Re: L'affaire Rice
 

A totally credible defense. We have yet to get that info. But as I understand it, she had to chose who to unmask based on the substance of conversations. If these conversations were regarding potential criminal acts, fine. If it was just political talk or regular business, not fine.

Unknown.

She has said she did not, and WSJ has written that there was another person involved in ordering the unmasking. She has also denied doing so on TV. I doubt she'd lie like that if she had been the leaker. So my guess is, she is not the leak.

I'm not parroting the Admin's talking points. I cited a story stating that she had unmasked Trump admin people. The Bloomberg story said this was unusual, but not necessarily criminal.

But as to why I'd cite this story, here? This story upsets the narrative here. Any fact that challenges a narrative, any fact that contradicts any person's belief, should be shown to that person. That's the essence of a thinking public: Holding no story too dearly... always being upon to taking a 180 on anything you've heard, and almost any value you hold. If I had a dream, it would be for people to believe in next to nothing, and always be open to suggestion. How much more interesting of a world would that be?

Yes. Absolutely. I support a full investigation of the Russia connection.

Believe nothing. Stop taking a side. Stop falling right into Trump's, and the larger political machine's, playbook. Stop deifying people, and getting behind politicians. The system is broken.

Assume it's all worth nothing but extreme skepticism. And try to work across the aisle. Become post-party.

Be an angry moderate. It's not a solution, but it's an essential starting point for any useful one.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Still ignoring my point. I'm stunned.

Today's Daily Dose is a slow burning organ-driven instrumental. James Polk and the Brothers with "Just Plain Funk."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzCTiO6Ydqs

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Happened to me re healthcare just recently. Shocking!

Cernovich is a true prince.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

I offered substance. Flower said he's more interested in the messenger.

You may be interested exclusively in facts. The rest of this board is not. There is very much an emotional pull in a lot of the stuff written here.

This board isn't alone. I'll credit it that. There's such a crazy split in the country right now... I've seen grown people argue like it's high school debate class. In bars, in restaurants. It's nuts. And a lot of it is orchestrated.

People do realize, the media doesn't really care. Maddow is on Maddow's side. As O'Reilly is on O'Reill'y side... as are the rest of them. This is their golden era -- the greatest political firestorm in history. From Vox, to the New Yorker, to Drudge, to Brietbart, the framers of this fiasco are its chief profiteers. And the arguments we're having right here - which are only exclusively substantive so long as that substance does not challenge the left-lean of this board's posters - are feeding the frenzy.

It's all quite emotional. But yes -- that is what makes it fascinating.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

That's not the standard. They can be unmasked if doing so makes the intelligence easier to understand.

If you want to keep making the most that can be made of this, follow Eli Lake's lead:

No, the Bloomberg story said:

One day you'll finally be able to admit to yourself that you're not a moderate.

ETA: You know what's telling about your "outside it all" posing? I finally actually read the Cernovich post. No one objective would have failed to see the red flags (not about his sociopathy, but the substance). He explicitly argues that the unmasking proves that Trump was "being spied" on during the campaign. You can't see how that's a ridiculous overstatement?

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

The idea that there's something scandalous in a top national security official wanting to know who's talking to agents of the Russian government -- that's totally absurd. The people trumpeting this nonsense are doing it for the most transparently bogus reasons. Sebby wants to keep a little distance from them, but it's hard to sling shit without smelling like it. But that's OK, because he doesn't really believe it -- he's trolling us, and enjoying the outraged reaction.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

No. I did not. If you want to understand the effect making untrue statements like this has on your credibility, and how doings so tends to make people disregard everything you write as utter bullshit, you should go back and read what I actually wrote. Ha ha ha, JK!!!! I know you won't actually do that.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

A troll knows that what he's saying is bullshit. Sebby likes to pretend otherwise, but as his track record with Hillary demonstrates, he actually believes Rice was likely up to something nefarious.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

No point here worth considering.

Bloomberg was cited offering the same info in the same post. Your suspicion of Bloomberg was?

I fully expect that. If the opposite were to occur, I'd be disturbed. If you can;t free the Id here...? I mean, really.

I didn't think it needed addressing, or was interesting. In much the same way, I read Ty's health care bit yesterday, found it more slieght of hand than substance, thought about replying, but then figured, "Eh, fuck it. He missed my point, I missed his, and we'll never agree."

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

I uh... get that. I. Don't. Find. It. Interesting. Don't care.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

I still think she did something illegal (not the emails, but re the fund). I also think someone under Trump did something illegal.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Not exactly. He doesn't care about whether it's true or not, but there has to be something to it for it to have the right effect.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Masterfull trolling, sir! To Adder's point, not completely inaccurate. You did miss my point, but I granted yours. And more importantly, you basically couldn't be bothered to respond. But you do intuit that calling my post "sleight of hand" will irritate me, so job done. Of course we'll never agree -- you're trying to get a rise out of people, not agree with them.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Right. And I believe it was the NSA's Hayden who said this could be used to "reverse acquire" political info.

Who care about that? I figure you're enough of an adult to ignore the messenger, particularly alongside a Bloomberg cite. I thought wrong.

Was he wrong about Rice having gotten the info?

Re: Aca
 

I do not agree with this, but I'll grant it, as you granted my earlier point.

The rights of individuals to buy the policies they feel like buying trump the interests of cost-sharing.

Finding that some people deserve to have their costs offset by forcing others to buy insurance is a troubling encroachment enough. That they must do so in particular form of policy is beyond the pale.