Orange Garbage fires McCabe 2 days before he retires to mess w his pension

[StLucieBengal]

(03-20-2018, 01:38 AM)Dill Wrote: The worry is less about the pension than about a president who blatantly and publicly interferes with judicial process to vindictively punish opponents.

The charge against McCabe, so far as I know, is lack of candor relating to so-called "press leaks."  His defense is that the so-called leaks went through an authorized and routine protocol, and were necessary to counter fake news and rumors about FBI activity.

Except for this charge, he appears to have been an upstanding agent for over two decades.  There could be more charges against him on Fox News, but I am unaware of them.

Flynn lied, actually lied, about many things. Took money without properly reporting it, was serving as NSC advisor while on another country's payroll, trying to skate around intel protocols for meeting foreign agents, etc. etc.

Just because you perceive Trunp is trying to punish an opponent doesn’t make it so...... and might I remind you that this investigation started because McCabe was considered to be a leaker and hurting Hillary Clinton. Your boy Obama got this investigation started.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-19-2018, 07:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would just reiterate that former agents actually guilty of crimes were afforded the ability to retire with their pensions. I know there was an agent that assisted Bulger, and I am fairly certain that Hanssen, who spied on behalf of the USSR and later Russia, was granted his pension. I have no objections to there being a line that we draw and say that it disqualifies you from a pension, I do have objections for that line being arbitrary based on politics.

I agree with you here. I'm personally of the mind that if you break the law or your break the rules of the job you work for and the consequence is that you are to be terminated from employment, then that's what it should be. And that goes for those before McCabe that were allowed to retire instead of being fired.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2018, 01:18 AM)Dill Wrote: I doubt the mods see any "lies." They do see the accusations though.

Why do you prefer chatter about Dabo to demonstration, or at least a civil response?

If the post I posted of your claim that CNN had lost credibility with you is not the right post in which you claim CNN had lost credibility with you, then why can't you show us which post you mean?  You put out the challenge, and until you can demonstrate otherwise, it has been met. 

Even if you cannot demonstrate why what I quoted/argued is "weakness" or a lie, impotent personal attacks are not your only option.

Calling a lie a lie is not a personal attack.  The post in question was in there, for some reason though it was buried amongst irrelevancies.  I, correctly, claimed that CNN has lost credibility.  In no way did I state that one side or the other was correct.  Hence you are lying when you claim otherwise.  If you believe being called out on your lies to be personal then I suggest you stop lying.

[Belsnickel]

(03-20-2018, 11:10 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I agree with you here. I'm personally of the mind that if you break the law or your break the rules of the job you work for and the consequence is that you are to be terminated from employment, then that's what it should be. And that goes for those before McCabe that were allowed to retire instead of being fired.

Indeed. It should be a policy and those guidelines should be in place. Career staffers are not above reproach, but disciplinary actions towards them need to not be politically based. You will always have political appointees that are going to be the ones handing down the discipline once you get to a certain point, but the rules should not be arbitrary. They should be clear cut and well defined, because if they are not then we are reverting back to a spoils system of governance which is not effective for our current administrative state.

I know that probably went a bit more in depth than you were thinking, or anyone else, but this is my public admin/policy side coming out.

[Arturo Bandini]

The last time I remember a dude claiming that everybody was lying except him, complaining about witch hunts and plots, threatening others in every sentence it was ... Lance Armstrong.

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 11:11 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Calling a lie a lie is not a personal attack.  The post in question was in there, for some reason though it was buried amongst irrelevancies.  I, correctly, claimed that CNN has lost credibility.  In no way did I state that one side or the other was correct.  Hence you are lying when you claim otherwise.  If you believe being called out on your lies to be personal then I suggest you stop lying.

Of course, the post is in there, buried among "irrelevancies" lol.   The issue is not whether you thought CNN lost credibility. I repeat, NO ONE ever said you did not say "CNN lost credibility for you." So no one is "claiming otherwise" and therefore lying, certainly not me, SINCE I JUST PROVED YOU SAID IT.  So in the quote above you are "calling out" a lie no one made.

And someone who consistently calls others "liars" is indeed personally attacking them if he can't ever seem to prove the charge, or must construct strawmen to do so. The accusation is just fog. Nothing turns a thread south faster.

To clear the fog, again: on this thread and another, we see the same pattern--

1.  A poster responds to an issue by saying we don't have enough info to determine who is in the wrong.

2. You pop up claiming one side is at fault-- either X or Y.

3. so, incredibly, you attack the neutral poster for "accusing" or "asserting" that one side must be lying or corrupt--apparently the side you favor . . .

4. . . since your next move is to assess the credibility of one side to favor judgment towards the other.  I "have" to be accusing your survivor of lying when CNN has lost credibility? Why say something like that if your ONLY POINT was SOMEONE was lying.

5. I respond by questioning whether the issue can be shoehorned into an either/or, and whether taking a neutral position is in itself "accusation."   You have never responded to either of these points of argument on either thread.  

6. This ended badly for you on the CNN thread, as your favored "massacre survivor" turned out to be the liar.

7. At which point your position was suddenly revised--ALL you said was someone must be lying, as if you had never gone to the mat for your survivor's credibility over CNN. 

8. then you bring up the CNN fiasco on this thread as a triumph of discerning judgment.

9. And Fred calls you on it. 

10. Rather than calling you a liar, I repost the essential points of the CNN thread and align them with your points on this thread.

11.  In response you call me a liar before actually looking at my post, then when your factual error is revealed, you refute an argument that was never made.

[*bfine32*]

(03-20-2018, 07:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope, because it is arbitrary and political. That is worse.

If McCabe committed a fireable offense then I don't see how the decision to fire him can be arbitrary. Everything any politician does is political.  

[Belsnickel]

(03-20-2018, 01:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If McCabe committed a fireable offense then I don't see how the decision to fire him can be arbitrary. Everything any politician does is political.  

The timing of the dismissal, and thus the impact to McCabe's pension, was at the discretion of Sessions. That makes the decision arbitrary and political. Were there policies in place regarding how this works then it removes that discretion and makes it not arbitrary and not political.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-20-2018, 01:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The timing of the dismissal, and thus the impact to McCabe's pension, was at the discretion of Sessions. That makes the decision arbitrary and political. Were there policies in place regarding how this works then it removes that discretion and makes it not arbitrary and not political.

But it wouldn't be arbitrary if it were political.  

[Belsnickel]

(03-20-2018, 01:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But it wouldn't be arbitrary if it were political.  

Hmm, true. I was using that word wrong.

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 12:05 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: The last time I remember a dude claiming that everybody was lying except him, complaining about witch hunts and plots, threatening others in every sentence it was ... Lance Armstrong.

LOL It was a witchhunt! The French were embarrassed at his American domination of the Tour!

Hang in there Lance. I still believe you!  Lying French media!  

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 11:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Just because you perceive Trunp is trying to punish an opponent doesn’t make it so......      and might I remind you that this investigation started because McCabe was considered to be a leaker and hurting Hillary Clinton.     Your boy Obama got this investigation started.

What "makes it so" is the constant public tweeting about the matter and the pressure Trump puts on Sessions.  You agree the tweets exist, right?  They are part of your "perception" too, yes?

Now help me out a little bit here--my boy Obama got the investigation started, so how does that refute the charge Trump, unlike Obama, has befouled the investigation by continual, very public interference? 

If Mcabe was a "leaker hurting Hillary Clinton," how does that make him a stooge of the Obama deep state out to bring down Trump?

[StLucieBengal]

(03-20-2018, 07:43 PM)Dill Wrote: What "makes it so" is the constant public tweeting about the matter and the pressure Trump puts on Sessions.  You agree the tweets exist, right?  They are part of your "perception" too, yes?

Now help me out a little bit here--my boy Obama got the investigation started, so how does that refute the charge Trump, unlike Obama, has befouled the investigation by continual, very public interference? 

If Mcabe was a "leaker hurting Hillary Clinton," how does that make him a stooge of the Obama deep state out to bring down Trump?

The power you give those tweets is hilarious.

[Arturo Bandini]

(03-20-2018, 07:36 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL It was a witchhunt! The French were embarrassed at his American domination of the Tour!

Hang in there Lance. I still believe you!  Lying French media!  

The funny thing is that I remember clearly that I had that kind of discussion with people here when I came in the former forum and I was a newbie here and that was a typical answer  and I had some rough times when I said he was the biggest fraud in sports history.

That was a long time ago ... It just makes me feel that I virtually know some members of this board for most than 12 or 13 years. Hell, it's going fast ( and we still didn't have win a playoff game and Marvin is still there  )

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 09:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The power you give those tweets is hilarious.

An out of control president is no laughing matter.

Not going to answer my questions?

[StLucieBengal]

(03-20-2018, 10:58 PM)Dill Wrote: An out of control president is no laughing matter.

Not going to answer my questions?

Trump has not stopped any investigation. Just because he tweets some randomness it doesn’t mean he is stopping any investigations.

McCabe is a stooge and a liar.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2018, 12:45 PM)Dill Wrote: 1.  A poster responds to an issue by saying we don't have enough info to determine who is in the wrong.

2. You pop up claiming one side is at fault-- either X or Y.

Thus far you're doing ok, except your assertion in #1 is rather generous.

Quote:3. so, incredibly, you attack the neutral poster for "accusing" or "asserting" that one side must be lying or corrupt--apparently the side you favor . . .

Except they weren't neutral, no rational person would have inferred this.

Quote:4. . . since your next move is to assess the credibility of one side to favor judgment towards the other.  I "have" to be accusing your survivor of lying when CNN has lost credibility? Why say something like that if your ONLY POINT was SOMEONE was lying.

Does any person really think CNN hasn't lost credibility as a pure news source in the past year or so?

Quote:5. I respond by questioning whether the issue can be shoehorned into an either/or, and whether taking a neutral position is in itself "accusation."   You have never responded to either of these points of argument on either thread.  

It clearly was an either/or.

Quote:6. This ended badly for you on the CNN thread, as your favored "massacre survivor" turned out to be the liar.

Hahaha, "my favored 'massacre survivor'".  I made no inclination towards either side.  I pointed out that CNN would have been automatically believed in the past, now not so much.  You know, they lost credibility in other words.

Quote:7. At which point your position was suddenly revised--ALL you said was someone must be lying, as if you had never gone to the mat for your survivor's credibility over CNN. 

I never did.  Asserting that I did is a pure lie,  See, you're lying again and I'm calling you a liar.  Stop lying if you dislike being called out for lying.

Quote:8. then you bring up the CNN fiasco on this thread as a triumph of discerning judgment.

Hahaha, I brought it up as pure bait, bait you swallowed whole like a good little fish.  See, you're an educated person, but you're not very smart.  This is a perfect example.

Quote:9. And Fred calls you on it. 

Also swallowing the bait whole.  Must be something about you and your buddies that you are so easy to lure.

Quote:10. Rather than calling you a liar, I repost the essential points of the CNN thread and align them with your points on this thread.

Looking like a liar yourself in the process. 

Quote:11.  In response you call me a liar before actually looking at my post, then when your factual error is revealed, you refute an argument that was never made.

Wait factual error?  You refute an argument that I never made.  

[Dill]

 

(03-20-2018, 12:45 PM)Dill Wrote: To clear the fog, again: on this thread and another, we see the same pattern--

1.  A poster responds to an issue by saying we don't have enough info to determine who is in the wrong.

2. You pop up claiming one side is at fault-- either X or Y.

3. so, incredibly, you attack the neutral poster for "accusing" or "asserting" that one side must be lying or corrupt--apparently the side you favor . . .

4. . . since your next move is to assess the credibility of one side to favor judgment towards the other.  I "have" to be accusing your survivor of lying when CNN has lost credibility? Why say something like that if your ONLY POINT was SOMEONE was lying.

FROM THE CNN THREAD

(02-23-2018, 01:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: he said they said

So, either this student is lying or CNN is.  Your assertion then is that this student, who survived a massacre, is lying to score political points?

FROM THIS THREAD

(03-19-2018, 01:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: GMDino Wrote: Had the POTUS not called for his firing long before said report you might have a better point.  It "seems" like a report to justify a move already planned.  Time will tell, as they say.

So then, your accusation is that the men and women in the FBI's internal investigations unit fabricated the results of their investigation at the whim of Sessions or Trump?  It's either McCabe was found to be involved in unethical conduct or numerous people in the internal investigations department are engaged in unethical conduct.

You will grant that you impute an assertion and an accusation here which are not actually stated, right? 

Would you grant that people's statements may imply claims left unstated? Or how else do you get "this student is lying" from "he said they said"?
Why add he"survived a massacre"?

To put it another way, why don't you just get "he said they said"?  Even if one party must be lying, my statement doesn't incline one way or another,
but you read it as doing exactly that. Then add the other party,which has not survived a massacre, has lost credibility.

Dino did not say the FBI fabricated results. Why are you imputing that accusation for him?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-21-2018, 12:33 AM)Dill Wrote:  

FROM THE CNN THREAD


FROM THIS THREAD

I find it endlessly entertaining that you don't get what's going on here.

Quote:You will grant that you impute an assertion and an accusation here which are not actually stated, right?

 
It could happen, I do enjoy taking the piss out of perceived assumptions.  You don't seem to understand this.

Quote:Would you grant that people's statements may imply claims left unstated? Or how else do you get "this student is lying" from "he said they said"?
Why add he"survived a massacre"?

Perhaps because these students are ascribed a near mythical relevance to the gun control debate simply by dint of being present at this school during the shooting?  Let me ask you this, do David Hogg or Emma Gonzalez have any special insight into the gun control debate that Joe Citizen does not have?  If they don't then why would anyone listen to them?

Quote:To put it another way, why don't you just get "he said they said"?  Even if one party must be lying, my statement doesn't incline one way or another,
but you read it as doing exactly that. Then add the other party,which has not survived a massacre, has lost credibility. 

Because CNN has lost credibility in recent times.  I don't know many, if any, people who deny this.

Quote:Dino did not say the FBI fabricated results. Why are you imputing that accusation for him?

Because his past accusations lend themselves to this conclusion.

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 11:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:11.  In response you call me a liar before actually looking at my post, then when your factual error is revealed, you refute an argument that was never made.

Wait factual error?  You refute an argument that I never made.  

I reposted your "CNN lacks credibility" post. You said I posted the wrong one. I did not. You made a reading error, not following the argument, and so stated something not factually true. Which you admit here, after tossing in a meaningless, feelgood claim you were correct about CNN :

(03-20-2018, 11:11 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Calling a lie a lie is not a personal attack.  The post in question was in there, for some reason though it was buried amongst irrelevancies.  I, correctly, claimed that CNN has lost credibility.  In no way did I state that one side or the other was correct.  Hence you are lying when you claim otherwise.  If you believe being called out on your lies to be personal then I suggest you stop lying.

My response:

(03-20-2018, 12:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course, the post is in there, buried among "irrelevancies" lol.   The issue is not whether you thought CNN lost credibility. I repeat, NO ONE ever said you did not say "CNN lost credibility for you." So no one is "claiming otherwise" and therefore lying, certainly not me, SINCE I JUST PROVED YOU SAID IT.  So in the quote above you are "calling out" a lie no one made.

The original claim was this, as restated in #55 above:  In short, your points were not simply to establish that "someone was lying"--which no one disputed or was interested in disputing--but to establish a likelihood of who was lying.  This appears to be what you re calling a "lie."

"Points" refers to all the chatter about massacre survivors and CNN credibility which cannot be explained if all you meant to do was claim "someone was lying."

Same argument, mutatis mutandis, applies to the accusation you accuse Dino of.  You throw out an either x/or y and accuse someone of calling one side a liar.  Claim you are not taking sides yourself.

So you wade into two different threads dealing with two different topics accusing two different posters of accusing others of lying. When your method is challenged, your challenger is a "liar" too.