Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#42
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schiff's closing speech
|
#43
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schiff's closing speech
On 2/9/2020 5:40 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says... Just the FACTS - Just the FACTS Mr Fretwell. The statement "up to 30% of the dossier may have bull****" means perhaps as little as .0001% of the dossier was bull****. You know how advertisers like to advertise "up to 30% off" and when you get to the store they have a rack of shirts they couldn't sell for $10.00 for the last five years (they are so uggly or ill fitting) marked down to $6.99 and the biggest discount in the rest of the store is 5% on a package of shoelaces???? Or do like a man I know at a farmers market. He could not sell something for $ .25 each after about 2 hours, so he marked through that on his sign and made it 3/100. Sold most of what he had. Sounds fake, but I saw it hapen. Long time ago, back in high school a classmate worked part time at a department store. He said they would have shirts that normally sold for $2.00 on sale for two for $5.00. |
#44
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schiff's closing speech
On 2/9/2020 5:40 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says... Just the FACTS - Just the FACTS Mr Fretwell. The statement "up to 30% of the dossier may have bull****" means perhaps as little as .0001% of the dossier was bull****. You know how advertisers like to advertise "up to 30% off" and when you get to the store they have a rack of shirts they couldn't sell for $10.00 for the last five years (they are so uggly or ill fitting) marked down to $6.99 and the biggest discount in the rest of the store is 5% on a package of shoelaces???? Or do like a man I know at a farmers market. He could not sell something for $ .25 each after about 2 hours, so he marked through that on his sign and made it 3/100. Sold most of what he had. Sounds fake, but I saw it hapen. One of my suppliers had a clear tape that was priced at something like a dollar while the name brands were $3. Could not sell any. Took it off the market and came back a month later at $2.25 and it sold out in no time. Many years ago my sideline was selling and installing storm doors, windows, small siding jobs. I had a couple of brochures with photo and this guy wanted a colonial style storm door. My main supplier also sold to Sears. I showed him a photo and the price was $65 for the same door,different name, Sears had for $100. He said no, I want the same as Sears. Oh, then you want this one, pulling out a different brochure. I can do it for $85. He was elated. So was I. People think they are only getting a bargain if the price is high enough. |
#45
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schiff's closing speech
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 17:40:12 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote: In article , says... Just the FACTS - Just the FACTS Mr Fretwell. The statement "up to 30% of the dossier may have bull****" means perhaps as little as .0001% of the dossier was bull****. You know how advertisers like to advertise "up to 30% off" and when you get to the store they have a rack of shirts they couldn't sell for $10.00 for the last five years (they are so uggly or ill fitting) marked down to $6.99 and the biggest discount in the rest of the store is 5% on a package of shoelaces???? Or do like a man I know at a farmers market. He could not sell something for $ .25 each after about 2 hours, so he marked through that on his sign and made it 3/100. Sold most of what he had. Sounds fake, but I saw it hapen. My brother worked in a land survey office. A customer came in for a price on a survey. Told him it would run between 1000 and 1300 dollars. The customer insisted on a "firm" price. Brother said $1500 and the customer signed the order - - - - |
#46
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schiff's closing speech
|
#47
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schiff's closing speech
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 16:48:46 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote: On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 14:39:45 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 09:05:02 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 5:28:35 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 10:01:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: Speaking of disinformation and BS, show us where Steele even admitted any of his report was BS. Steele said from the beginning that it was what it was, raw intelligence that was not corroborated. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ssier-accurate the claim is it is 70-90% accurate. If he didn't think 30% could be bull****, why did he say 70%? Also isn't this a foreigner trying to influence our election? He did turn this over to Hillary. Apples and oranges. It's perfectly legal for a campaign to do opposition research, including overseas. If Steele did it for free, then it would be construed as a violation of US law, it would be considered a donation to the campaign. The Democrats were smart, they used Fusion GPS, which in turn hired Steele. Nice diversion. It is why I hate giving weasels like you cites, you just ignore them and change the subject. Thanks for that ad hominem response. The simple facts are that what the Democrats did in 2016, engaging a research firm to do opposition research is not illegal or an abuse of power. A president demanding a foreign govt investigate mostly BS, Putin lies, or anything else, to help him get re-elected is. In fact, the Republicans had also engaged with Fusion GPS to do opposition research, prior to the Democrats. No comparison between that and the PRESIDENT, extorting a foreign govt, while illegally withholding US aid. Your challenge was to give you a cite that up to 30% of the Dossier was bull**** and I did, Then you went off on a Putin rant without as much as a slight acknowledgement of the cite (from Steele himself). Tomorrow you will be saying I never gave you the cite. I might as well be talking to Rod Speed Just the FACTS - Just the FACTS Mr Fretwell. The statement "up to 30% of the dossier may have bull****" means perhaps as little as .0001% of the dossier was bull****. Not when he says "70-90% may be true". He is saying at least 10% is bull**** and it might be 30%. If I use your marketing example, always assume the worst they admit to and it might be worse than that. We haven't seen much independent verification of most of the inflammatory stuff in that report. I believe the boiler plate. Trump was in Russia, the rest seems to be fantasy to excite you people. |
#48
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schiff's closing speech
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 2:40:22 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 09:05:02 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 5:28:35 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 10:01:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: Speaking of disinformation and BS, show us where Steele even admitted any of his report was BS. Steele said from the beginning that it was what it was, raw intelligence that was not corroborated. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ssier-accurate the claim is it is 70-90% accurate. If he didn't think 30% could be bull****, why did he say 70%? Also isn't this a foreigner trying to influence our election? He did turn this over to Hillary. Apples and oranges. It's perfectly legal for a campaign to do opposition research, including overseas. If Steele did it for free, then it would be construed as a violation of US law, it would be considered a donation to the campaign. The Democrats were smart, they used Fusion GPS, which in turn hired Steele. Nice diversion. It is why I hate giving weasels like you cites, you just ignore them and change the subject. Thanks for that ad hominem response. The simple facts are that what the Democrats did in 2016, engaging a research firm to do opposition research is not illegal or an abuse of power. A president demanding a foreign govt investigate mostly BS, Putin lies, or anything else, to help him get re-elected is. In fact, the Republicans had also engaged with Fusion GPS to do opposition research, prior to the Democrats. No comparison between that and the PRESIDENT, extorting a foreign govt, while illegally withholding US aid. Your challenge was to give you a cite that up to 30% of the Dossier was bull**** and I did, No, you're confused again. The challenge was to give us a cite where Steele said that 30% of the Dossier was BS. Calling it BS implies that Steele knew that it was false, made up, ie BS. AFAIK, Steele has never said that and as I said, from the very beginning, when he provided the information, he said that it was raw, unverified intel. And you cite isn't Steele saying anything, it's from a book where the author quotes what the author says friends of Steele say he said. We call that hearsay and a couple of people removed from the source, at that. But it's a interesting cite for other reasons: Christopher Steele, believes it to be 70% to 90% accurate, according to a new book on the covert Russian intervention in the 2016 US election. The book, Collusion: How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win, by the Guardian journalist Luke Harding, quotes Steele as telling friends that he believes his reports €“ based on sources cultivated over three decades of intelligence work €“ will be vindicated as the US special counsel investigation digs deeper into contacts between Trump, his associates and Moscow. €œIve been dealing with this country for 30 years. Why would I invent this stuff?€ Steele is quoted as saying. One of the reasons his dossier was taken seriously in Washington in 2016 was Steeles reputation in the US for producing reliable reports on Russia, according to Hardings book. Between 2014 and 2016, he authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine, which were commissioned by private clients but shared widely within the state department and passed across the desks of the secretary of state, John Kerry, and the assistant secretary Victoria Nuland, who led the US response to the annexation of Crimea and the covert invasion of eastern Ukraine. The sources for those reports were the same as those quoted in the dossier on Trump, which included allegations that the Kremlin had personally compromising material on the US president, including sex tapes recorded during a trip to Moscow in 2013, and that Trump and his associates actively colluded with Russian intelligence to influence the election in his favour. Years earlier, Steele shared the results of his investigation of the global football organisation, Fifa, with a senior FBI official in Rome; that led to an investigation by US federal prosecutors, and ultimately the arrest of seven Fifa officials. Then you went off on a Putin rant without as much as a slight acknowledgement of the cite (from Steele himself). Tomorrow you will be saying I never gave you the cite. I might as well be talking to Rod Speed Let's review. You posted: "I am still waiting to see that tape, Until then it is just part of the 30% bull**** Steele admits is in his dossier." That makes it sound like Steele presented it as 100% accurate and later admitted that 30% was false, just BS that he made up. AFAIK, he always presented it as what it was. Raw information that was given to him by his sources on Russia that he believed were credible. And to this day, while some of it has been proven to not be true, AFAIK, most of it still can't be verified one way or the other. If you were the FBI and it was presented to you, what would you have done? FActor in that at the time, Trump was acting very strangely towards Russia, praising Putin, ignoring their annexation of Crimea and occupation of Ukraine, asking for them to find Hillary's emails, lying about having no business dealings with Russia. And the FBI already had an investigation started into Trump and Russia, BEFORE the Steele Dossier came forth. They started it becaise George the Greek was bragging to the Aussie diplomat in London that the Russians had dirt on Hillary and were going to release it to help Trump. The Aussies did nothing, figuring it was just smoke, until Wikileaks started releasing the stolen emails and then they contacted the FBI. So, what would you have done with the Steele dossier? |
#49
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schiff's closing speech
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:09:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote: Christopher Steele, believes it to be 70% to 90% accurate, according to a new book on the covert Russian intervention in the 2016 US election. That tells me it is 10-30% bull**** and why would a guy even give us that low number (70% true) if he thought it was better than that. As Clare pointed out when you are selling something you make it sound as good as you can. Me bet is the accuracy is lower than that much like "Your Mileage May Vary". It is all still what he says he "believes", not what he knows is true. That is a legal word you use to try to avoid a libel suit. |
#51
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schiff's closing speech
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:09:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote: Christopher Steele, believes it to be 70% to 90% accurate, according to a new book on the covert Russian intervention in the 2016 US election. That tells me it is 10-30% bull**** and why would a guy even give us that low number (70% true) if he thought it was better than that. Again, why does any of this surprise you? Why are you treating it like some confession? Again, AFAIK, Steele presented what he had as RAW INTELLIGENCE, that had not been verified. And he's said that based on his judgment 10 to 30% could be untrue. So what? If even 70% of what he had in there is true, it's devastating. And the core allegation, that Russia was helping Trump in the election has been verified as TRUE. As Clare pointed out when you are selling something you make it sound as good as you can. Me bet is the accuracy is lower than that much like "Your Mileage May Vary". It is all still what he says he "believes", not what he knows is true. That's wrong too. Steele never said what he believed regarding any of what he obtained. He just said this is the raw intelligence I obtained, he provided it to the FBI. That is a legal word you use to try to avoid a libel suit. |
#52
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schiff's closing speech
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:39:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote: On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 10:04:00 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote: Here is a good question for you. You never answered the question of what you would have done with the Steele dossier if you were the FBI? I might use it to steer an investigation but I wouldn't take it as source material. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Schiff's closing speech | Home Repair |