Rosenstein says 12 Russian intel officers indicted in special counsel's probe

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

We didn’t need Coat’s warning in the past 40 years, not sure why it is more relevant today?  Russia has been doing everything they can to meddle in US affairs (elections included) since before I was born.  Whole lotta hoopla and nothingness in that revelation.

 

12 indictments against Russian agents.  Do you really think that will go anywhere?  I don’t.  Just like the US government would (hopefully) stand behind our agents of discord and spying against any foreign government.  It’s been going on for years, and not jsut between Russia and the US.  Remember when Obama tried to influence Israel’s election?  It is my fairy tale (opinion, for the rest of the CEHST crowd) that nothing will come of the 12 indicted officers of the GRU.  It will quietly go away, because Russia will never allow them to stand trial.

uh. the internet is like what...25 years old? seriously, you're not sure?

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

It is not unfounded.  Time ran it to try and illustrate how the Big Bad Trump was taking babies from families.  But it was... #fakenews.  Since the girl was never taken from her mother.  

it's not fake news. thousands of kids still haven't been reunited with their parents. but way to miss the point.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

 

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

no, the opposite actually. when other's disagree with you - you say you can handle disagreement. i disagree with you and i'm just offering 'smug quips'. it's whatever, i'm well aware i'm not changing anyone's predispositions.

Yes I disagree with you but you really don't bother me at all, that is the beauty, I don't have to agree, I can discount your opinion the same as you can mine, you consider me the one who is unwilling or incapable of budging much as I see you. None of that means you are under my skin nor I under yours, if it makes you feel superior or smarter or whatever to think so, feel free no sweat off my bak

[Dashinka 24,499]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

why don't you whip up an image search of the national review or american spectator and think this whole thing through..

Why the deflection.  Whoever mentioned NR or AS?

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

uh. the internet is like what...25 years old? seriously, you're not sure?

There was always mail.  Ted Kennedy used that method back in the 80's.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

6 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I guess you are failing to see the difference between  nationally syndicated TV personalities and a random cop?

 

 

7 random cops murdered in ambush while on duty are less memorable than tv personalities, I question that value system

Edited July 19, 2018 by Randyandyuni

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Randyandyuni said:

 

Yes I disagree with you but you really don't bother me at all, that is the beauty, I don't have to agree, I can discount your opinion the same as you can mine, you consider me the one who is unwilling or incapable of budging much as I see you. None of that means you are under my skin nor I under yours, if it makes you feel superior or smarter or whatever to think so, feel free no sweat off my bak

you felt the need to comment on my posts - and non existent upvotes. i get it. idc.

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Why the deflection.  Whoever mentioned NR or AS?

There was always mail.  Ted Kennedy used that method back in the 80's.

deflection how? you questioned time being a "news" source because they have opinionated cover photos. 

that's nice. the current threat lies with the internet.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

you felt the need to comment on my posts - and non existent upvotes. i get it. idc.

Lol so I am under your skin,. Got it

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Randyandyuni said:

Lol so I am under your skin,. Got it

smug quip. and there's your upvote.

[Dashinka 24,499]

Just now, smilesammich said:

deflection how? you questioned time being a "news" source because they have opinionated cover photos. 

that's nice. the current threat lies with the internet.

You said you were defending Time, so Time is the subject of the conversation, bringing up the other organizations is nothing but deflection.

 

Sure, the internet allows for more nefarious activities, and while everyone is focused on Russia, the PRC is quietly doing whatever it can do there as well.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

smug quip. and there's your upvote.

Lol

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

You said you were defending Time, so Time is the subject of the conversation, bringing up the other organizations is nothing but deflection.

 

Sure, the internet allows for more nefarious activities, and while everyone is focused on Russia, the PRC is quietly doing whatever it can do there as well.

all publications have opinionated cover photos, in time's defense. better? worded properly?

PRC? why the deflection?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

14 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

uh. the internet is like what...25 years old? seriously, you're not sure?

Maybe 25 years for you, but for some of us, older.  

But that has nothing to do with Russians spying on and trying to influence the US.  These things happened before the internet.  And no, that’s not a fairy tale.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just like the pic I posted earlier that shows Putin in action long before Trump was elected, this one says a lot...

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Satisfied said:

Maybe 25 years for you, but for some of us, older.  

But that has nothing to do with Russians spying on and trying to influence the US.  These things happened before the internet.  And no, that’s not a fairy tale.  

good lord, you guys are going to be bringing up weak spots in the pony express any minute.

no one is saying 'these things' didn't happen before the internet. you're saying this is all a nothing sandwich and us national security disagrees with you.