Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby landrew » Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:56 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Unfortunately, Matt uses the same hard hitting belittling approach to all issues: whether he is right or WRONG.

He really should develop a second style.

One sure sign you have an immature opponent cornered in a debate, they go for the personal attacks. Instead of owning the fact that you may have helped to settle the argument by losing it. I wouldn't expect an apology, but you need to know when to back off.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:01 pm

By "you need to know when to back off" do you mean "moi?" Exactly where should I back off?===>not when responding to you I would think??

All three of us are big boys.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby landrew » Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:39 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:By "you need to know when to back off" do you mean "moi?" Exactly where should I back off?===>not when responding to you I would think??

All three of us are big boys.

Sorry, I didn't mean you. I meant the "you" metaphorically.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28326
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:20 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Unfortunately, Matt uses the same hard hitting belittling approach to all issues: whether he is right or WRONG.


That's the odd thing about being a lawyer and stating that Clapper was exonerated at law. You have to look up and cite legal cases. That's how I could say Nothing illegal happened.

American Civil Liberties Union v. James Clapper, No. 13-3994 (2013)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Unfortunately, Matt uses the same hard hitting belittling approach to all issues: whether he is right or WRONG.


That's the odd thing about being a lawyer and stating that Clapper was exonerated at law. You have to look up and cite legal cases. That's how I could say Nothing illegal happened.

American Civil Liberties Union v. James Clapper, No. 13-3994 (2013)

No....you are just plain WRONG, even as a lawyer. READ the fricking link: one judge ruled the activities Snowden leaked on were ILLEGAL VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Another judge said it was the program Snowden leaked on was legal. The public was in an uproar so the LAW WAS CHANGED making the subject moot.

Clapper has nothing to do with it.

Learn to tell {!#%@} from shinola.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:15 am

landrew wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:By "you need to know when to back off" do you mean "moi?" Exactly where should I back off?===>not when responding to you I would think??

All three of us are big boys.

Sorry, I didn't mean you. I meant the "you" metaphorically.

Clean up my typos and I can be quite confrontational, insightful, challenging, informative (always stretch goals) but never metaphorical.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28326
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:25 am

American Civil Liberties Union v. James Clapper, No. 13-3994 (2013) [/quote]
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Clapper has nothing to do with it.
Sooo..... Clapper, director of the DNI had nothing to do with the DNI (which directs the NSA) and the court case against him? You really are retarded. :lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No....you are just plain WRONG, even as a lawyer. READ the fricking link: one judge ruled the activities Snowden leaked on were ILLEGAL VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Another judge said it was the program Snowden leaked on was legal.
and what was the court's ruling? No law was broken.

"The court ruled that phone users had no reasonable expectation of privacy that would give them Fourth Amendment rights. Citing the 1979 Smith v. Maryland decision as precedent, the court found that, under the Fourth Amendment, individuals have no expectation of privacy for information they provide to third parties, like phone companies.[7][8][9] Because all the data collected by the NSA is voluntarily revealed to the phone companies by users, they cannot expect it to remain private. They find no reason Smith v. Maryland (1979), which found that similar phone metadata was outside the expectation of privacy, would not apply to the NSA's program"

Do you have another magic ruling that says otherwise? The second court appeal was dropped. :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:36 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The 10 Biggest Revelations From Edward Snowden's Leaks

https://mashable.com/2014/06/05/edward- ... _oZLGg3PqU

I'll go with No 1 on the list. US Laws changed as a result of the leak. No doublt, that law being violated as I type.

From the Link: "Privacy advocates have challenged the legality of the program in court, and one Judge deemed the program unconstitutional and "almost Orwellian," while another one ruled it legal.
The uproar caused by this first story has led President Barack Obama to endorse a reform to the program, and the House of Representatives to pass the first law that tries to change it."

The link of the judge ruling the activities ILLEGAL and Orwellian: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... 3cv0851-48 or Klayman v Klayman.

It is idiotic, disingenuous, and downright stupid to say that a law is legal by referencing the lawsuit that found it legal while totally ignoring the lawsuit that found it illegal. =======>THEN THE LAW WAS CHANGED, making the issue moot.

Yes Matt: find a bag of white and black marbles all mixed up and throw away all the white ones. Now you have a bag of black marbles.

Brilliant!
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:49 am

All to the point: if one court agrees with Snowden that his leaked material showed an illegal Orwellian violation of Constitutional rights...…………...NO ONE...…..can legitimately say his activities were not justified. No matter what happens in the courts later or elsewhere.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13093
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby JO 753 » Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:44 pm

Dont take it personal. He will progress to starting every post with 'you idiot' if he disagreez with anything and anybody (exept Pyrrho).

Think uv it az a repetativ stress war injury from hiz battle agenst neo-Nazi holocost denyrz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:15 pm

I don't mind any name calling at all....filtered out as non-substantive. But then: so is everything else he posts. I do believe Matt is capable of being insightful but not yet, not once, have I seen him admit to a mistake or misspeak. He's a legend in his own mind. One kind of woo, fighting all the other kinds.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

Postby landrew » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:53 pm

Being hunted by a posse, doesn't always make you the hero of the story.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests