Posted on 03/28/2019 10:59:22 AM PDT by detective
satan via Obama.
That person is a gullible rube who thinks that Twitter actually fixed their shadowbanning issue, thinks calling the Capitol switchboard is actually effective, and other things that no grown adult should be naive enough to believe.
There’s not a chance in hell I would accept the non-prosecution of coup conspirators based on that Twitter addict’s opinion. I would be flat-out insane to accept that.
Yeah, a woman spook who was stationed at the National Military Command Center and whose job was to brief the Chairman of the JCS must be a dope if she uses twitter. Got it.
Another way to phrase that is “lifelong bureaucrat”.
She doesn’t know squat. You embarrass yourself with your faith in her.
And you outrage me with your suggestion that based on her recommendation we should just give up the idea of bringing the coup conspirators to justice.
“And you outrage me with your suggestion that based on her recommendation we should just give up the idea of bringing the coup conspirators to justice.”
You lack reading skills.
The spook girl never said anything about not trying to prosecute the conspirators and neither did I.
What both of us said is that it will be difficult to get charges to stick. Learn to read.
I don’t see where she said that.
And it’s a moot point. These people WILL be put to death for their crimes one way or another. The justice system gets the first crack at it, but make no mistake - nothing will deny the people justice in this matter. The survival of the nation depends on it.
Wrap it around your head that justice in this case is inevitable, with the only question of how exactly it is carried out.
Also I’m still completely baffled by why you put so much stock in an anonymous person on the Internet.
I looked up her name. There’s no reference to a person of that name anywhere but Twitter. So your faith appears to be entirely in a virtual, unaccountable entity.
Explain your faith in this person please. What did she predict correctly in the past that gives you confidence in her claims about the future?
You have to do more than that.
You have to pass a test administered by Volunteer Examiners at a scheduled exam session. The exam she probably took consists of thirty questions drawn from a pool of about 400 or so questions. Questions topics range from FCC regulations, operating protocols, allocated frequencies, and radio and electronic theory.
Nellie is no dummy, having earned a PHD and reading Russian fluently, so she could have researched how to get licensed and learned the material on her own. It would have been much easier with a licensed HAM to tutor her.
Nellie claims to have been "underemployed" during the time in question and to have attended a class in emergency response, wherein it was mentioned that a HAM radio license could allow one to communicate during a disaster when electricity and phone services are out. That is true.
Many HAM radio clubs conduct classes to prepare people to get qualified. Whoever asked her the questions about her HAM license should have probed a little deeper into what her process had been, where she took the exam, who, if anyone, helped her prepare, and who advised her on what equipment to purchase. It seems to me that none of the questioners were HAM radio licensees so that might explain why they were not prepared to delve deeper.
“Also I’m still completely baffled by why you put so much stock in an anonymous person on the Internet.”
Irony at its best.
I’m a VE, and I conduct those classes for Boy Scouts. Youngest that’s ever passed from one of my classes was 9. The questions come from a question bank, so if you put your mind to it you’ll pass.
I like the test because it gets kids introduced to EE without the math scaring them away.
Given that you can’t come up with a serious reason to believe some anonymous Twitter account and seem quite intent on writing a failure-of-justice narrative, and when queried respond snidely, I now deeply suspect your motives.
I can see that.
An agency director only knows what his underlings tell him/her. Brennan could possibly find someone to blame it on - ‘Well they told me it was a good source!’
Better yet find a way to blame “the process” that produced the report. I’ve seen that before - “No one’s really to blame it was the system!”
Better to look stupid then to look culpable! Particularly if hoosegow time is a possible consequence!
It all depends on recovered documentation & what it says.
” I now deeply suspect your motives.”
Well I deeply suspect your ability to think clearly. So there’s that.
You’re the one who approached me with an appeal to put absolute faith, as you have, in claims made by an anonymous Twitter user.
I didn’t approach you here. You approached me.
You made a claim on so little ground that Adam Schiff wouldn’t believe it without more evidence.
This may not compute with you now, but perhaps after you take your medicine it will: your part of this conversation is flat-out insane, of the padded rooms and jackets with straps variety.
Evidently it hasn’t occurred to you that “thoughtomator” is every bit as anonymous as an AF spook’s twitter handle. In that regard the two of you are tied.
But you do need to keep pushing your theory that Brennan is in danger of getting the electric chair. That pretty much sets the boundary of your grounding in the real world.
Between you and whichever psychiatrist has the daily rounds today, please decide if you think an anonymous handle is credible or not.
Let’s examine thoughtomater’s self-refuting syllogism...
anonymous handles = not credible
thoughtomater = anonymous handle
therefore
thoughtomater = not credible
So there you have it. Hat tip, Socrates and the transitive property of equality.
I am glad to have finally led you by the nose, via proof by contradiction, to understanding why your initial proposition is completely absurd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.