How to validate a stereotype, presented by Buzzfeed

Corso312

Corso312

Well-Known Member
The CIA is about as untrustworthy and deceitful as they come, pure scum... If they ever came clean about running guns, drugs and proxy wars I'd start to cut em some slack... Russia could have very well been behind the hack but I'd need more than those scumbags to say it to believe it...I'm not even interested in who's behind the hack, any transparency is good.
 
Justin-case

Justin-case

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
It came from a coalition of a dozen different nations governments from what I remember, headed by the US government

So why would someone claiming to be a liberal argue governments should automatically be trusted without reviewing the evidence first?
Click to expand...

They didn't just jump to conclusions on this. There has been ample time to review the evidence linking the Russian government to the hacks.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Justin-case said:
They didn't just jump to conclusions on this. There has been ample time to review the evidence linking the Russian government to the hacks.
Click to expand...
Can you provide some of the evidence that links Russia to the DNC hacks?

What would be so bad in the DNC emails that could influence the outcome of the election?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
How many democratically elected governments is the CIA responsible for ousting? The failed intel blunder that helped change American opinion to supporting war?
Click to expand...
go ahead and stop trusting in all institutions, including the CIA and the media.

trump and trump alone is the only one whose opinions you seem to mirror lately.

stick with that.

duct tape anal rape
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Justin-case said:
No, dumb question.
It has influenced you, has it not?
Click to expand...
In any other context, accepting proof without evidence would be wrong. Why do you believe it's right in this context?

Yes it has influenced me, but I'm not claiming the DNC didn't rig the primary like UncleBuck is. The only way the hacks could have influenced the election is if they exposed wrongdoing by the DNC and collusion between members of the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign. How can Buck claim the hacks influenced the election but the DNC didn't do anything wrong? If they didn't do anything wrong, what would there have been to expose?
 
Justin-case

Justin-case

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

Major General Michael Laurie, one of those involved in producing the dossier wrote to the Chilcot Inquiry in 2011 saying "the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."[6] On 26 June 2011, The Observer reported on a memo from John Scarlett to Blair's foreign affairs adviser, released under the Freedom of Information Act, which referred to "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional". The memo has been described as one of the most significant documents on the September dossier yet published as it is considered a proposal to mislead the public.[7]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top