Inspector General Review of the Trump/Russia Investigation

paulsurovell said:

Continuing to assert claims that have been pointed out as incorrect is dishonest.

Your premise is false, your logic is flawed.

 what in my sentence is flawed?

paulsurovell said:

None of the geniuses who said my position was undermined by the anonymous reports on the Horowitz report have commented on Andy McCarthy's analysis, which corrects their misconceptions.

Prediction -- the only response that will appear (if any) is one disparaging McCarthy because he's a conservative and because his analysis appears in the National Review. There will be no attempt to address the substance of what he wrote.

That's how it goes with Russiagaters.

 Paul dumps an extraordinary amount of previously-debunked and clearly misleading "facts" and "analyses" in support of his arguments on this thread, and on the Impeachment thread.

Just because nobody comments on something from Andrew McCarthy, or any of the other nonsense, does not mean it makes a point. It means that people are tired of the nonsense.  Period.

paulsurovell said:

Here's an analysis of what has been reported about the Horowitz report so far that reflects my views on the purpose of his report to a large degree:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/the-first-glimpse-into-horowitzs-fisa-abuse-report/

[ 1of 3 parts ]

The First Glimpse into Horowitz’s FISA-Abuse Report

CNN reports that an FBI attorney tampered with documents related to the Carter Page application. How much does it matter?
By Andrew C. McCarthy

Is  this the tip of a scandalous iceberg? Or is it a signal that Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s much anticipated report on investigative irregularities in the Trump-Russia probe will be much ado about nothing much?

 The latter.  

drummerboy said:

The problem with Andy McCarthy is that you have to double check what he says, because his history of being a liar and bad faith broker means you can't trust what he says at face value.

Sorry - life is too short.

 You're an intellectual coward.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

None of the geniuses who said my position was undermined by the anonymous reports on the Horowitz report have commented on Andy McCarthy's analysis, which corrects their misconceptions.

Prediction -- the only response that will appear (if any) is one disparaging McCarthy because he's a conservative and because his analysis appears in the National Review. There will be no attempt to address the substance of what he wrote.

That's how it goes with Russiagaters.

 Paul dumps an extraordinary amount of previously-debunked and clearly misleading "facts" and "analyses" in support of his arguments on this thread, and on the Impeachment thread.

Just because nobody comments on something from Andrew McCarthy, or any of the other nonsense, does not mean it makes a point. It means that people are tired of the nonsense.  Period.

 So far my prediction holds (and that includes your other vacuous post)

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

Continuing to assert claims that have been pointed out as incorrect is dishonest.

Your premise is false, your logic is flawed.

 what in my sentence is flawed?

(1) You pointed out nothing that I asserted that is incorrect.

(2) In general where Person A believes something that is incorrect is correct and Person B points out the incorrectness of what they believe, it is not "dishonest" for Person A to continue to assert the incorrect information if they sincerely believe it is true unless Person B can make a strong case that Person A does not really believe what they are asserting.

paulsurovell said:

(1) You pointed out nothing that I asserted that is incorrect.

(2) In general where Person A believes something that is incorrect is correct and Person B points out the incorrectness of what they believe, it is not "dishonest" for Person A to continue to assert the incorrect information if they sincerely believe it is true unless Person B can make a strong case that Person A does not really believe what they are asserting.

 the Costanza defense.  Nice.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

(1) You pointed out nothing that I asserted that is incorrect.

(2) In general where Person A believes something that is incorrect is correct and Person B points out the incorrectness of what they believe, it is not "dishonest" for Person A to continue to assert the incorrect information if they sincerely believe it is true unless Person B can make a strong case that Person A does not really believe what they are asserting.

 the Costanza defense.  Nice.

 As usual you ignore the substance and resort to name-calling. That's what you do. 

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

(1) You pointed out nothing that I asserted that is incorrect.

(2) In general where Person A believes something that is incorrect is correct and Person B points out the incorrectness of what they believe, it is not "dishonest" for Person A to continue to assert the incorrect information if they sincerely believe it is true unless Person B can make a strong case that Person A does not really believe what they are asserting.

 the Costanza defense.  Nice.

 As usual you ignore the substance and resort to name-calling. That's what you do. 

 He didn't "resort to name-calling". He distilled your "argument" to it's essence.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

None of the geniuses who said my position was undermined by the anonymous reports on the Horowitz report have commented on Andy McCarthy's analysis, which corrects their misconceptions.

Prediction -- the only response that will appear (if any) is one disparaging McCarthy because he's a conservative and because his analysis appears in the National Review. There will be no attempt to address the substance of what he wrote.

That's how it goes with Russiagaters.

 Paul dumps an extraordinary amount of previously-debunked and clearly misleading "facts" and "analyses" in support of his arguments on this thread, and on the Impeachment thread.

Just because nobody comments on something from Andrew McCarthy, or any of the other nonsense, does not mean it makes a point. It means that people are tired of the nonsense.  Period.

 So far my prediction holds (and that includes your other vacuous post)

Again, just because you wear people out with a firehose of misinformation does not transform it into actual facts. 

paulsurovell said:

 As usual you ignore the substance and resort to name-calling. That's what you do. 

 it quite literally was a response to your substance.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

None of the geniuses who said my position was undermined by the anonymous reports on the Horowitz report have commented on Andy McCarthy's analysis, which corrects their misconceptions.

Prediction -- the only response that will appear (if any) is one disparaging McCarthy because he's a conservative and because his analysis appears in the National Review. There will be no attempt to address the substance of what he wrote.

That's how it goes with Russiagaters.

 Paul dumps an extraordinary amount of previously-debunked and clearly misleading "facts" and "analyses" in support of his arguments on this thread, and on the Impeachment thread.

Just because nobody comments on something from Andrew McCarthy, or any of the other nonsense, does not mean it makes a point. It means that people are tired of the nonsense.  Period.

 So far my prediction holds (and that includes your other vacuous post)

Again, just because you wear people out with a firehose of misinformation does not transform it into actual facts. 

 It's called lastworditis. 

Idiocy.

/thread

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

None of the geniuses who said my position was undermined by the anonymous reports on the Horowitz report have commented on Andy McCarthy's analysis, which corrects their misconceptions.

Prediction -- the only response that will appear (if any) is one disparaging McCarthy because he's a conservative and because his analysis appears in the National Review. There will be no attempt to address the substance of what he wrote.

That's how it goes with Russiagaters.

 Paul dumps an extraordinary amount of previously-debunked and clearly misleading "facts" and "analyses" in support of his arguments on this thread, and on the Impeachment thread.

Just because nobody comments on something from Andrew McCarthy, or any of the other nonsense, does not mean it makes a point. It means that people are tired of the nonsense.  Period.

 So far my prediction holds (and that includes your other vacuous post)

Again, just because you wear people out with a firehose of misinformation does not transform it into actual facts. 

Your blinders are showing.

cramer said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

None of the geniuses who said my position was undermined by the anonymous reports on the Horowitz report have commented on Andy McCarthy's analysis, which corrects their misconceptions.

Prediction -- the only response that will appear (if any) is one disparaging McCarthy because he's a conservative and because his analysis appears in the National Review. There will be no attempt to address the substance of what he wrote.

That's how it goes with Russiagaters.

 Paul dumps an extraordinary amount of previously-debunked and clearly misleading "facts" and "analyses" in support of his arguments on this thread, and on the Impeachment thread.

Just because nobody comments on something from Andrew McCarthy, or any of the other nonsense, does not mean it makes a point. It means that people are tired of the nonsense.  Period.

 So far my prediction holds (and that includes your other vacuous post)

Again, just because you wear people out with a firehose of misinformation does not transform it into actual facts. 

 It's called lastworditis. 

 A euphemism for "My claim has been debunked"

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 As usual you ignore the substance and resort to name-calling. That's what you do. 

 it quite literally was a response to your substance.

 Of course it was a response. That consisted of name-calling.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

(1) You pointed out nothing that I asserted that is incorrect.

(2) In general where Person A believes something that is incorrect is correct and Person B points out the incorrectness of what they believe, it is not "dishonest" for Person A to continue to assert the incorrect information if they sincerely believe it is true unless Person B can make a strong case that Person A does not really believe what they are asserting.

 the Costanza defense.  Nice.

 As usual you ignore the substance and resort to name-calling. That's what you do. 

 He didn't "resort to name-calling". He distilled your "argument" to it's essence.

 Damage control.

Bump

paulsurovell said:

None of the geniuses who said my position was undermined by the anonymous reports on the Horowitz report have commented on Andy McCarthy's analysis, which corrects their misconceptions.

Prediction -- the only response that will appear (if any) is one disparaging McCarthy because he's a conservative and because his analysis appears in the National Review. There will be no attempt to address the substance of what he wrote.

That's how it goes with Russiagaters.

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 As usual you ignore the substance and resort to name-calling. That's what you do. 

 it quite literally was a response to your substance.

 Of course it was a response. That consisted of name-calling.

It wasn't name calling. He didn't call you Constanza.

Do you even Seinfeld?

paulsurovell said:

Bump

paulsurovell said:

None of the geniuses who said my position was undermined by the anonymous reports on the Horowitz report have commented on Andy McCarthy's analysis, which corrects their misconceptions.

Prediction -- the only response that will appear (if any) is one disparaging McCarthy because he's a conservative and because his analysis appears in the National Review. There will be no attempt to address the substance of what he wrote.

That's how it goes with Russiagaters.

 

 Bump.

nohero said:

 Paul dumps an extraordinary amount of previously-debunked and clearly misleading "facts" and "analyses" in support of his arguments on this thread, and on the Impeachment thread.

Just because nobody comments on something from Andrew McCarthy, or any of the other nonsense, does not mean it makes a point. It means that people are tired of the nonsense.  Period.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 As usual you ignore the substance and resort to name-calling. That's what you do. 

 it quite literally was a response to your substance.

 Of course it was a response. That consisted of name-calling.

It wasn't name calling. He didn't call you Constanza.

Do you even Seinfeld?

 He prefers to Newman.

paulsurovell said:

 Damage control.

 there was no damage to control. If I had called you an insulting name I’d own up to it. But I didn’t. It was a response to your absurd argument that as long as you’re not convinced that something untrue is actually untrue you can keep repeating it and not be dishonest. Also known as the “fingers in the ears shouting ‘I CANT HEAR YOU!!’ defense. 

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 Damage control.

 there was no damage to control. If I had called you an insulting name I’d own up to it. But I didn’t. It was a response to your absurd argument that as long as you’re not convinced that something untrue is actually untrue you can keep repeating it and not be dishonest. Also known as the “fingers in the ears shouting ‘I CANT HEAR YOU!!’ defense. 

 It wasn't an "insulting" name, but you called me a name instead of addressing what I wrote in response to your question.

You are essentially saying that if someone disagrees with you they're being dishonest.

paulsurovell said:

 It wasn't an "insulting" name, but you called me a name instead of addressing what I wrote in response to your question.

You are essentially saying that if someone disagrees with you they're being dishonest.

Which says a lot about you.

 it's actually dishonest of you to write that. Which I guess says a lot about you. 

What I actually I wrote was that it's dishonest to continue to repeat untrue statements that have been rebutted and debunked. 

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 It wasn't an "insulting" name, but you called me a name instead of addressing what I wrote in response to your question.

You are essentially saying that if someone disagrees with you they're being dishonest.

Which says a lot about you.

 it's actually dishonest of you to write that. Which I guess says a lot about you. 

What I actually I wrote was that it's dishonest to continue to repeat untrue statements that have been rebutted and debunked. 

 But what you say is "untrue" is merely what you disagree with. You haven't identified a single thing that I've said that is untrue. You have no insight into what you're saying. And that's the honest truth.

paulsurovell said:

 But what you say is "untrue" is merely what you disagree with. You haven't identified a single thing that I've said that is untrue. You have no insight into what you're saying. And that's the honest truth.

 I'll just leave this by noting that there are more people in this discussion besides me saying the same thing about the untruths in your arguments.  And you are doing it right now by repeating something about me that isn't true, that I've pointed out and rebutted.  

QED.

Reading Paul's posts, I don't get the impression that he actually believes in "truth".  The man practices a sort of intellectual nihilism that inevitably leads him down the rabbit holes of conspiracy.

@janinedigi Replying to @paulsurovell @PublicOutcrySy and 2 others

Blocking you. I just can't read your idiocy anymore. It makes my blood boil at your ignorance. It's not about regime change. It's about saving civilian lives. If you can not see that, you are more moronic and complicit than those you support.

7:40 AM - 7 Jun 2019

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 But what you say is "untrue" is merely what you disagree with. You haven't identified a single thing that I've said that is untrue. You have no insight into what you're saying. And that's the honest truth.

 I'll just leave this by noting that there are more people in this discussion besides me saying the same thing about the untruths in your arguments.  And you are doing it right now by repeating something about me that isn't true, that I've pointed out and rebutted.  

QED.

And what "untruths" by me have been noted by you or anyone else in this discussion?  You can't cite them because they don't exist.

Prove me wrong.