Animal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:25 pm
What difference would it make either way what his answer was? What would change?
A verified answer would remove doubt
doubt about what?
Let's pretend for a second that he answered "Yes, we had FBI informants buried in the crowd in disguise".
what difference would that make?
You dont think its a big deal that the FBI, by not answering, is sort of admitting that it had agents dressed as Trump supporters? Couple that with the agency's involvement with the Whitmer kidnapping, the cover up and slow walking of the Hunter Biden laptop case, the Steel Dossier and whole Russian collusion thing among numerous other things that give the FBI a black eye...you dont think a simple acknowledgement might go a long way with confirming or shutting down the accusations?
well, the problem with answering a question is that it suddenly opens you up to answering more and more questions that pry deeper into it. It doesn't stop with the simple answer of "yes" or "no". And the reason the answer to that "simple question" is so important is because the list of next questions is so long. Its like a football coach being asked if an injured player is going to play Sunday. He probably very well knows the answer, but its better to just say "I don't know" so that he doesn't have to answer all of the other questions about it. Maybe the FBI has agents buried in the crowd at Biden's inauguration. Maybe they have them at Trump's wife's funeral. Maybe they were at the Queen's burial. Who knows and who cares.
But I certainly don't think that the FBI has some kind of agenda against republican things in particular.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:25 pm
What difference would it make either way what his answer was? What would change?
A verified answer would remove doubt
doubt about what?
Let's pretend for a second that he answered "Yes, we had FBI informants buried in the crowd in disguise".
what difference would that make?
You dont think its a big deal that the FBI, by not answering, is sort of admitting that it had agents dressed as Trump supporters? Couple that with the agency's involvement with the Whitmer kidnapping, the cover up and slow walking of the Hunter Biden laptop case, the Steel Dossier and whole Russian collusion thing among numerous other things that give the FBI a black eye...you dont think a simple acknowledgement might go a long way with confirming or shutting down the accusations?
well, the problem with answering a question is that it suddenly opens you up to answering more and more questions that pry deeper into it. It doesn't stop with the simple answer of "yes" or "no". And the reason the answer to that "simple question" is so important is because the list of next questions is so long. Its like a football coach being asked if an injured player is going to play Sunday. He probably very well knows the answer, but its better to just say "I don't know" so that he doesn't have to answer all of the other questions about it. Maybe the FBI has agents buried in the crowd at Biden's inauguration. Maybe they have them at Trump's wife's funeral. Maybe they were at the Queen's burial. Who knows and who cares.
But I certainly don't think that the FBI has some kind of agenda against republican things in particular.
Or he could simply say something like the following: "Of course we did. Just like we had some at other protests. It helps the agency if we have people closer to the situation but obviously in the interest of security and safety I cant go into much more detail." Why play coy when everyone already knows the answer?
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:25 pm
What difference would it make either way what his answer was? What would change?
A verified answer would remove doubt
doubt about what?
Let's pretend for a second that he answered "Yes, we had FBI informants buried in the crowd in disguise".
what difference would that make?
You dont think its a big deal that the FBI, by not answering, is sort of admitting that it had agents dressed as Trump supporters? Couple that with the agency's involvement with the Whitmer kidnapping, the cover up and slow walking of the Hunter Biden laptop case, the Steel Dossier and whole Russian collusion thing among numerous other things that give the FBI a black eye...you dont think a simple acknowledgement might go a long way with confirming or shutting down the accusations?
well, the problem with answering a question is that it suddenly opens you up to answering more and more questions that pry deeper into it. It doesn't stop with the simple answer of "yes" or "no". And the reason the answer to that "simple question" is so important is because the list of next questions is so long. Its like a football coach being asked if an injured player is going to play Sunday. He probably very well knows the answer, but its better to just say "I don't know" so that he doesn't have to answer all of the other questions about it. Maybe the FBI has agents buried in the crowd at Biden's inauguration. Maybe they have them at Trump's wife's funeral. Maybe they were at the Queen's burial. Who knows and who cares.
But I certainly don't think that the FBI has some kind of agenda against republican things in particular.
Or he could simply say something like the following: "Of course we did. Just like we had some at other protests. It helps the agency if we have people closer to the situation but obviously in the interest of security and safety I cant go into much more detail." Why play coy when everyone already knows the answer?
then, if you already know the answer, why keep badgering to hear it? I guess I don't follow the logic.
Let's pretend for a second that he answered "Yes, we had FBI informants buried in the crowd in disguise".
what difference would that make?
You dont think its a big deal that the FBI, by not answering, is sort of admitting that it had agents dressed as Trump supporters? Couple that with the agency's involvement with the Whitmer kidnapping, the cover up and slow walking of the Hunter Biden laptop case, the Steel Dossier and whole Russian collusion thing among numerous other things that give the FBI a black eye...you dont think a simple acknowledgement might go a long way with confirming or shutting down the accusations?
well, the problem with answering a question is that it suddenly opens you up to answering more and more questions that pry deeper into it. It doesn't stop with the simple answer of "yes" or "no". And the reason the answer to that "simple question" is so important is because the list of next questions is so long. Its like a football coach being asked if an injured player is going to play Sunday. He probably very well knows the answer, but its better to just say "I don't know" so that he doesn't have to answer all of the other questions about it. Maybe the FBI has agents buried in the crowd at Biden's inauguration. Maybe they have them at Trump's wife's funeral. Maybe they were at the Queen's burial. Who knows and who cares.
But I certainly don't think that the FBI has some kind of agenda against republican things in particular.
Or he could simply say something like the following: "Of course we did. Just like we had some at other protests. It helps the agency if we have people closer to the situation but obviously in the interest of security and safety I cant go into much more detail." Why play coy when everyone already knows the answer?
then, if you already know the answer, why keep badgering to hear it? I guess I don't follow the logic.
Seriously? Because it holds our government and its officials accountable. Because it provides transparency. Because it alleviates or mitigates rumors and conspiracy theories by either putting them to rest or confirming them point blank. There is no benefit to the American people for them to be coy. There is a benefit to them being honest.
Let's pretend for a second that he answered "Yes, we had FBI informants buried in the crowd in disguise".
what difference would that make?
You dont think its a big deal that the FBI, by not answering, is sort of admitting that it had agents dressed as Trump supporters? Couple that with the agency's involvement with the Whitmer kidnapping, the cover up and slow walking of the Hunter Biden laptop case, the Steel Dossier and whole Russian collusion thing among numerous other things that give the FBI a black eye...you dont think a simple acknowledgement might go a long way with confirming or shutting down the accusations?
well, the problem with answering a question is that it suddenly opens you up to answering more and more questions that pry deeper into it. It doesn't stop with the simple answer of "yes" or "no". And the reason the answer to that "simple question" is so important is because the list of next questions is so long. Its like a football coach being asked if an injured player is going to play Sunday. He probably very well knows the answer, but its better to just say "I don't know" so that he doesn't have to answer all of the other questions about it. Maybe the FBI has agents buried in the crowd at Biden's inauguration. Maybe they have them at Trump's wife's funeral. Maybe they were at the Queen's burial. Who knows and who cares.
But I certainly don't think that the FBI has some kind of agenda against republican things in particular.
Or he could simply say something like the following: "Of course we did. Just like we had some at other protests. It helps the agency if we have people closer to the situation but obviously in the interest of security and safety I cant go into much more detail." Why play coy when everyone already knows the answer?
then, if you already know the answer, why keep badgering to hear it? I guess I don't follow the logic.
Seriously? Because it holds our government and its officials accountable. Because it provides transparency. Because it alleviates or mitigates rumors and conspiracy theories by either putting them to rest or confirming them point blank. There is no benefit to the American people for them to be coy. There is a benefit to them being honest.
Where do you draw the line on what a law enforcement agency can keep out of the public and what they must answer to by whoever asks it?
you know there is a chance that they had 0 agents in the crowd, but they refuse to answer the question because at the next Branch Davidian compound, if they get asked if they might have agents inside and they don't want to make it a new thing that they hold press conferences and answer questions about what they do or don't do.
Wow. That is refreshing to see someone in charge shake the EU down to it's foundation. Been a long time since it's been needed. (See Merkel, for example).
Re: Politicial post something for no reason
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:52 pm
by Charliesheen
I wonder if US POLICIES are responsible for the flood of offal at our doorstep.
Salty’s gotta have an answer on this…
Re: Politicial post something for no reason
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:07 pm
by CHEEZY17
Charliesheen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:52 pm
I wonder if US POLICIES are responsible for the flood of offal at our doorstep.
Salty’s gotta have an answer on this…
Nah, according to Who the policies of this administration dont affect anything.
Re: Politicial post something for no reason
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:11 pm
by CHEEZY17
Charliesheen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:19 pm
I thought Niki Haley had potential. I’m afraid she’s Busch-Lite establishment. I don’t trust her.
I hope Tulsi Gabbard gets back into politics. The lefts fear of her gives me a stiffy.
Haley's dressing down of the UN was and always will be a highlight for her and for the Trump administration. As awesome as that was that pales in comparison to the bombs this chick drops.
