Monker wrote:
But, as I said, at least they DO recant things. That shows they do care.
To paraphrase Mark Twain - "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on."
MSM only retracts these stories after they have been re-tweeted millions of times over.
To paraphrase me, at least they do recant things. BreitBArt doesn't.
Monker wrote:
That is such a childish thing to say. Just because somebody got away with it doesn't make it any less serious.
US history is childish?
No, your argument is childish. But, mommy, he was spying on the girl next door, and so was the guy across the street, so I should be able to. That is the core of what you are saying.
There is a precedent of American presidents spying on their perceived enemies. Just a fact.
It doesn't make it legal, it doesn't make it morally right, and it doesn't make the accusations of the current President that the former President of committing a felony any less serious.
Monker wrote:
The laws changed after Watergate. Prior to that, it was probably legal. Trump accused Obama of a felony. That is a big del.
If you’ve been following the evolution of FISA
And, that is irrelevent because no FISA was served. Where are the papers signed by a judge? You are always asking for proof...find the hard copy of any FISA request made by Obama to tap Trump's wires. I doubt you will.
Monker wrote:
It's fantasy. You ask for evidence and links for other things. Why are you not demanding evidence of this? Just because the CIA has the capability to do this does not mean they did. It is irresponsible to put forth such a weak link to create such a chain of bullshit.
You just mentioned post-Watergate…..in the wake of Nixon, we had the Church Committee which revealed and confirmed all sorts of things,
And, the current committies are not finding any evidence of Trump's accusations....quite the opposite, actually.
including the CIA’s MKUltra mind control experiments and attempts to assassinate various foreign leaders. Prior to this, all of these things were decried as “fantasy.” And to many ignorant Hillary-voting Americans (like you), they still are.
Yeah, yeah, PCP, remote viewing, a bunch of irrelevent nothingness to current events.
Yeah, sure. I'll take your word that this article is fantasy. I'll wait for the real FBI report.
Ok. In a battle of intellects, you side with a hacky sub-borscht belt comedian over a former superior judge and historian Napolitano. Got it. I’ll stand with the Judge.
You stand in ignorance. It was all over the internet at the time. Go to any fact checking site and look it up.
I just took the first one I found in Google:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/ar ... civil-war/Stewart: Lincoln tried to pay to free the slaves but found no takers
One of Napolitano’s arguments was that Lincoln could have bought the slaves and freed them and saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Stewart said Lincoln did try to buy the slaves, but the states and slave owners weren’t interested. We found that Lincoln had put over $700,000 dollars on the table to liberate Delaware’s slaves and, as Stewart said, the Delaware Legislature said no thanks.
Lincoln also got Congress to approve a slave purchase bill, but there was never any indication that slaveholders in any Union or Confederate state were ready to negotiate. Soon after, Lincoln announced his Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves in the Confederate states.
Stewart’s claim rates True.
---------------------------
And, this one I forgot about:
Napolitano: Lincoln tried to arm the slaves
Napolitano might not have wanted Lincoln to go to war to free the slaves, but he had no problem if the slaves rose up to free themselves. When Stewart pointed out how impossible that would be for slaves, Napolitano said that Lincoln had tried to arm the slaves.
"If the slaves had gone to war against their slave owners, and I had been alive, I would have been with them. I would have helped finance, fund and lead that revolt," Napolitano said.
"Are you familiar with slavery?" Stewart asked.
"I am very familiar with it," responded Napolitano.
"That is not the option," Stewart said.
"No, no, no. Lincoln tried to arm the slaves," answered Napolitano.
Napolitano gave us no proof (we didn’t hear from him at all) and two prominent historians said they had never heard of such an effort.
"I know of no evidence -- have never even heard it said -- that Lincoln himself tried to arm those who were still slaves to enable a slave insurrection -- and I very strongly doubt that any such evidence exists," said Bruce Levine, a Civil War historian at the University of Illinois.
We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
-------------------
Napolitano likes to think he knows everything and because he attaches "Judge" to the front, it gives people the false impression that he knows more than he does. You would call him a 'hack' if he were on the Democrat side of things. He is wrong so often that I do not take anything he says as truth unless there is other evidence.
Monker wrote:
Levin is the "source" but the chief editer of BreitBart WROTE THE STORY.
Wrong again. Pam Key is a video editor for Breitbart TV.
You're right. I posted the wrong link. That was not the original article. This one predates it by a couple days:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ine-trump/
), had nothing to do with Russia, so that means Trump was being listened to for stuff other than Russia. I still say Russia is a crock of shit meme, the Dems, as they always do, are accusing others of doing what they themselves are doing. Look over there...
