NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 4

Remove this Banner Ad

Here is PART 3

Donald Trump was sworn in as president of the United States on Monday 20th January, 2025 in Washington DC.

Take Note

Anti-trans commentary will be deleted and warnings issued, that includes mockery and trying to pass it off as a joke.

Play nice, please.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

bourbons said:
"Lied", rofl
Click to expand...

You claimed this statement ...

"Goldberg tried to get Ratcliffe skewered with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by suggesting Ratcliffe had included the name of an “undercover” CIA officer in the chat. It turns out the person was his Chief of Staff and not an undercover operative."

... was incorrect. Your claim was false. A lie.
 
bourbons said:
To be fair its hard to stay on target when your whataboutism stretches back the the ****ing Iraq war :tearsofjoy:

Oh there were cameras there for the Iraq war, therefore Hegseth didn't just chat classified info regarding the Houthis. Rock solid through line and debate technique there knackers :tearsofjoy:

Who the **** could work out what you're on about mate, you're all over the shop.
Click to expand...

Well they would have no way of working it out if they relied solely on your usual bad faith mischaracterisation but if they read my original statement they wouldn't have any trouble at all.

"You do know that the US had CNN pre-positioned to stream the Shock and Awe strikes well before they fell don't you? That required more way information than this Signal group chat had in it. On the day these strikes were initiated Hegseth was involved in other discussions with other people on devices so secure that Signal can't even be installed on them. It's those discussions the Joint Chief was in on too and would have involved classified info rather than than this Signal chat that he didn't get involved in."

Mockery, hypocritically accusing others of acting in bad faith while operating in that vein more than anyone else in the discussion, insane hyperbole. Never go full bourbons.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
You claimed this statement ...

"Goldberg tried to get Ratcliffe skewered with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by suggesting Ratcliffe had included the name of an “undercover” CIA officer in the chat. It turns out the person was his Chief of Staff and not an undercover operative."

... was incorrect. Your claim was false. A lie.
Click to expand...
**** me, you're really going down this road, glutton for punishment or what :tearsofjoy:

No worries then - I "lied" (lol) when I relied on reporting from after the hearings, not knowing that previous to that Goldberg had initially claimed it was an undercover agent. When alerted to this, I apologised for my error and acknowledged I'd gotten it wrong.

Meanwhile, when you "lied" and were then confronted with evidence irrefutably proving your position wrong, you doubled down on your vibes and feels. And you're still doing it :tearsofjoy:

So you tell me mate, who is the more honest out of the 2 of us? I know your answer here will be as rational as it is on the classified info question :tearsofjoy:
 
Last edited:
HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
Well they would have no way of working it out if they relied solely on your usual bad faith mischaracterisation but if they read my original statement they wouldn't have any trouble at all.

"You do know that the US had CNN pre-positioned to stream the Shock and Awe strikes well before they fell don't you? That required more way information than this Signal group chat had in it. On the day these strikes were initiated Hegseth was involved in other discussions with other people on devices so secure that Signal can't even be installed on them. It's those discussions the Joint Chief was in on too and would have involved classified info rather than than this Signal chat that he didn't get involved in."
Click to expand...
Yes mate, I get it, and have already provided a succinct summation of this mind boggling deflection effort :tearsofjoy:

bourbons said:
Oh there were cameras there for the Iraq war, therefore Hegseth didn't just chat classified info regarding the Houthis. Rock solid through line and debate technique there knackers
Click to expand...

HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
Mockery, hypocritically accusing others of acting in bad faith while operating in that vein more than anyone else in the discussion, insane hyperbole. Never go full bourbons.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you've reached the (completely evidence free) "no you are" stage of debate. Again, rock solid and convincing stuff mate, going beautifully :tearsofjoy:
 
bourbons said:
**** me, you're really going down this road, glutton for punishment or what :tearsofjoy:

No worries then - I "lied" (lol) when I relied on reporting from after the hearings, not knowing that previous to that Goldberg had initially claimed it was an undercover agent. When alerted to this, I apologised for my error and acknowledged I'd gotten it wrong.

Meanwhile, when confronted with evidence irrefutably proving your position wrong, you doubled down on your vibes and feels. And you're still doing it :tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...

So you're still lying. Attempting (and failing) to mitigate your lie by continuing to lie. Well done. No one else here could unashamedly do what you have just done.

🤣

Seriously mate. Talk about digging a hole. (1) You are equating your flawed interpretation of one extract from a DNI document with irrefutable proof. Very amusing but certainly not true. (2) You're still dishonestly mischaracterising my position as relying on nothing but vibes and feels when I've clearly outlined why this is not the case.

Never go full bourbons. 🥃🥃🥃🥃🥃🥃
 
HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
So you're still lying.
Click to expand...
bourbons said:
1. They both clearly stated there was no classified info on the chat
2. Chat released and it has timings of future strikes
3. Timings of future strikes are designated Top Secret classification per official policy
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, you can bob and weave as much as you like, but facts don't care about your feelings I'm afraid.

HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
Seriously mate. Talk about digging a hole. (1) You are equating your flawed interpretation of one extract from a DNI document with irrefutable proof. Very amusing but certainly not true. (2) you're still dishonestly mischaracterising my position as relying on nothing but vibes and feels when I've clearly outlined why this is not the case.
Click to expand...
You err... you do know that other people can read your posts, right? That this isn't a convo you're having with AI or something? :tearsofjoy:
HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
The issue is whether I believe the information in the chats was classified. Whilst it may have been sensitive there wasn't enough specific information to make any of it actionable. I don't believe the information is classified.
Click to expand...
Confirmed per your own words. Your beliefs, your feelings trump objective facts and reality.

Everyone always knew this to be the case of course, but nice of you to personally confirm it :thumbsu:
 
bourbons said:
You err... you do know that other people can read your posts, right? That this isn't a convo you're having with AI or something? :tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...

That's it? You think this qualifies as a substantive response to this?

HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
(1) You are equating your flawed interpretation of one extract from a DNI document with irrefutable proof. Very amusing but certainly not true.
Click to expand...

bourbons said:
Confirmed per your own words. Your beliefs, your feelings trump objective facts and reality.
Click to expand...

So after having to explain to you what constitutes a lie I'm now going to have to explain the difference between a feeling and a belief? :roflv1: 🥃🥃🥃
 
HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
So after having to explain to you what constitutes a lie I'm now going to have to explain the difference between a feeling and a belief? :roflv1: 🥃🥃🥃
Click to expand...
Please do. Considering you've characterised an acknowledged error based on reporting as a "lie", this particular explanation should be amazing, professor :tearsofjoy:

Pay particular attention to what this belief of yours is based on.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
View attachment 2270691


Feelings OTOH are emotional states or reactions like feeling sad, angry or confused. The last of which can be caused by many things or too many things >>>> 🥃🥃🥃🥃🥃🥃🥃🥃 :roflv1:

Looks like you might want to review the lesson on lying too. Do you?
Click to expand...
I thought you were going to explain it, not the dictionary.

Nevertheless... "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"

So, what evidence are you basing this belief of yours on?
 
faible said:
If this was Hillary they'd have already demanded she be executed for treason.
Click to expand...
Executed for treason!
We only wanted her to face trial for obvious crimes she committed. Instead she got hundreds of millions while people like yourself cheered her on.
 
Jbudds04v2 said:
“I’m not quite sure that Norfolk Island, with respect to it, is a trade competitor with the giant economy of the United States,” Mr Albanese said. “But that just shows and exemplifies the fact that nowhere on Earth is exempt from this."
Click to expand...
Well it made the front page of cia fact book , something is fishy IMG_2581.png
 
Lebbo73 said:
Executed for treason!
We only wanted her to face trial for obvious crimes she committed. Instead she got hundreds of millions while people like yourself cheered her on.
Click to expand...

Come on mate, it's not like anyone here bought a Hillary hat or identifies with a dancing Hillary avatar.
 

NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 4


Write your reply...

Similar threads

HitTheNailOnTheHead
Conspiracy Theory You have more chance of winning US lotto than drowning and yet the Obama and the Clinton chefs have both apparently drowned. What is going on?
Replies
12
Views
1K
LuvtheKangas
LuvtheKangas
Back
Top