First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Ex CIA Guy Talks About Stuff That Makes You Go, Hmmm....
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/3/17

qwueri wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:

But the arguments I get are, "He's a Truther." "He's bat-shit crazy." "He's fabricated all of that crap." Without one iota of evidence to back these claims. Why? Because he's giving President Trump a chance, and wants to work with President Trump. That's why.


I'm pretty sure the 'why' is because the whole thing smells of conspiracy theory bullshit, from which you edited out the pedophilia accusations he was making to presumably make him seem slightly more sane at a glance.


But no evidence to back your assertion. Right?
qwueri 
24158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/3/17

DeadlyOats wrote:

But no evidence to back your assertion. Right?


Evidence that the CIA isn't promoting pedophilia? I'll stay out of that rabbit-hole, thanks.

Publishing books and working in the agency does not automatically make him or anyone else an expert on policy, and certainly not all that significant on the political spectrum. The way you edited out the pedo accusations just makes this whole thing look more like liberal baiting than serious discussion.
55268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/3/17
It'll make Serial Killers go hmmm... LOL
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/3/17

qwueri wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:

But no evidence to back your assertion. Right?


Evidence that the CIA isn't promoting pedophilia? I'll stay out of that rabbit-hole, thanks.

Publishing books and working in the agency does not automatically make him or anyone else an expert on policy, and certainly not all that significant on the political spectrum. The way you edited out the pedo accusations just makes this whole thing look more like liberal baiting than serious discussion.


You are purposely lying. You know I meant that you have no evidence to say he has no place to say his say. You can't say, he didn't work in the CIA. You can't say he didn't consult with the Marine Corp to help them develop their own intelligence unit. You can't say he is not an expert in his field.

I opaqued the pedo stuff, because I don't want to derail the purpose of this thread, which is to discus why and how the intelligence agencies need to be reformed. They are breaking all kinds of laws. Also, to discus our need to reform electoral laws. Serious doubt has been cast on our election system. Reforms are needed there, too.

Yet you won't discuss any of that. You only want to cast aspersions on him, because he supports President Trump!
qwueri 
24158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 2/3/17 , edited 2/3/17

DeadlyOats wrote:

You are purposely lying. You know I meant that you have no evidence to say he has no place to say his say. You can't say, he didn't work in the CIA. You can't say he didn't consult with the Marine Corp to help them develop their own intelligence unit. You can't say he is not an expert in his field.

I opaqued the pedo stuff, because I don't want to derail the purpose of this thread, which is to discus why and how the intelligence agencies need to be reformed. They are breaking all kinds of laws. Also, to discus our need to reform electoral laws. Serious doubt has been cast on our election system. Reforms are needed there, too.

Yet you won't discuss any of that. You only want to cast aspersions on him, because he supports President Trump!


I know you're shifting goal-posts a day after everyone reacted largely to the dude's pedo allegations and the general dubious way you've presented him, edited that part out, and are now trying to paint it as slamming who the guy supports despite that only coming up in your own posts (with one poke from Runec about the hyperbolic nature of one of his book covers/titles). At least have the decency to poke at nonexistent strawmen rather than shift the context posters are replying to.

*Edit: Although to be fair the pedo accusations were just the cherry on top of the turd cake for me. The OP is a brief biopic for a guy whose name or policy proposals you never bother to give, instead waving around the vaguest possible reactions to links. Presumably you're trying to force posters to sit through those links to participate in discussion, but surprise surprise the discussion centered around the one salient point you made: the pedo accusation.

Maybe next time if you want to discuss points some person is making, put forth more effort into starting discussion on those points than ensuring readers click links.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/3/17 , edited 2/3/17

qwueri wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:

You are purposely lying. You know I meant that you have no evidence to say he has no place to say his say. You can't say, he didn't work in the CIA. You can't say he didn't consult with the Marine Corp to help them develop their own intelligence unit. You can't say he is not an expert in his field.

I opaqued the pedo stuff, because I don't want to derail the purpose of this thread, which is to discus why and how the intelligence agencies need to be reformed. They are breaking all kinds of laws. Also, to discus our need to reform electoral laws. Serious doubt has been cast on our election system. Reforms are needed there, too.

Yet you won't discuss any of that. You only want to cast aspersions on him, because he supports President Trump!


I know you're shifting goal-posts a day after everyone reacted largely to the dude's pedo allegations and the general dubious way you've presented him, edited that part out, and are now trying to paint it as slamming who the guy supports despite that only coming up in your own posts (with one poke from Runec about the hyperbolic nature of one of his book covers/titles). At least have the decency to poke at nonexistent strawmen rather than shift the context posters are replying to.

*Edit: Although to be fair the pedo accusations were just the cherry on top of the turd cake for me. The OP is a brief biopic for a guy whose name or policy proposals you never bother to give, instead waving around the vaguest possible reactions to links. Presumably you're trying to force posters to sit through those links to participate in discussion, but surprise surprise the discussion centered around the one salient point you made: the pedo accusation.

Maybe next time if you want to discuss points some person is making, put forth more effort into starting discussion on those points than ensuring readers click links.


That's the subject I want to talk about in THIS thread. Talk about the other stuff, in the OTHER thread.

Guest Pass Litter Moderator
120630 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 2/3/17 , edited 2/4/17


I've closed this since you started a new one due to this one getting derailed based on information you'd included, then removed, in your opening post.

New thread is: /forumtopic-981717/an-idea-forwarded-by-an-ex-cia-man-to-push-for-electoral-reforms
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.