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

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-21-2018, 01:13 AM)Dill Wrote: 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 :

My response:

Yeah, I missed it in the myriad of other pointless crap.  I admitted this, deal with it.

Quote: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."

Incorrect.  I made the point that CNN would have been automatically believed in the past, now not so much.  This basic point continues to elude you.

Quote:"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."

Uh, yeah.

Quote: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.

If you claim I am taking sides then, by definition you admit GM is doing the same.  You can't have it both ways.

Quote: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.  

The only liar I accused of lying is you.  As you are clearly a liar I am very comfortable with the label I have applied to yo.

[Dill]

(03-21-2018, 12:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

LOL "perhaps"? And still affirming CNN has lost credibility, like a security blanket.

"Near mythical relevance" does not logically get you from he said they said  to "Your assertion is this massacre survivor is a liar."
What gets you there, motivates you to go there, is an erroneous presumption the boy is more credible.

If you agree that statements may imply something unsaid (that is why you address actually unstated "assertions" and "accusations" of others) then you should agree the same holds for you

If CNN has lost credibility and your massacre survivor has gained it, then how are you not saying Haag is the more credible here?

(03-21-2018, 12:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

So you waded into the thread imputing to Dino a claim others were lying, not based upon what he wrote but upon your assumptions about past "accusations." 
Guessing that's why you waded into the CNN thread imputing to me a claim others were lying.

Dino and I don't wade into threads looking for liars and people calling others liars.

And you would call us "liars" if we did that to you.  That's how you find liars everywhere.

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 11:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. 

I guess you do respond--by simply repeating the claim under question.

So you are saying it cannot be that

1) McCabe is guilty AND

2) the process of firing him was also corrupt?

That is simply NOT an empirical possibility, both/and, because. . . .?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(03-20-2018, 08:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I very well may change my position once everything is clear, but with what is public, I wouldn't side with firing for this issue. 

I tell people all the time "I may change my mind the more information I'm given."  My position at the moment is that it seems vindictive and political by our President. As Dino and others have said "we shall see..."

Since I think the Prez is a dick and vindictive, I'd be surprised if I'm wrong.

However, I've been wrong before so we'll all take that with a grain of salt. :andy:

[ballsofsteel]

Do I understand this correctly. Sessions, on orders from Drumph fired McCabe based on a report by the Inspector General? Nobody has seen this "report" yet except the IG, Sessions and maybe Drumph. Is this correct? Will this "report" be made public? Is it based on fact?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-21-2018, 01:51 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL "perhaps"? And still affirming CNN has lost credibility, like a security blanket.

Are you actually asserting they have not?  You'd be in the minority in this regard I can assure you. 

Quote:"Near mythical relevance" does not logically get you from he said they said  to "Your assertion is this massacre survivor is a liar."
What gets you there, motivates you to go there, is an erroneous presumption the boy is more credible.

You still don't get it.  I'll spell it out like I'm talking to a child.  These kids have been endowed with near mythic potency by many, their every utterance is to be hung on.  Of course, we're talking about the anti-gun survivors.  My obvious point was expressing faux outrage that one of these kids assertions dare be questioned.  

Quote:If you agree that statements may imply something unsaid (that is why you address actually unstated "assertions" and "accusations" of others) then you should agree the same holds for you

Sure, if I was actually making a pro or anti statement about either party.

Quote:If CNN has lost credibility and your massacre survivor has gained it, then how are you not saying Haag is the more credible here?

Wouldn't Haag have to have established some credibility before he gained or lost it?  As a brand new figure he has no credibility baseline for him to add or subtract from.  Seriously, the fact that such simple points completely elude you is baffling to me.

Quote:So you waded into the thread imputing to Dino a claim others were lying, not based upon what he wrote but upon your assumptions about past "accusations." 
Guessing that's why you waded into the CNN thread imputing to me a claim others were lying.

In a way that you completely didn't get.  You're the type of guy who doesn't get Norm MacDonald.

Quote:Dino and I don't wade into threads looking for liars and people calling others liars.

Stop white knighting your little internet buddies, it's embarrassing and nobody but the three of you give a crap.

Quote:And you would call us "liars" if we did that to you.  That's how you find liars everywhere.

Liar. 

(03-21-2018, 02:00 AM)Dill Wrote: I guess you do respond--by simply repeating the claim under question.

So you are saying it cannot be that

1) McCabe is guilty AND

2) the process of firing him was also corrupt?

That is simply NOT an empirical possibility, both/and, because. . . .?

This is the second time you've included words in a "quote" of mine that I did not type.  I would kindly remind you that this is a violation of the CoC for this board.  As I know you are fond of running to the mods when you feel the CoC has been violated I expect you to promptly report yourself to them for disciplinary action.

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2018, 07:09 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Do I understand this correctly. Sessions, on orders from Drumph fired McCabe based on a report by the Inspector General? Nobody has seen this "report" yet except the IG, Sessions and maybe Drumph. Is this correct? Will this "report" be made public? Is it based on fact?

Nah, I'm not sure you understand correctly. It appears you are getting your "news" from biased sources such as this Message Board. Everything I've seen and read (regardless what commentary biased sources try to add) states that McCabe was fired by the AG following recommendations from both the Justice Department's inspector general and the FBI office that handles discipline (non-political indites). The White House has continually said that they left the firing to the discretion of the AG. But folks don't like Trump so you will get false assertions and you can find no better example than the title of this thread.

Reports are that McCabe "lacked candor" (read withheld information) while under oath. Will we ever see the report? I have no idea why we should, but hopefully, we see a full report and findings of the Mueller investigation.


On a side note: Dill and SSF, get a room.

[Dill]

(03-21-2018, 09:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are you actually asserting they have not?  You'd be in the minority in this regard I can assure you. 
You still don't get it.  I'll spell it out like I'm talking to a child.  These kids have been endowed with near mythic potency by many, their every utterance is to be hung on.  Of course, we're talking about the anti-gun survivors.  My obvious point was expressing faux outrage that one of these kids assertions dare be questioned.  
Sure, if I was actually making a pro or anti statement about either party.
Wouldn't Haag have to have established some credibility before he gained or lost it?  As a brand new figure he has no credibility baseline for him to add or subtract from.  Seriously, the fact that such simple points completely elude you is baffling to me.
In a way that you completely didn't get.  You're the type of guy who doesn't get Norm MacDonald.

Stop white knighting your little internet buddies, it's embarrassing and nobody but the three of you give a crap.
Liar. 

To keep on track--the issue was never whether either Haag or CNN actually had credibility, just as the immediate issue (between you, me, Fred, and Dino) on this thread was not whether McCabe or the FBI had credibility.

The question has always been whether your challenges favored one side over the other, while maintaining either one must be lying or the other. So "spelling out" why Haab has cred and repeating CNN doesn't is just hopefully spinning discussion off into other, safer, issues.

So back to my still unanswered point about what can logically be derived from neutral claims like "he said they said" or "time will tell."  Nothing in that statement implies I am calling the boy a liar, but you nevertheless saw an "accusation" there, not of CNN but of the boy, just as you saw an "assertion" about the FBI in Dino's statement, not about McCabe. (You have admitted than in Dino's case your prejudgment informed your reading of his actual statement.  You were responding more to your beliefs about Dino than what he actually wrote.)

Once this is pointed out, all we have from you is ad hocery about how your ONLY point was "someone" was lying, as if no one noticed all the additional points about survivors and CNN's lost cred. Followed by fogging, personal attacks, scattershot quips, and lots of talk about CNN. "Liars" just "don't get" your points and, when forced to explain, you don't seem to get them either. 

Of interest is that, independently of actual content, the same logical/argumentative form was repeated on this thread, starting with your challenge that someone must be calling someone a liar. either/or. And when I start taking apart your claims, accurately quoting them, then I too am a liar.  Lying everywhere. Fake news.

[Dill]

(03-21-2018, 09:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: I guess you do respond--by simply repeating the claim under question.

So you are saying it cannot be that

1) McCabe is guilty AND

2) the process of firing him was also corrupt?

That is simply NOT an empirical possibility, both/and, because. . . .?

This is the second time you've included words in a "quote" of mine that I did not type.  I would kindly remind you that this is a violation of the CoC for this board.  As I know you are fond of running to the mods when you feel the CoC has been violated I expect you to promptly report yourself to them for disciplinary action.

So you think I'm responsible for your recent suspension, not your own behavior? The mods warn you repeatedly, but you keep violating, and mocking, the CoC. You publicly brag of your resort to personal attack and publicly affirm you have no real goal in engaging three forum members other than that, leaving the mods no choice. You cannot stop yourself even now. I don't have to do anything. 

And fine if you complain to the mods that I have placed my words in a quote of yours. Flag the post right now. If you can't show me where that happened, you certainly can't show them.

Back to the question I posed:  You say that EITHER McCabe is guilty OR the process by which he was fired is corrupt.

It cannot be that BOTH that McCabe is guilty AND the process by which he was fired is corrupt because . . . ?

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2018, 12:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Back to the question I posed:  You say that EITHER McCabe is guilty OR the process by which he was fired is corrupt.

It cannot be that BOTH that McCabe is guilty AND the process by which he was fired is corrupt because . . . ?

Because the process used to fire McCabe consisted of apolitical organizations making the recommendation to the AG. What is flawed about that, except you don't like the result? 

[Dill]

(03-21-2018, 01:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because the process used to fire McCabe consisted of apolitical organizations making the recommendation to the AG. What is flawed about that, except you don't like the result? 

My point to SSF was not about whether McCabe actually was lying or whether the process actually was flawed.

The strictly logical aspect of my point was that shoehorning this type of opposition between an individual and a process which involves many individuals into a disjunctive (either/or) claim--either McCabe is guilty or the process is corrupt--is flawed logic;  and for any observer trying to reach a fair determination of what happened on the information available, it is distortive.

Imagine that in the room next door we hear a shot. We rush into the room and see Bpat dead on the floor next to a gun, with Lucy and SSF standing above him.  A good detective would not immediately assume EITHER SSF OR Lucy killed Bpat.  Perhaps one did, but perhaps they worked together (Both/And). Perhaps Bpat killed himself (Neither/Nor).

A detective who from the get go assumed it was Either/OR would be closing himself off to other possibilities, and that closure would affect the search for and evaluation of evidence--especially if he were already prejudiced one way.  

Same for this conflict between McCabe and the Justice Dept as it stands right now. It is entirely possible BOTH that McCabe did show "lack of candor" AND the process was corrupt.  Dino wanted to hold off judgment. SSF begged to differ, insisting this was either/or right now. Dino's neutral forumlation: "Time will tell"=an assertion "the FBI was corrupt" in SSF's forumulation.

You might argue the analogy is flawed, since this case is already legally settled. The detective has done his work. And you might be right, if Trump had not been constantly and publicly heaping condemnation upon a potential witness against him.  Now it appears the case was selected out of a larger investigation and put on a uniquely vindictive timetable for no reason other than to please the boss.  That ambiguity and apparent vindicitiveness is what prompted Bpat to start this thread.  If Trump did influence that timetable, then McCabe's actual guilt would not absolve the process from censure.

Shifting to a different point--The question of timing is kind of a big deal, in part BECAUSE some on this thread have shrugged off McCabe's lost pension as the only issue. It is ultimately up to the people to check Executive overreach, but they must be able to recognize it first.