (Rosatom),” the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security declared in a May 24, 2011, notice in the Federal Register that created few waves.

Rosatom had been on the list for a long time, so long in fact that it was still listed in the federal database under its old name, Rusatom. Officials said the effort to remove the Russian nuclear firm was a “policy decision” driven by the State Department, Energy Department, Commerce Department and other agencies with Russia portfolios designed to recognize that bilateral relations between Russia and the United States had improved slightly.

Nine months after Rosatom was removed from the export restrictions list, the NRC issued its license amendment to the trucking firm in March 2012 that cleared the way for Uranium One exports, making it effective for nearly five years, to the end of 2017. But the NRC also stipulated that Uranium One’s uranium should be returned to the United States.

“The uranium authorized for export is to be returned to the United States,” the NRC instructed in the export license amendment.

But that, too, didn’t happen. Officials told The Hill that the Energy Department subsequently gave approval for some of the American fuel to depart Canada and be exported to European enrichment centers, according to a 2015 letter the NRC sent to Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.).

The NRC explained to Visclosky that it had originally stipulated that after the American uranium was treated in Canada, it had to “then return the uranium to the U.S. for further processing.”

“That license stated that the Canadian Government needed to obtain prior approval before any of the U.S. material could be transferred to any country other than the U.S.,” the letter added. “Subsequently the U.S. Department of Energy granted approval for some re-transfers of U.S. uranium from the Canadian conversion facilities to European enrichment plants.”

The NRC added, however, it did not believe any of the American uranium made its way “directly” to Russia. And it added that the whole supply chain scenario was made possible by the resubmission of Obama’s Section 123 agreement in 2010.

“The transfer of the U.S.-supplied uranium from Canada to Europe noted above also was subject to applicable Section 123 agreements,” the NRC noted. Section 123 is the part of the Atomic Energy Act that allows for the U.S. to share civilian nuclear technology and goods with allies.

The Uranium One deal has been controversial since at least 2015, when The New York Times reported former President Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speech fee from a Russian bank and millions in donations to his charitable foundation from sources interested in the deal around the time the Uranium One sale was being reviewed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department and eight other federal agencies.

Hillary Clinton has said she delegated the approval decision to a deputy on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and did not apply any pressure. Bill Clinton has said the monies he received had no bearing on his wife’s policymaking decisions.

The 2015 Times article included a single reference to Uranium One officials saying they believed some of its American uranium made its way to Europe and Japan without any reference to how that occurred.

NRC officials said the multiple decisions documented in the memos, including the 2012 amendment of the third-party export license, provide the most complete description to date of how Russian-owned uranium ended up getting exported from the United States.

The entire Uranium One episode is getting a fresh look after The Hill disclosed late last month that the FBI had gathered extensive evidence in 2009 — before the mine sale was approved — that Rosatom’s main executive in the United States was engaged in a racketeering scheme that included bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.

The probe was enabled by an undercover informant working for the FBI inside the Russian nuclear industry, court records show. But the Justice Department did not make that evidence public until 2014, long after Rosatom benefited from multiple favorable decisions from the Obama administration.

The Senate Judiciary, House Intelligence and House Oversight committees have all announced plans to investigate the new revelation, and the Justice Department has given approval for the undercover informant to testify for the first time about what he witnessed the Russians doing to influence Obama administration decisions favorable to Rosatom between 2009 and 2014.

Hillary Clinton and other Democrats have described the renewed focus on the Uranium One deal as simply a distraction from the current investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, in which Donald Trump became the 45th president. She also says that concerns about the Uranium One sale have long ago been “debunked.”

But it’s not just Republicans who have said that the revelation the FBI had evidence that Rosatom was engaged in criminality during the time it was receiving favorable decisions from the U.S. government deserves fresh scrutiny.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees, told The Hill she would like to learn more about what the FBI knew.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) has criticized Republicans for investigating Clinton, but said on “Morning Joe” last month he has "no problem looking into" the Uranium One deal.

And Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said Sunday on CNN that he believed it was appropriate for Congress to investigate the new information.

“One of the House committees has already begun an oversight committee hearing," King said. "I always think oversight hearings are appropriate. I’ve been trying to understand this deal."

King also repeated the oft-quoted narrative that the “company changed hands, but the uranium that is mined in the United States cannot leave the United States." The NRC license now shows now that Uranium One was, in fact, allowed to export American uranium.

A legal expert on the CFIUS process told The Hill that the new revelation that the FBI knew that a Rosatom official was engaged in illegality on U.S. soil before the sale was approved could very well have affected the decision if that evidence had been made public in real time.

“Criminal behavior would be something the committee would take into consideration when evaluating a transaction with a foreign company,” said Stewart Baker, a foreign commerce law expert at the Steptoe Johnson firm. “It is a consideration, but it is not something that would guarantee a particular outcome.”

He said the committee board would need “to consider how serious the criminal behavior is, in the context of this transaction, how likely is it that someone acting against U.S. security interest would take action,” he added.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Being anti-Clinton and anti-current-Democratic-Party is not being anti-American. I can understand why you would think that since that's what the MSM tells you is true everyday.

---

I'll answer this, then I will stop responding to you as I have in the past. Brace yourself stupid. I hate Clinton and the democrats of today as much or more than you. I've said as much many times. You're just to stupid for it to sink in. You want revenge. That's what you're about. Your reasons for doing so are always based on bullshit which leaves others who try and get the facts right flummoxed and frustrated.

I'm not defending Clinton as much as I am addressing the lies about her posted here. And I am also trying to redirect the focus back to my countries enemy Putin. All this Clinton shit is just miss direction away from Putin and Russia. Not what is problematic for our country today; Trump and Putin.

I give you a hard time because you like kiki and SIG, dismiss everything Putin does and suggest his interference here and around the world is much ado about nothing. You deflect from him by living in the past of Clinton.

You are without doubt the dumbest person I've ever engaged with in these threads. That's not a crime and I only post about your intelligence because your opinions are based on shit and are divisive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

You are without doubt the dumbest person I've ever engaged with in these threads. That's not a crime and I only post about it because your opinions are so divisive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

You are without doubt the dumbest person I've ever engaged with in these threads. That's not a crime and I only post about it because your opinions are so divisive.

---

    Could he be a Troll!?


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

He is and I don't say that lightly. He kiki and SIG are always on the other side of the debate. Occasionally they bring out their sockpuppets. Facts mean nothing to them unless it suits the agenda they are pushing. Jack went from being a pervert and drunk, to a possible drunk and definite troll.

Quote:

---

Being anti-Clinton and anti-current-Democratic-Party is not being anti-American. I can understand why you would think that since that's what the MSM tells you is true everyday. - SIX

I'll answer this, then I will stop responding to you as I have in the past. Brace yourself stupid

---

Quote:

---

I hate Clinton and the democrats of today as much or more than you. I've said as much many times.- THUGR

---

Quote:

---

You're just to stupid for it to sink in. You want revenge. That's what you're about. Your reasons for doing so are always based on bullshit which leaves others who try and get the facts right flummoxed and frustrated. - THUGR

---

Quote:

---

I'm not defending Clinton as much as I am addressing the lies about her posted here. - THUGR

---

Quote:

---

And I am also trying to redirect the focus back to my countries enemy Putin. All this Clinton shit is just miss direction away from Putin and Russia. Not what is problematic for our country today; Trump and Putin.- THUGR

---

Quote:

---

I give you a hard time because you like kiki and SIG, dismiss everything Putin does and suggest his interference here and around the world is much ado about nothing.= THUGR

---

Quote:

---

You deflect from him by living in the past of Clinton.- THUGR

---

Quote:

---

You are without doubt the dumbest person I've ever engaged with in these threads. That's not a crime and I only post about your intelligence because your opinions are based on shit and are divisive. - THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

you spend MOST of your time here endlessly calling random people "Russian trolls" and the little remaining time you have left bitching about Trump?
By calling people "Russian trolls"? By mindlessly regurgitating DNC propaganda about "starting" to talk about Russia??

Here's a thought: If you really want to defend Hillary from the "lies" told about her, there's a whole thread devoted to her alleged misdeeds. So why don't you go over there, and knock yourself out, kid?


Yep! Don't look at corruption in the USA! That might be bad ... for
Clinton! Look instead at Putin! Only Putin!
And Trump!

Once Putin is defeated all will be right with the USA!

Some of the things Russia has done in the world are quite significant, such as protecting Syria. However, in terms of interfering in other counties, Russia can't hold a candle to the USA which knocks over nations like pins in a bowling alley.

Clinton is but one member of the swamp, and a stell
ar exemplar of corruption! But there's plenty more like her in DC.

By the way, gave you EVER gone back to my 2002 -2005 posts? Do you have the faintest clue what I think? Probably not.

---

Here is your post without what you quoted from me about Jack and trolls. Quite the damnation of Clinton with a defense and even praise for Putin and Russia. Same old SIG. Bash the DNC in all these threads, bash the media, bash the judicial system investigating Trump. Bash anyone here posting about it and change the subject. Deny that anything connecting Trump to Russia has been reported accurately and claim no evidence has been provide showing they conspired together. Even though new evidence of that is reported daily.

You're a Russia troll SIG. Everything about you, about your posts matches up with Russias' propaganda of the day. All the posts from you during the election about Clinton that were untrue and came from foreign bots. And still to this day you use her to stir up negative emotions to deflect from Trump.

You suggest we look at your past posts as proof you don't troll for Russia. It's funny how you want us to go all the way back to 2005 and before. How about we stick with the past two or three years?

All anyone need do is look at your past posts to see your staunch defense of all things Russia. The Ukraine thread, the Syria thread. The thread about Russia cheating at the Olympics. You've picked up on what we all know to be Putins playbook and have been posting here as a troll since.

Jack is one of your puppets. Real or imagined makes no difference. He follows the same patter of damning Americans while calling them war mongers for criticizing Putin. I'll call the both of you and anyone else who trolls America all the derogatory names I want.

Quote:

---

you spend MOST of your time here endlessly calling random people "Russian trolls" and the little remaining time you have left bitching about Trump?

By calling people "Russian trolls"? By mindlessly regurgitating DNC propaganda about "starting" to talk about Russia??

Here's a thought: If you really want to defend Hillary from the "lies" told about her, there's a whole thread devoted to her alleged misdeeds. So why don't you go over there, and knock yourself out, kid?

Yep! Don't look at corruption in the USA! That might be bad ... for
Clinton! Look instead at Putin! Only Putin!

Once Putin is defeated all will be right with the USA!

Some of the things Russia has done in the world are quite significant, such as protecting Syria. However, in terms of interfering in other counties, Russia can't hold a candle to the USA which knocks over nations like pins in a bowling alley.

Clinton is but one member of the swamp, and a stellar exemplar of corruption! But there's plenty more like her in DC.

By the way, gave you EVER gone back to my 2002 -2005 posts? Do you have the faintest clue what I think? Probably not. - SIGNY


Here is your post without what you quoted from me about Jack and trolls.

---

Quote:

---

Quite the damnation of Clinton with a defense and even praise for Putin and Russia. -

---

Quote:

---

Same old SIG. Bash the DNC

---

Quote:

---

bash the media

---

Quote:

---

bash the judicial system investigating Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Bash anyone here posting about it and change the subject. Deny that anything connecting Trump to Russia has been reported accurately and claim no evidence has been provide showing they conspired together.

---

Quote:

---

Even though new evidence of that is reported daily.

---

Quote:

---

You're a Russia troll SIG.

---

Quote:

---

Everything about you, about your posts matches up with Russias' propaganda of the day. All the posts from you during the election about Clinton that were untrue

---

Quote:

---

And still to this day you use her to stir up negative emotions to deflect from Trump.

---

Quote:

---

You suggest we look at your past posts as proof you don't troll for Russia. It funny how you want us to go all the way back to 2005 and before. How about we stick with the past two or three years?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Jack is one of your puppets. Real or imagined makes no difference. He follows the same patter of damning Americans while calling them war mongers for criticizing Putin. I'll call the both of you and anyone else who trolls America all the derogatory names I want.

---

Quote:

---

Hey SIG.I have no intention of responding to your post

---

Quote:

---

I made my point and will continue to do so when it pleases me,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SIX, That's good news. I'm happy for you that life is looking up. I don't know how you accomplished it ... and knowing myself how hard it is to change ingrained habits and break addictions (like, yanno, food) ... all I can say is: Good on you for getting this far. It's certainly something that I look up to you for.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I would suggest to any American, particularly those in the MSM who's words travel far and wide, to not use cult-like rhetoric when speaking about their party of choice or to exhibit cult-like behavior in its name, lest they be labeled a cult.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Let me point out here that Jack constantly suggests some here get their news from MSM. And, that those who do are a part of a cult. He has a hateful view of them and expresses it often. He believes they create the stories that so upset him. Over and over again he criticizes MSM.

Folks, there is no such news outlet as MSM. MSN, is a collection of news stories that includes Fox and other conservative news outlets. If Jack ever looked up from his keyboard and read a story printed there, he would realize the site is bipartisan. It is a search engine controlled by Microsoft, used to attract viewers to their products, i.e. office and outlook.

Big point? Jack doesn't think before he attacks. Jack doesn't read news or research anything. Look at his posts. They are collectively negative responses to others posts, on topics of which he knows nothing. And that would make him, yep you guessed it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Obviously MSM means MainStream Media.

I don't know why you are pretending not to know that. Everybody else knows what MSM means.

The MSM encompasses MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, among others.

I don't know why I'm even explaining that to you. There's no possible way that somebody who uses the internet regularly in 2017 doesn't know what that means.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

If what you say is true then you have no honest source of news. If you think people who access main stream news are cultish, then you are not living in reality because reality is fake to you. It also means you refuse to research anything you have an opinion on Jack. How could you possible know what's what.

And that my dear Jack makes you in a very obvious and unacceptable manner, uninformed and ignorant about what you speak. Either way Jack the prognoses on you is bad.

I've wasted enough time with you Jack. It's like trying to make someone upstand something that's way over their head.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Obviously MSM means MainStream Media.

I don't know why you are pretending not to know that. Everybody else knows what MSM means.

The MSM encompasses MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, among others.

I don't know why I'm even explaining that to you. There's no possible way that somebody who uses the internet regularly in 2017 doesn't know what that means.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

If what you say is true then you have no honest source of news. If you think people who access main stream news are cultish, then you are not living in reality because reality is fake to you. It also means you refuse to research anything you have an opinion on Jack. How could you possible know what's what.

And that my dear Jack makes you in a very obvious and unacceptable manner, uninformed and ignorant about what you speak. Either way Jack the prognoses on you is bad.

I've wasted enough time with you Jack. It's like trying to make someone upstand something that's way over their head.

---

Quote:

---

If what you say is true then you have no honest source of news. If you think people who access main stream news are cultish, then you are not living in reality because reality is fake to you. It also means you refuse to research anything you have an opinion on. How could you possible know what's what. - THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

If what you say is true then you have no honest source of news. If you think people who access main stream news are cultish, then you are not living in reality because reality is fake to you. It also means you refuse to research anything you have an opinion on. How could you possible know what's what. - THUGR

---

Coming from you, that's a hoot! Dood, in the early days of chemistry some of the best research was done by Germans and Russians. Were scientists supposed to avoid reading something because it was written by a German or Russian?

You pay FAR too much attention to your sources because you "trust" and "believe" them, and you avoid sources of legitimate information because you don't "like" them. Now if THAT isn't a way to guarantee a distorted view of the world, I don't know what

---

Subjective bullshit SIG.

It isn't the writer ' mainstream media ' who is writing falsehoods, instead it is the reader who is bigoted against the writer. Bigoted against anything establishment. Jack is a beaten man. Anyone who is so against the mainstream is corrupted by defeat.

In this case Jack is bigoted against mainstream news and thinking because his life is a series of defeats. And lets not forget, Jack doesn't read news of any kind. That would be to much work. Nope, instead he just argues his point of view which is distorted by thses defeats.

Then there's you. Who's favorite source of news is a blog that twists the truth to suit their needs; sad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You don't know anything about me, T.

I've been turning my life around quite a bit this year and I've posted about it to you in several places, and you completely ignore that.

What have you done this year besides bitch and moan about everything, and kick people when they're down?

You're even more disgusting that Wishy is. At least she's got some excuses from living in a lot of pain and not having a great life. She didn't exactly have the greatest of hands dealt to her.

You're just an asshole to everyone who doesn't agree with you, just for the sake of being an asshole.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

What I've written is what you have posted about yourself. It explains why you think what you do. It shows your critical thinking skills to be saturated with the negative goings on in your life. What you post makes perfect sense when your background is visible. I don't do it to be mean. I do it in response to your negative uninformed postings regarding important issues.

First and foremost, my country is under attack by Russian trolls at the behest of Putin. The world is under attack from Russian trolls at the behest of Putin. They intentionally push peoples buttons in an attempt to ensue havoc and descent. Trumps administration before and after the election has lied across the board about any connection or contacts with Russia.

You dismiss it out of hand. For what reason I don't know. To me your deflection away from, and challenge to, anyone who keeps this subject in the forefront means you need to be challenged or ignored. I really need to start doing that.

What I post has to remain to my best ability, truthful. You should encourage that in yourself and others. Once a poster starts to manipulate the truth as SIG does they are not to be believed at all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You're a tin foil hat wearing looney toon.

You need to stop watching so much news and get a life.

---

You don't get it so I'll tell you again Jack. I'll also suggest you watch some news. Educate yourself of the facts.

What I've written is what you have posted about yourself. It explains why you think what you do. It shows your critical thinking skills to be saturated with the negative goings on in your life. What you post makes perfect sense when your background is visible. I don't do it to be mean. I do it in response to your negative uninformed postings regarding important issues.

First and foremost, my country is under attack by Russian trolls at the behest of Putin. The world is under attack from Russian trolls at the behest of Putin. They intentionally push peoples buttons in an attempt to ensue havoc and descent. Trumps administration before and after the election has lied across the board about any connection or contacts with Russia.

You dismiss it out of hand. For what reason I don't know. To me your deflection away from, and challenge to, anyone who keeps this subject in the forefront means you need to be challenged or ignored. I really need to start doing that.

What I post has to remain to my best ability, truthful. You should encourage that in yourself and others. Once a poster starts to manipulate the truth as SIG does they are not to be believed at all.

---