|
Post by jiminix on Nov 3, 2016 18:45:57 GMT -7
When Comey violated the traditional non-partisanship of the FBI, I thought it was just Comey. For the past year, he has been grabbing headlines at every opportunity. It appeared to me then, and I still believe it is true, that Comey is preparing to run for Governor or Attorney General of New York in 2018. To jump into politics at that level, it requires name recognition, and the traditional role of FBI director just won't accomplish that. So he has turned the job into a headline factory. And to establish his Republican reputation, he has directed his poison darts at Hillary Clinton. Now there are more stories coming out indicating a deeply anti-Clinton culture infecting the FBI. J. Edgar Hoover made it very conservative from the beginning, setting its sights not only on civil rights and anti-war organizations, but also targeting many specific Democratic politicians. But until Comey, the FBI at least tried to keep up non-partisan appearances. Comey has irredeemably corrupted the FBI's public trust. No one will ever trust its neutrality again. It has become America's KGB, devoted to a partisan political agenda. It's not enough to get rid of Comey. It's time now to dismantle the entire agency itself. We have enough other law enforcement and national security agencies that they can absorb the various functions of the FBI without missing a beat. Unavoidably, some good employees will be hurt by the dismantling of the FBI. But they cannot simply be transferred en masse to other agencies - they would just bring their anti-Clinton and partisan Republican culture with them and infect the other agencies. The best policy is to phase out all agent and supervisory positions over a period of 3-4 years. Only low-level clerical employees should be allowed to move to other govt positions. FBI agents will get higher-paying private sector security jobs very quickly, if they want to stay in the profession. Slate has an article today, but we can expect quite a few other in the near future. www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/03/hillary_clinton_targeted_by_trump_fbi_fans_report_says.html
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Nov 4, 2016 4:59:13 GMT -7
Does that article come with a complimentary tin hat? If not, it should.
|
|
|
Post by snakebit on Nov 4, 2016 5:38:29 GMT -7
Does that article come with a complimentary tin hat? If not, it should. When unable to refute the facts the uneducated and uninformed often fall back on a logical fallacy. Pretty weak hoofie. Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Read more: tnewsbackupforum.boards.net/thread/638/trump-manchurian-candidate#ixzz4P2j104mT
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Nov 4, 2016 6:15:17 GMT -7
Does that article come with a complimentary tin hat? If not, it should. When unable to refute the facts the uneducated and uninformed often fall back on a logical fallacy. Pretty weak hoofie. Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Read more: tnewsbackupforum.boards.net/thread/638/trump-manchurian-candidate#ixzz4P2j104mTIndeed. It would also be polite to heed your own advice. These articles on 3rd or 4th tier web sites are as credible as the highly paid pundits on the MSM: they have a self serving agenda.
|
|
harleydays
New Member
When tyranny becomes law, then rebellion becomes duty.
Posts: 105
|
Post by harleydays on Nov 5, 2016 2:25:00 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by snakebit on Nov 5, 2016 5:46:16 GMT -7
When unable to refute the facts the uneducated and uninformed often fall back on a logical fallacy. Pretty weak hoofie. Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Read more: tnewsbackupforum.boards.net/thread/638/trump-manchurian-candidate#ixzz4P2j104mTIndeed. It would also be polite to heed your own advice. These articles on 3rd or 4th tier web sites are as credible as the highly paid pundits on the MSM: they have a self serving agenda. Good one hoofie! When trying to defend yourself for resorting to argumentum ad hominem and attacking the messenger it really doesn't make sense to again resort to attacking the messengers as "3rd or 4th tier web sites." What would be polite would be to actually use links to references that refute even one statement from the posted article. If you were capable of that kind of honest, fact based, discussion you wouldn't have to fall back on a logical fallacy to try and defend your first use of logical fallacy. P.S. As long as you want to continue to discuss posts by using argumentum ad hominem I'll respond in kind. Citing Trump, Palin or Tea party sources will prove nothing about your parroted charge of media bias but thanks for throwing it into the discussion. It is very telling.
|
|
harleydays
New Member
When tyranny becomes law, then rebellion becomes duty.
Posts: 105
|
Post by harleydays on Nov 5, 2016 9:27:01 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Nov 5, 2016 12:15:22 GMT -7
Indeed. It would also be polite to heed your own advice. These articles on 3rd or 4th tier web sites are as credible as the highly paid pundits on the MSM: they have a self serving agenda. Good one hoofie! When trying to defend yourself for resorting to argumentum ad hominem and attacking the messenger it really doesn't make sense to again resort to attacking the messengers as "3rd or 4th tier web sites." What would be polite would be to actually use links to references that refute even one statement from the posted article. If you were capable of that kind of honest, fact based, discussion you wouldn't have to fall back on a logical fallacy to try and defend your first use of logical fallacy. P.S. As long as you want to continue to discuss posts by using argumentum ad hominem I'll respond in kind. Citing Trump, Palin or Tea party sources will prove nothing about your parroted charge of media bias but thanks for throwing it into the discussion. It is very telling. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Nov 5, 2016 12:25:32 GMT -7
Perhaps the anti-Clinton culture is the culture she created while FLOTUS. She was not exactly charming to her Secret Service detail. Link for Snakey-Poo
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Nov 5, 2016 12:42:47 GMT -7
Perhaps the anti-Clinton culture is the culture she created while FLOTUS. She was not exactly charming to her Secret Service detail. Link for Snakey-PooI'm surprised you would quote such an obvious fantasy. Every experienced politician knows that any behavior of that nature would make its way almost immediately to the top of the news. And any politician with the slightest discipline would suppress an urge to reply with unprovoked hostility in the unlikely event that they had such an urge. There's only one politician around who is that undisciplined, but I won't mention his name.
|
|
|
Post by snakebit on Nov 5, 2016 17:11:00 GMT -7
Perhaps the anti-Clinton culture is the culture she created while FLOTUS. She was not exactly charming to her Secret Service detail. Link for Snakey-PooThis was dishonestly edited by hoofie misusing his power as moderator to delete my post refuting his lies and pointing out that his "source" is anonymous bs in a supermarket tabloid etc, etc. Finally hoofie has the power he needs to "win". The ability to delete posts he disagrees with. You win, I obviously can't post if you have the power and the lack of fairness and decency to allow you to censor posts that are not violations of the TOS. Loser! P.S. Very fitting that you posted one of those darling, and juvenile, little emoticons as your reason for deleting my words.
|
|