# Is Hillary's e-mail scandal falling apart?



## JimH52

Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email

Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.


----------



## westwall

You wish.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Is Hillary's e-mail scandal falling apart?"

It never 'came together' to begin with.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

'In a recent interview, also on CNN, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) admitted that the number of emails that Republicans claim were classified information in Hillary Clinton’s email account was not accurate due to retroactive classification.

The great email scandal that Republicans hoped would destroy Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is heading down the same path as “IRS scandal,” the “Benghazi scandal,” and President Obama’s birth certificate.'

Of course most on the right don't care about these and other facts.

Republicans will continue to propagate the same inane lies in the hope they're perceived to be 'true.'


----------



## WelfareQueen

JimH52 said:


> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.




I didn't get the memo.  So the Federal Courts, Congress, and the FBI have all stopped their multiple criminal investigations?

Wow.....good to know!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JimH52 said:


> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.



GOP don't run the FBI, moron


----------



## Nyvin

WelfareQueen said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't get the memo.  So the Federal Courts, Congress, and the FBI have all stopped their multiple criminal investigations?
> 
> Wow.....good the know!
Click to expand...


There aren't any criminal investigations against Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Nyvin

I honestly feel like this is just a watered down Benghazi...the only difference being that in this case there aren't any dead bodies for the GOP to point at and play blame games with.

How convenient that around the same time the email stuff starts up, conservative media goes silent about any issue about Benghazi.....that really shows how much they really cared about the four people that were killed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Luddly Neddite said:


> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.


It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.


----------



## daws101

westwall said:


> You wish.


It'll be a endless circle jerk finding nothing just like Benghazi.


----------



## MarathonMike

In a word, no. Just because the State Dept is incompetent that does not exonerate the Hildebeast.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Nyvin said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't get the memo.  So the Federal Courts, Congress, and the FBI have all stopped their multiple criminal investigations?
> 
> Wow.....good the know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There aren't any criminal investigations against Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...



Yeah....the FBI doesn't do criminal investigations of people...just things like computers....right?


----------



## WelfareQueen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
Click to expand...



Too bad it's fucking killing Hillary in the polls.  Sad.


----------



## JoeMoma

So, it's okay for each and every State Department employee to use their own personal servers for state department emails exclusively rather than the official state department .gov email?  Or is it only the Secretary of State that gets to do this!


----------



## Carla_Danger

Are we back to Benghazi?


----------



## browsing deer

It has got worse for her.  She has classified materials.  She claimed it was bureaucratic troubles, but 0bama shot that down in 2009.  She is having trouble with her major excise shot out from beneath her,


----------



## browsing deer

Refer to my thread here.  Hillary looks good in orage.


----------



## JoeMoma

browsing deer said:


> It has got worse for her.  She has classified materials.  She claimed it was bureaucratic troubles, but 0bama shot that down in 2009.  She is having trouble with her major excise shot out from beneath her,


Anyone else would have been charged by now.  Just ask general Petraeus.


----------



## BULLDOG

JoeMoma said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has got worse for her.  She has classified materials.  She claimed it was bureaucratic troubles, but 0bama shot that down in 2009.  She is having trouble with her major excise shot out from beneath her,
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else would have been charged by now.  Just as general Petraeus.
Click to expand...



Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.


----------



## JoeMoma

BULLDOG said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has got worse for her.  She has classified materials.  She claimed it was bureaucratic troubles, but 0bama shot that down in 2009.  She is having trouble with her major excise shot out from beneath her,
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else would have been charged by now.  Just as general Petraeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.
Click to expand...

It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.


----------



## Oldstyle

Nyvin said:


> I honestly feel like this is just a watered down Benghazi...the only difference being that in this case there aren't any dead bodies for the GOP to point at and play blame games with.
> 
> How convenient that around the same time the email stuff starts up, conservative media goes silent about any issue about Benghazi.....that really shows how much they really cared about the four people that were killed.



Do you not "grasp" that the e-mail scandal goes hand in hand with both Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation investigations?  There is a reason why Hillary worked behind the scenes on an e-mail server that she wanted to hide from Congressional oversight...just as there is a reason why Lois Lerner also worked behind the scenes on an private e-mail account named after her dog and didn't tell Congressional investigators about THAT e-mail account either.

I care deeply about the four people that died in Libya.  I also care deeply about our government officials being transparent and following the laws that Congress passes.  What both Clinton and Lerner did...which you seem to think is trivial...is to operate in the dark...deliberately hiding what they were doing from scrutiny from our elected representatives.


----------



## browsing deer

Her excuses are vanishing.   She is in a narrower and narrower box.


----------



## Oldstyle

Carla_Danger said:


> Are we back to Benghazi?



Benghazi was never resolved, Carla.  With a lot of help from a compliant Obama Administration who's "investigation" by the Holder Justice Department into what took place in Benghazi bordered on farce...Clinton managed to stonewall all attempts at getting to the truth.  Stonewalling something however doesn't always make it go away...especially now that Barack Obama is a lame duck President in his last few years of office...Eric Holder has resigned...and both Clinton's opponents in the Democratic Party and her opponents in the GOP are going to hold her feet to the fire on Benghazi...on contributions to the Clinton Foundation...and on her hidden e-mail servers.

Did you expect something different?  How naive...


----------



## BULLDOG

JoeMoma said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has got worse for her.  She has classified materials.  She claimed it was bureaucratic troubles, but 0bama shot that down in 2009.  She is having trouble with her major excise shot out from beneath her,
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else would have been charged by now.  Just as general Petraeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
Click to expand...



How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?


----------



## WelfareQueen

BULLDOG said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has got worse for her.  She has classified materials.  She claimed it was bureaucratic troubles, but 0bama shot that down in 2009.  She is having trouble with her major excise shot out from beneath her,
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else would have been charged by now.  Just as general Petraeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.
Click to expand...



So the FBI and two non-partisan Inspectors General are part of a vast right wing conspiracy?  

Moon-bats......


----------



## JimH52

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
Click to expand...


They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.


----------



## JimH52

JoeMoma said:


> So, it's okay for each and every State Department employee to use their own personal servers for state department emails exclusively rather than the official state department .gov email?  Or is it only the Secretary of State that gets to do this!



Not anymore.  But when Hillary was SOS, there was no law against it.  She is an attorney!  You think she would blatantly break a "well defined" law?  Grow a brain!


----------



## Oldstyle

BULLDOG said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has got worse for her.  She has classified materials.  She claimed it was bureaucratic troubles, but 0bama shot that down in 2009.  She is having trouble with her major excise shot out from beneath her,
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else would have been charged by now.  Just as general Petraeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
Click to expand...


How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?

Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.

False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!


----------



## Oldstyle

JimH52 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
Click to expand...


Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!

It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.


----------



## JoeMoma

JimH52 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's okay for each and every State Department employee to use their own personal servers for state department emails exclusively rather than the official state department .gov email?  Or is it only the Secretary of State that gets to do this!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not anymore.  But when Hillary was SOS, there was no law against it.  She is an attorney!  You think she would blatantly break a "well defined" law?  Grow a brain!
Click to expand...

So are you saying that it would have been okay for all state department employees to use their own personal servers exclusively for state department business just like Hillary did.  And if any employee resigned from the state department, it would be up to that employee to differentiate between personal emails and emails that are state department records.

Let's go with assuming that Hillary did not break any law with how she handled her emails.  At minimum Hillary showed extremely poor judgement in her handling of her emails and does not have the good judgement that we need in the president of the United States.  As far as not breaking any laws, let's wait and see what the FBI thinks about that.


----------



## Oldstyle

JimH52 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's okay for each and every State Department employee to use their own personal servers for state department emails exclusively rather than the official state department .gov email?  Or is it only the Secretary of State that gets to do this!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not anymore.  But when Hillary was SOS, there was no law against it.  She is an attorney!  You think she would blatantly break a "well defined" law?  Grow a brain!
Click to expand...


So tell us why Hillary hid the existence of that computer server and then erased it's contents?  Use some common sense, Jim.


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has got worse for her.  She has classified materials.  She claimed it was bureaucratic troubles, but 0bama shot that down in 2009.  She is having trouble with her major excise shot out from beneath her,
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else would have been charged by now.  Just as general Petraeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
Click to expand...

Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.


----------



## Oldstyle

daws101 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else would have been charged by now.  Just as general Petraeus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
Click to expand...


So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?

There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

* State Department confirms Hillary Clinton email violated no laws or policies *
 
By Bill Palmer | August 24, 2015 | 84 




FacebookTwitterSubscribe




The State Department publicly confirmed today that Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email while serving as Secretary of State violated no laws or policies that were in place at the time, bringing an end to the substantive side of the “email scandal” if certainly not the political side. Clinton’s opponents in the 2016 election and their followers have been hoping the issue would force her out of the election, but now they’ll be reduced to simply trying to create a scandal where none exists, after the department’s official words today.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Oldstyle said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
Click to expand...



A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.


----------



## browsing deer

Luddly Neddite said:


> * State Department confirms Hillary Clinton email violated no laws or policies *
> 
> By Bill Palmer | August 24, 2015 | 84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FacebookTwitterSubscribe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State Department publicly confirmed today that Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email while serving as Secretary of State violated no laws or policies that were in place at the time, bringing an end to the substantive side of the “email scandal” if certainly not the political side. Clinton’s opponents in the 2016 election and their followers have been hoping the issue would force her out of the election, but now they’ll be reduced to simply trying to create a scandal where none exists, after the department’s official words today.


What does the FBI have to say about it?

Yesterday three other departments (NSA , CIA and the folks in charge of imaging) say she did violate top secret protocols.  And the three departments involved own the rules, according to the ukaze signed by 0bama in 2009.  The State department has no say in the matter, according to the Ukaze


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
Click to expand...

False comparison.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Luddly Neddite said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
Click to expand...



Another Moon-bat idiot.    Politifact says your claim is mostly false. 


Key Quote:  


*State Department officials, meanwhile have said publicly that budgets were not a factor.


During a House hearing into the attack on Oct. 10, 2012, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher asked deputy assistant secretary of state Charlene Lamb: "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"


"No, sir," Lamb said.*

Ronan Farrow says inadequate security funding from Congress leads to tragedies like Benghazi


So you lied....what else is new?


----------



## BULLDOG

Oldstyle said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has got worse for her.  She has classified materials.  She claimed it was bureaucratic troubles, but 0bama shot that down in 2009.  She is having trouble with her major excise shot out from beneath her,
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else would have been charged by now.  Just as general Petraeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
Click to expand...



The Benghazi event was tragic. The circus that the right made of their deaths was an insult to the memory of those lost.  Using their deaths for a prop to make political accusations is beyond disgusting.

Whitewater? Surely you don't think that old whining point is relevant to any but the most ridiculous right wingers do you?


----------



## Oldstyle

Luddly Neddite said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
Click to expand...


Again with THAT nonsense, Luddly?  That was a trial balloon that the Clinton camp tried to float and then abandoned immediately once Charlene Lamb...the State Department person in charge of that region stated under oath that budget cuts had ZERO to do with State Department staffing levels in Libya!  It wasn't the GOP that cut security...it was Hillary Clinton.  She decided that having an "armed camp" in Libya looked bad when the Obama White House was claiming it was one of their success stories.  That's why the security detail in Libya was cut.  It had nothing to do with the GOP.


----------



## Oldstyle

daws101 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False comparison.
Click to expand...


I'm not "comparing" Benghazi to anything!  I'm simply pointing out that your claim that there was nothing anyone could have done to stop it is ridiculous.


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "comparing" Benghazi to anything!  I'm simply pointing out that your claim that there was nothing anyone could have done to stop it is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

See folks that's how you rationalize.


----------



## Oldstyle

BULLDOG said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else would have been charged by now.  Just as general Petraeus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a conspiracy, like everything else in right wingers lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Benghazi event was tragic. The circus that the right made of their deaths was an insult to the memory of those lost.  Using their deaths for a prop to make political accusations is beyond disgusting.
> 
> Whitewater? Surely you don't think that old whining point is relevant to any but the most ridiculous right wingers do you?
Click to expand...


What's insulting to the memory of the men who died that day...people demanding answers to why it happened...or Hillary Clinton meeting the families of those men at the airport as the caskets were being unloaded and telling mothers and fathers that the people who made the awful video that caused the attack would be made to pay...even though she KNEW that the YouTube video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi?

Lying about their deaths because you're in the heat of political campaign is disgusting...that was what both Hillary and many others in the Obama White House DID!


----------



## Oldstyle

daws101 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> 
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "comparing" Benghazi to anything!  I'm simply pointing out that your claim that there was nothing anyone could have done to stop it is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See folks that's how you rationalize.
Click to expand...


What did I "compare"?


----------



## hunarcy

JimH52 said:


> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.



To my knowledge, no one CLAIMS that having private e-mail was against policy.  The problem is the classified content that, in spite of claims to the contrary, was found on her server.  But, I admire you for trying to her off the hook by subtly changing the topic.


----------



## Oldstyle

The people that have chosen to "rationalize" are the ones who have chosen to overlook Hillary Clinton's blatant lies because they see her as the best way for progressives to retain the White House.


----------



## Meathead

JimH52 said:


> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.


Great source. I would say nice try, but it really wasn't.

Come up with something a bit more substantial if you want to open a sincere dialogue.

hint: no dingbat sites


----------



## Oldstyle

hunarcy said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge, no one CLAIMS that having private e-mail was against policy.  The problem is the classified content that, in spite of claims to the contrary, was found on her server.  But, I admire you for trying to her off the hook by subtly changing the topic.
Click to expand...


To the best of my knowledge...using a private e-mail account for government business wasn't against the law but it went completely counter to a policy that President Obama set years ago.  That being said...it doesn't appear as many listened to Barry because it's now been revealed this week that Lois Lerner also conducted official business on a private email account named after her dog to keep it hidden.


----------



## hunarcy

Oldstyle said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge, no one CLAIMS that having private e-mail was against policy.  The problem is the classified content that, in spite of claims to the contrary, was found on her server.  But, I admire you for trying to her off the hook by subtly changing the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge...using a private e-mail account for government business wasn't against the law but it went completely counter to a policy that President Obama set years ago.  That being said...it doesn't appear as many listened to Barry because it's now been revealed this week that Lois Lerner also conducted official business on a private email account named after her dog to keep it hidden.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm sure it was not a policy.  It was probably just a suggestion.  However, the classified restriction was the LAW.  That'll be harder to shake.


----------



## Oldstyle

In so many ways...the way that this Administration has conducted business is reminiscent of the Nixon White House...which is rather ironic since Barack Obama went into office promising to be the most transparent administration in history!


----------



## JimH52

browsing deer said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> * State Department confirms Hillary Clinton email violated no laws or policies *
> 
> By Bill Palmer | August 24, 2015 | 84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FacebookTwitterSubscribe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State Department publicly confirmed today that Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email while serving as Secretary of State violated no laws or policies that were in place at the time, bringing an end to the substantive side of the “email scandal” if certainly not the political side. Clinton’s opponents in the 2016 election and their followers have been hoping the issue would force her out of the election, but now they’ll be reduced to simply trying to create a scandal where none exists, after the department’s official words today.
> 
> 
> 
> What does the FBI have to say about it?
> 
> Yesterday three other departments (NSA , CIA and the folks in charge of imaging) say she did violate top secret protocols.  And the three departments involved own the rules, according to the ukaze signed by 0bama in 2009.  The State department has no say in the matter, according to the Ukaze
Click to expand...


Conveniently with no link.....


----------



## JimH52

The GOP is desperate to bring down Hillary.  Lies are the very least that they can produce.  It will get much worse as time goes on.


----------



## hunarcy

JimH52 said:


> The GOP is desperate to bring down Hillary.  Lies are the very least that they can produce.  It will get much worse as time goes on.



I think Hillary should be your nominee.  Please don't bring her down.


----------



## Oldstyle

JimH52 said:


> The GOP is desperate to bring down Hillary.  Lies are the very least that they can produce.  It will get much worse as time goes on.



Dude, I hate to break this to you but Hillary has almost as many enemies in the Democratic Party as she does in the Republican.  It will get much worse as time goes on because she's running for President and at some point she's going to have to answer some tough questions posed not be those on the right...but by those on the left.


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "comparing" Benghazi to anything!  I'm simply pointing out that your claim that there was nothing anyone could have done to stop it is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See folks that's how you rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I "compare"?
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> The people that have chosen to "rationalize" are the ones who have chosen to overlook Hillary Clinton's blatant lies because they see her as the best way for progressives to retain the White House.


false.


----------



## daws101

JimH52 said:


> The GOP is desperate to bring down Hillary.  Lies are the very least that they can produce.  It will get much worse as time goes on.


 some in that party have already said Hillary is a lesbian or a man ,communist etc.
calling her a liar is farcical.


----------



## Synthaholic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 'In a recent interview, also on CNN, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) admitted that the number of emails that Republicans claim were classified information in Hillary Clinton’s email account was not accurate due to retroactive classification.


I recently saw a story about Trey Gowdy complaining about too much classification, and things getting classified after the fact.  I'll look for it later.


----------



## Synthaholic

WelfareQueen said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't get the memo.  So the Federal Courts, Congress, and the FBI have all stopped their multiple criminal investigations?
> 
> Wow.....good to know!
Click to expand...

They aren't 'criminal' investigations, dope.


----------



## Synthaholic

WelfareQueen said:


> So the FBI and two non-partisan Inspectors General


When they conclude that she did nothing illegal you will stop calling them non-partisan.

Fact!


----------



## Synthaholic

Oldstyle said:


> So tell us why Hillary hid the existence of that computer server and then erased it's contents?


Why would she make her server a target for foreign hackers by revealing it's existence?  Turns out her server was safe because no one knew about it.  Meanwhile government computers have been hacked.

So why aren't you thanking Hillary for protecting her correspondence?

And she erased it because it was hers and she could do whatever the hell she wanted to with it!


----------



## Synthaholic

Luddly Neddite said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a vast right wing conspiracy according to Hillary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
Click to expand...

Yup!  Republicans compromised their security:

*Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'*


.


----------



## Meathead

Synthaholic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup!  Republicans compromised their security:
> 
> *Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Benghazi has now paled in comparison to Hillary's email problems.

Anyone that sleazy is not going to be president


----------



## browsing deer

JimH52 said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> * State Department confirms Hillary Clinton email violated no laws or policies *
> 
> By Bill Palmer | August 24, 2015 | 84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FacebookTwitterSubscribe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State Department publicly confirmed today that Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email while serving as Secretary of State violated no laws or policies that were in place at the time, bringing an end to the substantive side of the “email scandal” if certainly not the political side. Clinton’s opponents in the 2016 election and their followers have been hoping the issue would force her out of the election, but now they’ll be reduced to simply trying to create a scandal where none exists, after the department’s official words today.
> 
> 
> 
> What does the FBI have to say about it?
> 
> Yesterday three other departments (NSA , CIA and the folks in charge of imaging) say she did violate top secret protocols.  And the three departments involved own the rules, according to the ukaze signed by 0bama in 2009.  The State department has no say in the matter, according to the Ukaze
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conveniently with no link.....
Click to expand...

I had posted it yesterday and you had replied to that thread.  Here it is again.  

this is one more obfuscation and lie from Hillary.  It was not subject to confusion.  Obama made it very clear.  And it is not up to the state department.  It is up to the departments involved.


----------



## daws101

Meathead said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> 
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup!  Republicans compromised their security:
> 
> *Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Benghazi has no paled in comparison to Hillary's email problems.
> 
> Anyone that sleazy is not going to be president
Click to expand...

Lol!


----------



## Oldstyle

Synthaholic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you describe the endless list of false accusations, all the way from the death of Vince Foster, to death panels, FEMA prisons, Jade Helm, and Benghazi, each and every one proven to be nothing other than manufactured outrage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup!  Republicans compromised their security:
> 
> *Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You embarrass yourself with this completely false narrative, Synth.  The whole argument that the GOP is responsible for Benghazi because they didn't give the State Department 100% of what they asked for got blown out of the water the moment that Charlene Lamb took questions under oath and testified that budget constraints had nothing to do with cutting security in Libya.  Why do you even bother trying with this nonsense?  You have to know that it's total bullshit...yet you guys keep trotting it out there...like maybe this time nobody will notice that it's bullshit?  Sad...truly sad!


----------



## Oldstyle

Synthaholic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us why Hillary hid the existence of that computer server and then erased it's contents?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she make her server a target for foreign hackers by revealing it's existence?  Turns out her server was safe because no one knew about it.  Meanwhile government computers have been hacked.
> 
> So why aren't you thanking Hillary for protecting her correspondence?
> 
> And she erased it because it was hers and she could do whatever the hell she wanted to with it!
Click to expand...


So Hillary lied to Congress to protect us all from "foreign hackers"?  That is probably the most pathetic excuse for what Clinton did I've heard yet...and that's saying something!


----------



## JimH52

Oldstyle said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us why Hillary hid the existence of that computer server and then erased it's contents?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she make her server a target for foreign hackers by revealing it's existence?  Turns out her server was safe because no one knew about it.  Meanwhile government computers have been hacked.
> 
> So why aren't you thanking Hillary for protecting her correspondence?
> 
> And she erased it because it was hers and she could do whatever the hell she wanted to with it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Hillary lied to Congress to protect us all from "foreign hackers"?  That is probably the most pathetic excuse for what Clinton did I've heard yet...and that's saying something!
Click to expand...


Just keep yapping if it makes you feel better, between Trump's insults....


----------



## Oldstyle

JimH52 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us why Hillary hid the existence of that computer server and then erased it's contents?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she make her server a target for foreign hackers by revealing it's existence?  Turns out her server was safe because no one knew about it.  Meanwhile government computers have been hacked.
> 
> So why aren't you thanking Hillary for protecting her correspondence?
> 
> And she erased it because it was hers and she could do whatever the hell she wanted to with it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Hillary lied to Congress to protect us all from "foreign hackers"?  That is probably the most pathetic excuse for what Clinton did I've heard yet...and that's saying something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep yapping if it makes you feel better, between Trump's insults....
Click to expand...


So pointing out that Clinton has a long history of telling lies and obstructing justice is "yapping"?  Will it be yapping when the Democrats she'll be running against say the same thing?  Or are you naive enough to think they AREN'T going to go after her on this stuff?


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us why Hillary hid the existence of that computer server and then erased it's contents?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she make her server a target for foreign hackers by revealing it's existence?  Turns out her server was safe because no one knew about it.  Meanwhile government computers have been hacked.
> 
> So why aren't you thanking Hillary for protecting her correspondence?
> 
> And she erased it because it was hers and she could do whatever the hell she wanted to with it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Hillary lied to Congress to protect us all from "foreign hackers"?  That is probably the most pathetic excuse for what Clinton did I've heard yet...and that's saying something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep yapping if it makes you feel better, between Trump's insults....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So pointing out that Clinton has a long history of telling lies and obstructing justice is "yapping"?  Will it be yapping when the Democrats she'll be running against say the same thing?  Or are you naive enough to think they AREN'T going to go after her on this stuff?
Click to expand...

Nothing to go after.


----------



## BULLDOG

Meathead said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you even say that Benghazi was nothing more than "manufactured outrage"?  Four Americans died at the hands of Al Queda terrorists...one of them a US Ambassador!  Hillary Clinton has been hiding the truth about what happened leading up to the death of Chris Stevens and the other three and the cover-up that followed FOR YEARS!  How would you feel if you were the loved one of one of those four and the person who lied to your face about what took place in Benghazi that day was now running for President of the United States...a position where she would have control over ALL our military and not just State Department employees?
> 
> Clinton lied and hid documents regarding Whitewater.  She lied and withheld evidence about Benghazi.  She lied and withheld evidence regarding Clinton Foundation contributions.  She lied and withheld evidence about her e-mails.
> 
> False accusations?  Please...that's absurd.  Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and has a long history of obstructing investigations into her various scandals.  It's what she DOES!  It's who she IS!
> 
> 
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup!  Republicans compromised their security:
> 
> *Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Benghazi has now paled in comparison to Hillary's email problems.
> 
> Anyone that sleazy is not going to be president
Click to expand...


Benghazi morphed into the email complaint. There was nothing there, so the right redirected the witch hunt another direction.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BULLDOG said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup!  Republicans compromised their security:
> 
> *Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Benghazi has now paled in comparison to Hillary's email problems.
> 
> Anyone that sleazy is not going to be president
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi morphed into the email complaint. There was nothing there, so the right redirected the witch hunt another direction.
Click to expand...

And now the ridiculous right is trying to conjoin 'Benghazi' with 'emails.'


----------



## Oldstyle

BULLDOG said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bengazi is history there was nothing any one could do to stop it , besides the diplomatic staff knew the risk when they signed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup!  Republicans compromised their security:
> 
> *Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Benghazi has now paled in comparison to Hillary's email problems.
> 
> Anyone that sleazy is not going to be president
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi morphed into the email complaint. There was nothing there, so the right redirected the witch hunt another direction.
Click to expand...


In the process of trying to get to the truth in the Benghazi scandal it was discovered that Hillary Clinton was conducting State Department business on a personal e-mail account...something that she deliberately hid from Congressional investigators.

If there was "nothing there"...then why didn't Hillary Clinton make it available to Congress?  The obvious answer to that is that there was something there and Clinton didn't want the public to see what that something was.  These public officials are all conducting business on private e-mail accounts because they want to escape Congressional scrutiny.  Once again...this is being done by the administration that declared it would be the most transparent in history!  So did high ranking officials at the IRS, the State Department and the EPA just not "get the memo" on that...or did they deliberately try and hide how they conducted business from our elected representatives? 

I'm sorry but you're faced with two rather bad choices here if you're a progressive cheerleader...either your people are clueless...or they are sleazy.  Pick your poison...


----------



## Oldstyle

Time to circle the wagons, Hillary lovers!  People aren't buying the bullshit anymore.  Which leaves you with who?  Bernie Sanders?  Joe Biden?  Martin O'Malley?  What you thought was going to be a cake walk against a weak GOP field looks like it might turn into your worst nightmare.  Just saying...


----------



## JimH52

I am
am not huge Hillary supporter and it really doesn't matter.  If she suvives this fabricated scandal she will win.  If the Dems choose someone else, they will win.  Trump and his insults have doomed the GOP with Hispanics, Women, and now Asians.  AND HE HAS NOT FINISHED!

Hilarious!


----------



## BULLDOG

Oldstyle said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup!  Republicans compromised their security:
> 
> *Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Benghazi has now paled in comparison to Hillary's email problems.
> 
> Anyone that sleazy is not going to be president
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi morphed into the email complaint. There was nothing there, so the right redirected the witch hunt another direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the process of trying to get to the truth in the Benghazi scandal it was discovered that Hillary Clinton was conducting State Department business on a personal e-mail account...something that she deliberately hid from Congressional investigators.
> 
> If there was "nothing there"...then why didn't Hillary Clinton make it available to Congress?  The obvious answer to that is that there was something there and Clinton didn't want the public to see what that something was.  These public officials are all conducting business on private e-mail accounts because they want to escape Congressional scrutiny.  Once again...this is being done by the administration that declared it would be the most transparent in history!  So did high ranking officials at the IRS, the State Department and the EPA just not "get the memo" on that...or did they deliberately try and hide how they conducted business from our elected representatives?
> 
> I'm sorry but you're faced with two rather bad choices here if you're a progressive cheerleader...either your people are clueless...or they are sleazy.  Pick your poison...
Click to expand...


Let me know if you ever find any proof of any of your countless allegations.


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> Time to circle the wagons, Hillary lovers!  People aren't buying the bullshit anymore.  Which leaves you with who?  Bernie Sanders?  Joe Biden?  Martin O'Malley?  What you thought was going to be a cake walk against a weak GOP field looks like it might turn into your worst nightmare.  Just saying...


Wake up Dorothy you are having that dream again.


----------



## BULLDOG

Oldstyle said:


> Time to circle the wagons, Hillary lovers!  People aren't buying the bullshit anymore.  Which leaves you with who?  Bernie Sanders?  Joe Biden?  Martin O'Malley?  What you thought was going to be a cake walk against a weak GOP field looks like it might turn into your worst nightmare.  Just saying...




The only people concerned are the right wingers who would never vote Democratic any way. It's still a cake walk against the weakest GOP field I have ever seen for which ever Democrat wins the nomination.


----------



## JimH52

BULLDOG said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to circle the wagons, Hillary lovers!  People aren't buying the bullshit anymore.  Which leaves you with who?  Bernie Sanders?  Joe Biden?  Martin O'Malley?  What you thought was going to be a cake walk against a weak GOP field looks like it might turn into your worst nightmare.  Just saying...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only people concerned are the right wingers who would never vote Democratic any way. It's still a cake walk against the weakest GOP field I have ever seen for which ever Democrat wins the nomination.
Click to expand...


Trump has poisoned the waters with his bellicose speeches and insults.  The establishment at the RNC is going crazy.  Valium for everyone!


----------



## daws101

JimH52 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to circle the wagons, Hillary lovers!  People aren't buying the bullshit anymore.  Which leaves you with who?  Bernie Sanders?  Joe Biden?  Martin O'Malley?  What you thought was going to be a cake walk against a weak GOP field looks like it might turn into your worst nightmare.  Just saying...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only people concerned are the right wingers who would never vote Democratic any way. It's still a cake walk against the weakest GOP field I have ever seen for which ever Democrat wins the nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump has poisoned the waters with his bellicose speeches and insults.  The establishment at the RNC is going crazy.  Valium for everyone!
Click to expand...

yeah but he has money!


----------



## Oldstyle

Are you three living under a rock without access to cable?  In case you hadn't noticed, Trump is GAINING ground with Hispanics!  Could it possibly be that the Hispanics have seen through the far left's false narrative that the GOP somehow hates them because they want to secure the border?  That the Democrats talk a good game with this whole income inequality thing but they don't have a clue how to stimulate the economy and create jobs?  Gee, what's next...will blacks finally figure out that the welfare society they've been sold by liberals is keeping them on an "entitlement plantation" and decide to vote for someone who will REALLY help them?


----------



## Slyhunter

CrusaderFrank said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP don't run the FBI, moron
Click to expand...

No, but Obama does, moron!


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> Are you three living under a rock without access to cable?  In case you hadn't noticed, Trump is GAINING ground with Hispanics!  Could it possibly be that the Hispanics have seen through the far left's false narrative that the GOP somehow hates them because they want to secure the border?  That the Democrats talk a good game with this whole income inequality thing but they don't have a clue how to stimulate the economy and create jobs?  Gee, what's next...will blacks finally figure out that the welfare society they've been sold by liberals is keeping them on an "entitlement plantation" and decide to vote for someone who will REALLY help them?


Ohhhh no not the democrats keeping the brothers down ploy!


----------



## Agit8r




----------



## ScienceRocks

Another crock of shit that has no legs!!!


----------



## Oldstyle

daws101 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you three living under a rock without access to cable?  In case you hadn't noticed, Trump is GAINING ground with Hispanics!  Could it possibly be that the Hispanics have seen through the far left's false narrative that the GOP somehow hates them because they want to secure the border?  That the Democrats talk a good game with this whole income inequality thing but they don't have a clue how to stimulate the economy and create jobs?  Gee, what's next...will blacks finally figure out that the welfare society they've been sold by liberals is keeping them on an "entitlement plantation" and decide to vote for someone who will REALLY help them?
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh no not the democrats keeping the brothers down ploy!
Click to expand...


Ohhhh no not the Democrats are really helping the brothers myth!


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you three living under a rock without access to cable?  In case you hadn't noticed, Trump is GAINING ground with Hispanics!  Could it possibly be that the Hispanics have seen through the far left's false narrative that the GOP somehow hates them because they want to secure the border?  That the Democrats talk a good game with this whole income inequality thing but they don't have a clue how to stimulate the economy and create jobs?  Gee, what's next...will blacks finally figure out that the welfare society they've been sold by liberals is keeping them on an "entitlement plantation" and decide to vote for someone who will REALLY help them?
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh no not the democrats keeping the brothers down ploy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh no not the Democrats are really helping the brothers myth!
Click to expand...

Original much?


----------



## Oldstyle

daws101 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you three living under a rock without access to cable?  In case you hadn't noticed, Trump is GAINING ground with Hispanics!  Could it possibly be that the Hispanics have seen through the far left's false narrative that the GOP somehow hates them because they want to secure the border?  That the Democrats talk a good game with this whole income inequality thing but they don't have a clue how to stimulate the economy and create jobs?  Gee, what's next...will blacks finally figure out that the welfare society they've been sold by liberals is keeping them on an "entitlement plantation" and decide to vote for someone who will REALLY help them?
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh no not the democrats keeping the brothers down ploy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh no not the Democrats are really helping the brothers myth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Original much?
Click to expand...


That's parody, Sparky...try and keep up!


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you three living under a rock without access to cable?  In case you hadn't noticed, Trump is GAINING ground with Hispanics!  Could it possibly be that the Hispanics have seen through the far left's false narrative that the GOP somehow hates them because they want to secure the border?  That the Democrats talk a good game with this whole income inequality thing but they don't have a clue how to stimulate the economy and create jobs?  Gee, what's next...will blacks finally figure out that the welfare society they've been sold by liberals is keeping them on an "entitlement plantation" and decide to vote for someone who will REALLY help them?
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh no not the democrats keeping the brothers down ploy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh no not the Democrats are really helping the brothers myth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Original much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's parody, Sparky...try and keep up!
Click to expand...

Sorry but no it's not .


----------



## Oldstyle

The fact is that after almost seven years of a black liberal sitting in the Oval Office...blacks are just as bad off now as they were before Obama took office.  Talk is always cheap with you on the left, Daws...you promise the world and it's always going to be some other person that's going to pay the tab...only when push comes to shove things never seem to work out the way you promised they would.


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> The fact is that after almost seven years of a black liberal sitting in the Oval Office...blacks are just as bad off now as they were before Obama took office.  Talk is always cheap with you on the left, Daws...you promise the world and it's always going to be some other person that's going to pay the tab...only when push comes to shove things never seem to work out the way you promised they would.


Cue weepy music.


----------



## Oldstyle

daws101 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that after almost seven years of a black liberal sitting in the Oval Office...blacks are just as bad off now as they were before Obama took office.  Talk is always cheap with you on the left, Daws...you promise the world and it's always going to be some other person that's going to pay the tab...only when push comes to shove things never seem to work out the way you promised they would.
> 
> 
> 
> Cue weepy music.
Click to expand...


Is that the best comeback you've got?  Pretty telling...


----------



## Vigilante

Falling apart?....Falling Apart!   Now They have that muslim bitch Huma Weiner in their sights.... she'll fold like an old wallet!

*State Dept.-released Clinton email had classified intel from 3 agencies, in possible violation*

FoxNews ^ | August 26, 2015 | Catherine Herridge
Agencies say info in Clinton emails was classified when sent One of the emails contained classified intelligence from three different agencies, which could mean the State Department violated a President Obama-signed executive order by authorizing its release. That 2009 order, EO 13526, lays out the rules for "classifying, safeguarding and declassifying national security information." It states that the authority to declassify rests with the intelligence agency that originated the information. One of the two emails that sparked the FBI probe was an April 2011 email from Clinton confidant Huma Abedin that contained intelligence from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the...


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that after almost seven years of a black liberal sitting in the Oval Office...blacks are just as bad off now as they were before Obama took office.  Talk is always cheap with you on the left, Daws...you promise the world and it's always going to be some other person that's going to pay the tab...only when push comes to shove things never seem to work out the way you promised they would.
> 
> 
> 
> Cue weepy music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best comeback you've got?  Pretty telling...
Click to expand...

Sure is ..it's rock solid evidence you can't tell the difference between a non issue and the real thing.


----------



## Oldstyle

daws101 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that after almost seven years of a black liberal sitting in the Oval Office...blacks are just as bad off now as they were before Obama took office.  Talk is always cheap with you on the left, Daws...you promise the world and it's always going to be some other person that's going to pay the tab...only when push comes to shove things never seem to work out the way you promised they would.
> 
> 
> 
> Cue weepy music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best comeback you've got?  Pretty telling...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure is ..it's rock solid evidence you can't tell the difference between a non issue and the real thing.
Click to expand...


Since we've now learned that high level people in the State Department, the IRS and the EPA all used private e-mail accounts in what appears to be an attempt to hide how they conducted themselves from the people who we elected and sent to Washington to keep tabs on them...then YES...I'd say it's an "issue"!


----------



## browsing deer

This is not an exoneration of Hitlary, this is a widening of the scandal.


----------



## airplanemechanic

browsing deer said:


> Yesterday three other departments (NSA , CIA and the folks in charge of imaging) say she did violate top secret protocols.  And the three departments involved own the rules, according to the ukaze signed by 0bama in 2009.  The State department has no say in the matter, according to the Ukaze



Can you imagine the state department saying the head of the state department violated no laws? Imagine that. Whodathunkit.


----------



## daws101

Oldstyle said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that after almost seven years of a black liberal sitting in the Oval Office...blacks are just as bad off now as they were before Obama took office.  Talk is always cheap with you on the left, Daws...you promise the world and it's always going to be some other person that's going to pay the tab...only when push comes to shove things never seem to work out the way you promised they would.
> 
> 
> 
> Cue weepy music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best comeback you've got?  Pretty telling...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure is ..it's rock solid evidence you can't tell the difference between a non issue and the real thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we've now learned that high level people in the State Department, the IRS and the EPA all used private e-mail accounts in what appears to be an attempt to hide how they conducted themselves from the people who we elected and sent to Washington to keep tabs on them...then YES...I'd say it's an "issue"!
Click to expand...

not surprised.


----------



## daws101

browsing deer said:


> This is not an exoneration of Hitlary, this is a widening of the scandal.


as with al conspiracy theories it must grow or it dies.


----------



## Oldstyle

daws101 said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an exoneration of Hitlary, this is a widening of the scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> as with al conspiracy theories it must grow or it dies.
Click to expand...


History teaches us that the reason most scandals "grow" is that the cover-ups are inevitably worse than the original fuck-up.

It wasn't the break-in at Watergate that brought down a Presidency...it was the ensuing cover-up.

The call to decrease security protection for our diplomats in Libya was in hind sight an awful decision.  That in and of itself isn't what has gotten Hillary Clinton in hot water however.  It's misleading the American people about what took place in Benghazi and stonewalling Congressional investigators looking into what took place that night that is damaging Hillary Clinton's reputation.


----------



## Meathead

If Hillary had not lied and tried to shield her server, most of this would be history by now.


----------



## Oldstyle

What Clinton SHOULD have done way back then is to simply admit that she misjudged the situation in Libya and the deaths of those four men were something she was responsible for.  You face the cameras...you take your medicine...you promise to learn from it...and you move on.

What you DON'T do is blame a You Tube video that you KNOW had nothing to do with the attacks for causing a protest that you KNOW never existed and you certainly don't tell the families of the slain Americans that you're going to make the man who made that video pay for what's taken place in Benghazi!

What you DON'T do is refuse to hand over to Congressional investigators all of the relevant materials dealing with Benghazi!  You don't hide e-mails regarding Benghazi on a private server and you certainly don't erase those e-mails when it's discovered that it exists!


----------



## Oldstyle

Hillary Clinton has nobody to blame for this except herself.  She decided to play it this way and she's the one who's now paying the piper.


----------



## HUGGY

Oldstyle said:


> What Clinton SHOULD have done way back then is to simply admit that she misjudged the situation in Libya and the deaths of those four men were something she was responsible for.  You face the cameras...you take your medicine...you promise to learn from it...and you move on.
> 
> What you DON'T do is blame a You Tube video that you KNOW had nothing to do with the attacks for causing a protest that you KNOW never existed and you certainly don't tell the families of the slain Americans that you're going to make the man who made that video pay for what's taken place in Benghazi!
> 
> What you DON'T do is refuse to hand over to Congressional investigators all of the relevant materials dealing with Benghazi!  You don't hide e-mails regarding Benghazi on a private server and you certainly don't erase those e-mails when it's discovered that it exists!



I blame You Tube.


----------



## Oldstyle

So did Hillary...how did that work out for her, Huggy?


----------



## hunarcy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you buy the whole "What difference does it make?" argument, Daws?
> 
> There were many things that could and SHOULD have been done to keep the tragedy of Benghazi from happening!  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was more concerned about "optics" than she was about the security of our diplomatic personnel before the attack took place and she was more concerned with covering her ass than saving American lives once it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge difference could have been made if the Republicans had not cut their security and left them wide open to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup!  Republicans compromised their security:
> 
> *Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Benghazi has now paled in comparison to Hillary's email problems.
> 
> Anyone that sleazy is not going to be president
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi morphed into the email complaint. There was nothing there, so the right redirected the witch hunt another direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now the ridiculous right is trying to conjoin 'Benghazi' with 'emails.'
Click to expand...


Yes, because it makes PERFECT sense that while the incident was happening and in it's aftermath, she didn't receive even one e-mail about the events in Benghazi.


----------



## hunarcy

Oldstyle said:


> Time to circle the wagons, Hillary lovers!  People aren't buying the bullshit anymore.  Which leaves you with who?  Bernie Sanders?  Joe Biden?  Martin O'Malley?  What you thought was going to be a cake walk against a weak GOP field looks like it might turn into your worst nightmare.  Just saying...




Those old white folks are all the Democrats have to offer?


----------



## ClosedCaption

daws101 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be a endless circle jerk finding nothing just like Benghazi.
Click to expand...


Let me check your office
Let me check your computer
Let me check your email 
Let me check your home email
Let me check your diary
AHA!!  We found something here folks...I KNEW she had something to hide.  She uses heavy foundation despite her suggesting her look is "natural"


GOP applauds


----------



## westwall

ClosedCaption said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be a endless circle jerk finding nothing just like Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me check your office
> Let me check your computer
> Let me check your email
> Let me check your home email
> Let me check your diary
> AHA!!  We found something here folks...I KNEW she had something to hide.  She uses heavy foundation despite her suggesting her look is "natural"
> 
> 
> GOP applauds
Click to expand...







I love how you blissfully ignore the fact that the company maintaining her server had no security clearance and neither did  ANY of the staff of the company.   That shows she is either grossly incompetent or simply doesn't care about the security of this country, and clearly neither do you.


----------



## ClosedCaption

westwall said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be a endless circle jerk finding nothing just like Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me check your office
> Let me check your computer
> Let me check your email
> Let me check your home email
> Let me check your diary
> AHA!!  We found something here folks...I KNEW she had something to hide.  She uses heavy foundation despite her suggesting her look is "natural"
> 
> 
> GOP applauds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you blissfully ignore the fact that the company maintaining her server had no security clearance and neither did  ANY of the staff of the company.   That shows she is either grossly incompetent or simply doesn't care about the security of this country, and clearly neither do you.
Click to expand...



Yeah, you should go back to saying Hilary watched those people die with Obama!  At least that generated some sort of feeling.

This?  not so much


----------



## browsing deer

westwall said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be a endless circle jerk finding nothing just like Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me check your office
> Let me check your computer
> Let me check your email
> Let me check your home email
> Let me check your diary
> AHA!!  We found something here folks...I KNEW she had something to hide.  She uses heavy foundation despite her suggesting her look is "natural"
> 
> 
> GOP applauds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you blissfully ignore the fact that the company maintaining her server had no security clearance and neither did  ANY of the staff of the company.   That shows she is either grossly incompetent or simply doesn't care about the security of this country, and clearly neither do you.
Click to expand...

She is grossly incompetent.  She shouldn't be in charge of Anything


----------



## westwall

QUOTE
	
="ClosedCaption, post: 12167312, member: 25032"] QUOTE
	
="westwall, post: 12167287, member: 23239"] QUOTE
	
="ClosedCaption, post: 12166685, member: 25032"] QUOTE
	
="daws101, post: 12152442, member: 30999"]





westwall said:


> You wish.


It'll be a endless circle jerk finding nothing just like Benghazi.[/QUOTE]

Let me check your office
Let me check your computer
	

Let me check your email
Let me check your home email
Let me check your diary
AHA!!  We found something here folks...I KNEW she had something to hide.  She uses heavy foundation despite her suggesting her look is "natural"


GOP applauds[/QUOTE]






I love how you blissfully ignore the fact that the company maintaining her server had no security clearance and neither did  ANY of the staff of the company.   That shows she is either grossly incompetent or simply doesn't care about the security of this country, and clearly neither do you.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, you should go back to saying Hilary watched those people die with Obama!  At least that generated some sort of feeling.

This?  not so much[/QUOTE]







Yes, you progressives are all about "feelings".   Blissfully ignorant of facts, could care less about the laws of this land, but gosh golly Mrs. Cleaver we sure care about how people feel!


----------



## daws101

westwall said:


> QUOTE
> 
> ="ClosedCaption, post: 12167312, member: 25032"] QUOTE
> 
> ="westwall, post: 12167287, member: 23239"] QUOTE
> 
> ="ClosedCaption, post: 12166685, member: 25032"] QUOTE
> 
> ="daws101, post: 12152442, member: 30999"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be a endless circle jerk finding nothing just like Benghazi.
Click to expand...


Let me check your office
Let me check your computer
	

Let me check your email
Let me check your home email
Let me check your diary
AHA!!  We found something here folks...I KNEW she had something to hide.  She uses heavy foundation despite her suggesting her look is "natural"


GOP applauds[/QUOTE]






I love how you blissfully ignore the fact that the company maintaining her server had no security clearance and neither did  ANY of the staff of the company.   That shows she is either grossly incompetent or simply doesn't care about the security of this country, and clearly neither do you.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, you should go back to saying Hilary watched those people die with Obama!  At least that generated some sort of feeling.

This?  not so much[/QUOTE]







Yes, you progressives are all about "feelings".   Blissfully ignorant of facts, could care less about the laws of this land, but gosh golly Mrs. Cleaver we sure care about how people feel![/QUOTE]
Gee wally!


----------



## HUGGY

Oldstyle said:


> So did Hillary...how did that work out for her, Huggy?



She's still running isn't she?  She is not being charged with any crimes is she?  

This is just the continuation of the RWer disinformation campaign.  I see it as an extension of the GOP promise to ruin Obama's presidency.  

Bush started two wars.  Bush allowed the worst terrorist attack on U S soil.  Cheney made a fortune on Bush's wars.  Rove and Cheney outed a CIA operative as payback for that operative doing her job.

The administration previous to Obama was in charge as the world economies went down in flames.  ALL of the financial downfall can be traced directly to the banks in America.  

And NOW you fools are wetting your pants about how a small terror attack was characterized in the press?

You are playing with your pee pee's in anticipation of some titillating news from Hillary's e-mails.

Sorry I unlike you have not lost my mind nor perspective on what constitutes dereliction of duty.  That would be defined as what Bush did and did not do.  That would be defined as what Rice, Cheney, Rove and Bush did and did not do.  

You people are not even blessed with an imagination.  What you get in a tizzy about is ridiculous.  The truth of the matter is that you are hateful people with no common sense of what is right or wrong.

I've got your number...

Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....


----------



## Oldstyle

HUGGY said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Hillary...how did that work out for her, Huggy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's still running isn't she?  She is not being charged with any crimes is she?
> 
> This is just the continuation of the RWer disinformation campaign.  I see it as an extension of the GOP promise to ruin Obama's presidency.
> 
> Bush started two wars.  Bush allowed the worst terrorist attack on U S soil.  Cheney made a fortune on Bush's wars.  Rove and Cheney outed a CIA operative as payback for that operative doing her job.
> 
> The administration previous to Obama was in charge as the world economies went down in flames.  ALL of the financial downfall can be traced directly to the banks in America.
> 
> And NOW you fools are wetting your pants about how a small terror attack was characterized in the press?
> 
> You are playing with your pee pee's in anticipation of some titillating news from Hillary's e-mails.
> 
> Sorry I unlike you have not lost my mind nor perspective on what constitutes dereliction of duty.  That would be defined as what Bush did and did not do.  That would be defined as what Rice, Cheney, Rove and Bush did and did not do.
> 
> You people are not even blessed with an imagination.  What you get in a tizzy about is ridiculous.  The truth of the matter is that you are hateful people with no common sense of what is right or wrong.
> 
> I've got your number...
> 
> Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....
Click to expand...


"Small terror attack"?  Really, Huggy?  Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador.  It was a serious terror attack.

Why are you even bringing up George W. Bush?  He has NOTHING to do with what took place in Benghazi.  This was an Obama Administration screw-up...a complete failure by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to protect our diplomatic staff...and then a full court press by the entire Obama apparatus to shift blame from themselves to some obscure YouTube video that ALSO had nothing to do with what took place in Benghazi.


----------



## Oldstyle

ClosedCaption said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be a endless circle jerk finding nothing just like Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me check your office
> Let me check your computer
> Let me check your email
> Let me check your home email
> Let me check your diary
> AHA!!  We found something here folks...I KNEW she had something to hide.  She uses heavy foundation despite her suggesting her look is "natural"
> 
> 
> GOP applauds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you blissfully ignore the fact that the company maintaining her server had no security clearance and neither did  ANY of the staff of the company.   That shows she is either grossly incompetent or simply doesn't care about the security of this country, and clearly neither do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you should go back to saying Hilary watched those people die with Obama!  At least that generated some sort of feeling.
> 
> This?  not so much
Click to expand...


How about we go back to demanding some honest answers from this administration about what happened in Benghazi and why they decided they needed to mislead both the Congress and the American people about events that took place that night?


----------



## HUGGY

Oldstyle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Hillary...how did that work out for her, Huggy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's still running isn't she?  She is not being charged with any crimes is she?
> 
> This is just the continuation of the RWer disinformation campaign.  I see it as an extension of the GOP promise to ruin Obama's presidency.
> 
> Bush started two wars.  Bush allowed the worst terrorist attack on U S soil.  Cheney made a fortune on Bush's wars.  Rove and Cheney outed a CIA operative as payback for that operative doing her job.
> 
> The administration previous to Obama was in charge as the world economies went down in flames.  ALL of the financial downfall can be traced directly to the banks in America.
> 
> And NOW you fools are wetting your pants about how a small terror attack was characterized in the press?
> 
> You are playing with your pee pee's in anticipation of some titillating news from Hillary's e-mails.
> 
> Sorry I unlike you have not lost my mind nor perspective on what constitutes dereliction of duty.  That would be defined as what Bush did and did not do.  That would be defined as what Rice, Cheney, Rove and Bush did and did not do.
> 
> You people are not even blessed with an imagination.  What you get in a tizzy about is ridiculous.  The truth of the matter is that you are hateful people with no common sense of what is right or wrong.
> 
> I've got your number...
> 
> Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Small terror attack"?  Really, Huggy?  Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador.  It was a serious terror attack.
> 
> Why are you even bringing up George W. Bush?  He has NOTHING to do with what took place in Benghazi.  This was an Obama Administration screw-up...a complete failure by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to protect our diplomatic staff...and then a full court press by the entire Obama apparatus to shift blame from themselves to some obscure YouTube video that ALSO had nothing to do with what took place in Benghazi.
Click to expand...


That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.

The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.  

You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.

You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.


----------



## Synthaholic

westwall said:


> the company maintaining her server had no security clearance


So?  They weren't reading her emails either.  And there was no classified info in her emails, anyway, so it's a moot point.


----------



## Synthaholic

Oldstyle said:


> Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador. *It was a serious terror attack*.


Like 9/11?  Where were the endless Republican investigations into what Bush knew and when he knew it?


----------



## westwall

Synthaholic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> the company maintaining her server had no security clearance
> 
> 
> 
> So?  They weren't reading her emails either.  And there was no classified info in her emails, anyway, so it's a moot point.
Click to expand...









Are you truly that stupid?  If this were a private company being this cavalier with security their entire board of directors would be up on charges.  No classified emails can go ANYPLACE that has no security clearance.  PERIOD.  It is a FELONY you twit.

And more to the point (and the whole reason for security clearances in the first place you moron)  is how the hell do you know WHO was reading them?  

That's the whole point of having clearances.


----------



## jon_berzerk

JimH52 said:


> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.



--LOL


----------



## browsing deer

Synthaholic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> the company maintaining her server had no security clearance
> 
> 
> 
> So?  They weren't reading her emails either.  And there was no classified info in her emails, anyway, so it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

You know, lying makes people mad at you.

There was classified.  And materials that was the highest level of secure.

And the server was not secure.  Ordinary Americans can't know what it is that is in those emails.  It is redacted any time some one wants to look at it.   But, the bad guys in Tehran and Pongyang and Caracus most likely were reading it.  All you had to have was her ISP address.


----------



## jon_berzerk

browsing deer said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> the company maintaining her server had no security clearance
> 
> 
> 
> So?  They weren't reading her emails either.  And there was no classified info in her emails, anyway, so it's a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, lying makes people mad at you.
> 
> There was classified.  And materials that was the highest level of secure.
> 
> And the server was not secure.  Ordinary Americans can't know what it is that is in those emails.  It is redacted any time some one wants to look at it.   But, the bad guys in Tehran and Pongyang and Caracus most likely were reading it.  All you had to have was her ISP address.
Click to expand...



what people really really hate is when a politician like clinton uses legalese loopholes like you didnt read the fine print to make it seem ok


----------



## Oldstyle

HUGGY said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Hillary...how did that work out for her, Huggy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's still running isn't she?  She is not being charged with any crimes is she?
> 
> This is just the continuation of the RWer disinformation campaign.  I see it as an extension of the GOP promise to ruin Obama's presidency.
> 
> Bush started two wars.  Bush allowed the worst terrorist attack on U S soil.  Cheney made a fortune on Bush's wars.  Rove and Cheney outed a CIA operative as payback for that operative doing her job.
> 
> The administration previous to Obama was in charge as the world economies went down in flames.  ALL of the financial downfall can be traced directly to the banks in America.
> 
> And NOW you fools are wetting your pants about how a small terror attack was characterized in the press?
> 
> You are playing with your pee pee's in anticipation of some titillating news from Hillary's e-mails.
> 
> Sorry I unlike you have not lost my mind nor perspective on what constitutes dereliction of duty.  That would be defined as what Bush did and did not do.  That would be defined as what Rice, Cheney, Rove and Bush did and did not do.
> 
> You people are not even blessed with an imagination.  What you get in a tizzy about is ridiculous.  The truth of the matter is that you are hateful people with no common sense of what is right or wrong.
> 
> I've got your number...
> 
> Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Small terror attack"?  Really, Huggy?  Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador.  It was a serious terror attack.
> 
> Why are you even bringing up George W. Bush?  He has NOTHING to do with what took place in Benghazi.  This was an Obama Administration screw-up...a complete failure by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to protect our diplomatic staff...and then a full court press by the entire Obama apparatus to shift blame from themselves to some obscure YouTube video that ALSO had nothing to do with what took place in Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
Click to expand...


So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.

It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.


----------



## Oldstyle

Synthaholic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> the company maintaining her server had no security clearance
> 
> 
> 
> So?  They weren't reading her emails either.  And there was no classified info in her emails, anyway, so it's a moot point.
Click to expand...


I'm curious, Synth...how do you know what was in Hillary Clinton's e-mails since she erased over 50,000 of them?  You've decided to take the word of someone that has a long history of not telling the truth?


----------



## HUGGY

Oldstyle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Hillary...how did that work out for her, Huggy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's still running isn't she?  She is not being charged with any crimes is she?
> 
> This is just the continuation of the RWer disinformation campaign.  I see it as an extension of the GOP promise to ruin Obama's presidency.
> 
> Bush started two wars.  Bush allowed the worst terrorist attack on U S soil.  Cheney made a fortune on Bush's wars.  Rove and Cheney outed a CIA operative as payback for that operative doing her job.
> 
> The administration previous to Obama was in charge as the world economies went down in flames.  ALL of the financial downfall can be traced directly to the banks in America.
> 
> And NOW you fools are wetting your pants about how a small terror attack was characterized in the press?
> 
> You are playing with your pee pee's in anticipation of some titillating news from Hillary's e-mails.
> 
> Sorry I unlike you have not lost my mind nor perspective on what constitutes dereliction of duty.  That would be defined as what Bush did and did not do.  That would be defined as what Rice, Cheney, Rove and Bush did and did not do.
> 
> You people are not even blessed with an imagination.  What you get in a tizzy about is ridiculous.  The truth of the matter is that you are hateful people with no common sense of what is right or wrong.
> 
> I've got your number...
> 
> Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Small terror attack"?  Really, Huggy?  Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador.  It was a serious terror attack.
> 
> Why are you even bringing up George W. Bush?  He has NOTHING to do with what took place in Benghazi.  This was an Obama Administration screw-up...a complete failure by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to protect our diplomatic staff...and then a full court press by the entire Obama apparatus to shift blame from themselves to some obscure YouTube video that ALSO had nothing to do with what took place in Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
Click to expand...


"Drawing down" resources was a direct result of congress cutting off funding to support the desired numbers of personnel.  I might offer that the defunding was an obvious set up hoping that something like this would happen.

You people and your representatives in congress are evil to the bone.  I detest you.  You have ruined the politics of this nation reducing the co-operation that to some degree existed to childish insults making any agreement to anything impossible.  

You gleefully create a pyramid scheme of lies and run with it.  There is no moral rule you will not shit on.  What you do for a hobby in attempting to destroy good people's efforts to make this a better nation is just disgusting gutter fighting for no purpose other than just spite when faced with an opponent fairly elected by decent Americans.  Everything YOU stand for is indecent.


----------



## Oldstyle

HUGGY said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Hillary...how did that work out for her, Huggy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's still running isn't she?  She is not being charged with any crimes is she?
> 
> This is just the continuation of the RWer disinformation campaign.  I see it as an extension of the GOP promise to ruin Obama's presidency.
> 
> Bush started two wars.  Bush allowed the worst terrorist attack on U S soil.  Cheney made a fortune on Bush's wars.  Rove and Cheney outed a CIA operative as payback for that operative doing her job.
> 
> The administration previous to Obama was in charge as the world economies went down in flames.  ALL of the financial downfall can be traced directly to the banks in America.
> 
> And NOW you fools are wetting your pants about how a small terror attack was characterized in the press?
> 
> You are playing with your pee pee's in anticipation of some titillating news from Hillary's e-mails.
> 
> Sorry I unlike you have not lost my mind nor perspective on what constitutes dereliction of duty.  That would be defined as what Bush did and did not do.  That would be defined as what Rice, Cheney, Rove and Bush did and did not do.
> 
> You people are not even blessed with an imagination.  What you get in a tizzy about is ridiculous.  The truth of the matter is that you are hateful people with no common sense of what is right or wrong.
> 
> I've got your number...
> 
> Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Small terror attack"?  Really, Huggy?  Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador.  It was a serious terror attack.
> 
> Why are you even bringing up George W. Bush?  He has NOTHING to do with what took place in Benghazi.  This was an Obama Administration screw-up...a complete failure by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to protect our diplomatic staff...and then a full court press by the entire Obama apparatus to shift blame from themselves to some obscure YouTube video that ALSO had nothing to do with what took place in Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Drawing down" resources was a direct result of congress cutting off funding to support the desired numbers of personnel.  I might offer that the defunding was an obvious set up hoping that something like this would happen.
> 
> You people and your representatives in congress are evil to the bone.  I detest you.  You have ruined the politics of this nation reducing the co-operation that to some degree existed to childish insults making any agreement to anything impossible.
> 
> You gleefully create a pyramid scheme of lies and run with it.  There is no moral rule you will not shit on.  What you do for a hobby in attempting to destroy good people's efforts to make this a better nation is just disgusting gutter fighting for no purpose other than just spite when faced with an opponent fairly elected by decent Americans.  Everything YOU stand for is indecent.
Click to expand...


That is total and complete BULLSHIT, Huggy!  Charlene Lamb, the person in charge of personnel for Libya with the State Department was asked when she testified under oath in front of a Congressional committee if budget cuts had anything to do with security being drawn down in Libya and she stated that budget cuts had ZERO to do with how many security people were in Benghazi.  She stated under oath that the State Department had exactly as many security people there as they thought were needed.

That whole narrative was nothing more than a rather weak attempt by Hillary Clinton to deflect blame away from herself.  Unfortunately for Hillary...not everyone at State was willing to lie for her.  As soon as Lamb's testimony was on the record you didn't hear another peep about budget cuts being responsible for the murders of those men coming from the Obama Administration or Clinton.  Now you only hear that narrative coming from clueless partisans like yourself...too stupid to know that trial balloon got SHREDDED long ago!


----------



## Esmeralda

JimH52 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
Click to expand...

Truly.  These are the people who think Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. They have no discernable rational thought at all.


----------



## Oldstyle

Esmeralda said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truly.  These are the people who think Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. They have no discernable rational thought at all.
Click to expand...


Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...


----------



## JimH52

If the GOP does not stop Donald Trump, they will suffer the most embarrassing  loss in 2016, ever.  And it does not matter who the Dems run.  His supporters are drinking his poison.  It is amazing that he has fooled so many people in the GOP.

GO DONALD!


----------



## Zoom-boing

Synthaholic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> the company maintaining her server had no security clearance
> 
> 
> 
> *So? * They weren't reading her emails either.  And there was no classified info in her emails, anyway, so it's a moot point.
Click to expand...


First off, that you have zero problem with the company/people maintaining the Secretary of State's computer server having zero security clearance speaks volumes.  Really, the sheer idiocy of that is truly astounding. 

Second,  you are wrong. 

"We know for a fact Clinton held classified information on her private Home Brew server. We know that that Home Brew server wasn’t equipped with the proper security protocols to process or store that classified information.

I can also tell you that* an organization which submitted a FOIA request specifically for Clinton’s private emails during the time frame surrounding the Benghazi attack, just received their first reply. As you might have guessed, everything they passed over was redacted and marked as classified. All of it.*

Again, this isn’t a big surprise. The Secretary of State talks about classified stuff all the time, comes with the job."

I'm a Former U.S. Government IT Professional. Hillary Clinton's Email Actions Flirt With Treason.

"*One of the emails that triggered the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s server contained classified intelligence from three different agencies*, Fox News has learned – which could mean the State Department violated a President Obama-signed executive order by authorizing its release."

Exclusive: State Dept.-released Clinton email had classified intel from 3 agencies, in possible violation


But you guys just keep excusing clinton, keep saying what difference does it make. 

Baaaaa.


----------



## Oldstyle

How exactly does that work?  On one hand the Clinton camp assures us that nothing on her private e-mail servers were of a sensitive nature...while at the same time it seems to be sensitive enough that they needed to redact most of it before they would release those e-mails under a Freedom of Information Act request?  

I would imagine given her age that it was the Nixon White House that turned Hillary Clinton from a Republican supporter to a Democratic supporter.  I wonder if she's thought about how ironic it is that after all these years, she is now acting more like Tricky Dick than anyone else in Washington?


----------



## Esmeralda

Oldstyle said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truly.  These are the people who think Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. They have no discernable rational thought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...
Click to expand...

What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.

For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.

For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).

So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of what reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.


----------



## JimH52

Esmeralda said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truly.  These are the people who think Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. They have no discernable rational thought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
Click to expand...



My hope is the lunatics on the far right who support Trump get their way and he is nominated.  Then, it wouldn't matter WHO Dems pick, the GOP will go down in flames.


----------



## browsing deer

JimH52 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truly.  These are the people who think Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. They have no discernable rational thought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My hope is the lunatics on the far right who support Trump get their way and he is nominated.  Then, it wouldn't matter WHO Dems pick, the GOP will go down in flames.
Click to expand...

The party will be torn in two and there will be two Republican nominees.  Well, One republican, one stooge and Bernie


----------



## HUGGY

Oldstyle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Hillary...how did that work out for her, Huggy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's still running isn't she?  She is not being charged with any crimes is she?
> 
> This is just the continuation of the RWer disinformation campaign.  I see it as an extension of the GOP promise to ruin Obama's presidency.
> 
> Bush started two wars.  Bush allowed the worst terrorist attack on U S soil.  Cheney made a fortune on Bush's wars.  Rove and Cheney outed a CIA operative as payback for that operative doing her job.
> 
> The administration previous to Obama was in charge as the world economies went down in flames.  ALL of the financial downfall can be traced directly to the banks in America.
> 
> And NOW you fools are wetting your pants about how a small terror attack was characterized in the press?
> 
> You are playing with your pee pee's in anticipation of some titillating news from Hillary's e-mails.
> 
> Sorry I unlike you have not lost my mind nor perspective on what constitutes dereliction of duty.  That would be defined as what Bush did and did not do.  That would be defined as what Rice, Cheney, Rove and Bush did and did not do.
> 
> You people are not even blessed with an imagination.  What you get in a tizzy about is ridiculous.  The truth of the matter is that you are hateful people with no common sense of what is right or wrong.
> 
> I've got your number...
> 
> Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Small terror attack"?  Really, Huggy?  Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador.  It was a serious terror attack.
> 
> Why are you even bringing up George W. Bush?  He has NOTHING to do with what took place in Benghazi.  This was an Obama Administration screw-up...a complete failure by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to protect our diplomatic staff...and then a full court press by the entire Obama apparatus to shift blame from themselves to some obscure YouTube video that ALSO had nothing to do with what took place in Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
Click to expand...


Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.


----------



## Oldstyle

HUGGY said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Hillary...how did that work out for her, Huggy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's still running isn't she?  She is not being charged with any crimes is she?
> 
> This is just the continuation of the RWer disinformation campaign.  I see it as an extension of the GOP promise to ruin Obama's presidency.
> 
> Bush started two wars.  Bush allowed the worst terrorist attack on U S soil.  Cheney made a fortune on Bush's wars.  Rove and Cheney outed a CIA operative as payback for that operative doing her job.
> 
> The administration previous to Obama was in charge as the world economies went down in flames.  ALL of the financial downfall can be traced directly to the banks in America.
> 
> And NOW you fools are wetting your pants about how a small terror attack was characterized in the press?
> 
> You are playing with your pee pee's in anticipation of some titillating news from Hillary's e-mails.
> 
> Sorry I unlike you have not lost my mind nor perspective on what constitutes dereliction of duty.  That would be defined as what Bush did and did not do.  That would be defined as what Rice, Cheney, Rove and Bush did and did not do.
> 
> You people are not even blessed with an imagination.  What you get in a tizzy about is ridiculous.  The truth of the matter is that you are hateful people with no common sense of what is right or wrong.
> 
> I've got your number...
> 
> Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Small terror attack"?  Really, Huggy?  Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador.  It was a serious terror attack.
> 
> Why are you even bringing up George W. Bush?  He has NOTHING to do with what took place in Benghazi.  This was an Obama Administration screw-up...a complete failure by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to protect our diplomatic staff...and then a full court press by the entire Obama apparatus to shift blame from themselves to some obscure YouTube video that ALSO had nothing to do with what took place in Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
Click to expand...


That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!

You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!

As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".


----------



## JimH52

Oldstyle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> She's still running isn't she?  She is not being charged with any crimes is she?
> 
> This is just the continuation of the RWer disinformation campaign.  I see it as an extension of the GOP promise to ruin Obama's presidency.
> 
> Bush started two wars.  Bush allowed the worst terrorist attack on U S soil.  Cheney made a fortune on Bush's wars.  Rove and Cheney outed a CIA operative as payback for that operative doing her job.
> 
> The administration previous to Obama was in charge as the world economies went down in flames.  ALL of the financial downfall can be traced directly to the banks in America.
> 
> And NOW you fools are wetting your pants about how a small terror attack was characterized in the press?
> 
> You are playing with your pee pee's in anticipation of some titillating news from Hillary's e-mails.
> 
> Sorry I unlike you have not lost my mind nor perspective on what constitutes dereliction of duty.  That would be defined as what Bush did and did not do.  That would be defined as what Rice, Cheney, Rove and Bush did and did not do.
> 
> You people are not even blessed with an imagination.  What you get in a tizzy about is ridiculous.  The truth of the matter is that you are hateful people with no common sense of what is right or wrong.
> 
> I've got your number...
> 
> Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....Bush never happened....Bush never happened....bush never happened....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Small terror attack"?  Really, Huggy?  Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador.  It was a serious terror attack.
> 
> Why are you even bringing up George W. Bush?  He has NOTHING to do with what took place in Benghazi.  This was an Obama Administration screw-up...a complete failure by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to protect our diplomatic staff...and then a full court press by the entire Obama apparatus to shift blame from themselves to some obscure YouTube video that ALSO had nothing to do with what took place in Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
Click to expand...


So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....


----------



## Oldstyle

Esmeralda said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truly.  These are the people who think Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. They have no discernable rational thought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of what reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
Click to expand...


What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!

What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?

If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.  

Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades.


----------



## Oldstyle

JimH52 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Small terror attack"?  Really, Huggy?  Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador.  It was a serious terror attack.
> 
> Why are you even bringing up George W. Bush?  He has NOTHING to do with what took place in Benghazi.  This was an Obama Administration screw-up...a complete failure by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to protect our diplomatic staff...and then a full court press by the entire Obama apparatus to shift blame from themselves to some obscure YouTube video that ALSO had nothing to do with what took place in Benghazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
Click to expand...


Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.


----------



## Esmeralda

Oldstyle said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truly.  These are the people who think Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. They have no discernable rational thought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of what reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
Click to expand...

OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.


----------



## JimH52

Oldstyle said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter who the Dems run.  Donald has poisoned the GOP well. Even if he doesn't get the nomination, they will lose.  I am sure it is hard to admit or think about.


----------



## Slyhunter

Esmeralda said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Truly.  These are the people who think Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. They have no discernable rational thought at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of what reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the democratic candidats?
A socialist
A murderer
And a buffoon. 
I mean damn


----------



## Esmeralda

Slyhunter said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly.  These are the people who think Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. They have no discernable rational thought at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of what reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
Click to expand...

LMAO


----------



## JimH52

Slyhunter said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly.  These are the people who think Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. They have no discernable rational thought at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of what reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
Click to expand...


I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.


----------



## westwall

JimH52 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Small terror attack"?  Really, Huggy?  Al Queda managed to attack a US consulate and kill our Ambassador.  It was a serious terror attack.
> 
> Why are you even bringing up George W. Bush?  He has NOTHING to do with what took place in Benghazi.  This was an Obama Administration screw-up...a complete failure by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to protect our diplomatic staff...and then a full court press by the entire Obama apparatus to shift blame from themselves to some obscure YouTube video that ALSO had nothing to do with what took place in Benghazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
Click to expand...







What's funny is the claim her emails weren't classified, but whenever a Benghazi email is finally released through an FOIA request it is heavily redacted!  That means it is classified!  You idiots are so in the tank for this old hag that you are blind to actual evidence of her lying through her teeth!

You are all laughable!


----------



## westwall

JimH52 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of what reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
Click to expand...






You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, if Trump is the nominee he'll win...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.


----------



## Esmeralda

westwall said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of what reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, *if Trump is the nominee he'll win*...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.
Click to expand...

OMG I didn't think you were that stupid.


----------



## JimH52

westwall said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of what reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, if Trump is the nominee he'll win...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.
Click to expand...


Have you been on Mars?  He has lost the Hispanic vote, he can't win the black vote and most true conservatives hate him.  HE WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT!


----------



## thanatos144

What has Trump to do with Hilary Clinton and her criminal behavior? She should be in prison . 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## browsing deer

JimH52 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, if Trump is the nominee he'll win...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you been on Mars?  He has lost the Hispanic vote, he can't win the black vote and most true conservatives hate him.  HE WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT!
Click to expand...

He won't be the nominee either.   He is making the true conservatives hate him even more each day, and as he gets more air time, the trumpbots will see him for what he truly is.  By december he will be Donald Who?


----------



## HUGGY

Oldstyle said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
Click to expand...


You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.  

You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.  

You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.  

I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty. 

The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.

You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.

You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.


----------



## Slyhunter

browsing deer said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, if Trump is the nominee he'll win...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you been on Mars?  He has lost the Hispanic vote, he can't win the black vote and most true conservatives hate him.  HE WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He won't be the nominee either.   He is making the true conservatives hate him even more each day, and as he gets more air time, the trumpbots will see him for what he truly is.  By december he will be Donald Who?
Click to expand...

Youre scared


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
Click to expand...

You are extremely progressive and a liar to boot 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Esmeralda

browsing deer said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, if Trump is the nominee he'll win...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you been on Mars?  He has lost the Hispanic vote, he can't win the black vote and most true conservatives hate him.  HE WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He won't be the nominee either.   He is making the true conservatives hate him even more each day, and as he gets more air time, the trumpbots will see him for what he truly is.  By december he will be Donald Who?
Click to expand...

He will never get the GOP nomination, but if he continues garnering the support he's getting from the extreme RW, he will go out on his own, cut the party in two, and guarantee that the Democratic candidate will win the election.  It's all good.


----------



## rdean

JimH52 said:


> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.


I've been saying this since day one.  Every SOT and even the president had private servers or emails.  Obama closed that gap two years after Mrs. Clinton left office.  One wonders if she lets this drag out just to make the GOP look more foolish than usual.


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are extremely progressive and a liar to boot
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Liar.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Hating the actions of one party does not make that individual the opposite.  I just hate liars.  The GOP has been taken over by liars.  It and my politics are just that simple.  

As far as my personal heroes in politics they are Eisenhower and Goldwater.  If THAT makes me a liberal then go ahead and call me an Eisenhower/Goldwater liberal...  

You people are ridiculous.


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are extremely progressive and a liar to boot
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Hating the actions of one party does not make that individual the opposite.  I just hate liars.  The GOP has been taken over by liars.  It and my politics are just that simple.
> 
> As far as my personal heroes in politics they are Eisenhower and Goldwater.  If THAT makes me a liberal then go ahead and call me an Eisenhower/Goldwater liberal...  [emoji38]
> 
> You people are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are extremely progressive and a liar to boot
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Hating the actions of one party does not make that individual the opposite.  I just hate liars.  The GOP has been taken over by liars.  It and my politics are just that simple.
> 
> As far as my personal heroes in politics they are Eisenhower and Goldwater.  If THAT makes me a liberal then go ahead and call me an Eisenhower/Goldwater liberal...  [emoji38]
> 
> You people are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.  

Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.

I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.


----------



## westwall

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, *if Trump is the nominee he'll win*...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG I didn't think you were that stupid.
Click to expand...







No?  I am a realist and if he is the nominee that is something that should scare the shit out of you.  If it doesn't then you have lost whatever ability to think you had.


----------



## westwall

JimH52 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, if Trump is the nominee he'll win...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you been on Mars?  He has lost the Hispanic vote, he can't win the black vote and most true conservatives hate him.  HE WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT!
Click to expand...








Yeah?  So?  When was the last time the Repub nominee had those?  Here's a bit of free education for you.....the Repubs NEVER get the black or Hispanic vote....EVER!  They live and die on the white vote and no matter what propaganda you listen too the whites are still in the majority in this country.

The problem for the Repubs is they choose to not vote.  Trump is the type of polarizing candidate that gets people to the poles.  That means all those white people who stayed home last time will come out and we will lose.


----------



## westwall

HUGGY said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
Click to expand...








If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.


----------



## Slyhunter

Esmeralda said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, if Trump is the nominee he'll win...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you been on Mars?  He has lost the Hispanic vote, he can't win the black vote and most true conservatives hate him.  HE WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He won't be the nominee either.   He is making the true conservatives hate him even more each day, and as he gets more air time, the trumpbots will see him for what he truly is.  By december he will be Donald Who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will never get the GOP nomination, but if he continues garnering the support he's getting from the extreme RW, he will go out on his own, cut the party in two, and guarantee that the Democratic candidate will win the election.  It's all good.
Click to expand...

He and Cruz will unite and slam into the championship like the man he is.


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are extremely progressive and a liar to boot
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Hating the actions of one party does not make that individual the opposite.  I just hate liars.  The GOP has been taken over by liars.  It and my politics are just that simple.
> 
> As far as my personal heroes in politics they are Eisenhower and Goldwater.  If THAT makes me a liberal then go ahead and call me an Eisenhower/Goldwater liberal...  [emoji38]
> 
> You people are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
Click to expand...

Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao . 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Oldstyle

HUGGY said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
Click to expand...


I hate to burst your stereotype bubble, Huggy but I'm an agnostic.  I don't "hide" behind the bible.

I'm always amused by how all of the liberals on this board go absolutely apoplectic any time someone accuses them of being a liberal.  It's amazing...you all espouse liberal positions...but NONE of you are liberals!


----------



## Oldstyle

rdean said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been saying this since day one.  Every SOT and even the president had private servers or emails.  Obama closed that gap two years after Mrs. Clinton left office.  One wonders if she lets this drag out just to make the GOP look more foolish than usual.
Click to expand...


Did every Secretary of State conduct ALL of their business through their private servers like Hillary Clinton did?  Did every Secretary of State hide the existence of e-mails on those private servers when Congressional investigators demanded to see everything that was relevant to what they were investigating?

This narrative that Hillary was simply doing something that OTHER people before her have done is nothing more than a blatant attempt to obscure the fact that Hillary broke established procedures by conducting official business on private servers and subsequently hid the existence of those servers from Congress.


----------



## Oldstyle

What's more disturbing is that there is a pattern of this type of behavior taking place in the Obama Administration.  You've got people in leadership positions at the EPA, at the IRS and at the State Department all conducting official business through private e-mail servers so that what it is that they are doing can't be scrutinized by Congressional watchdogs and then hiding the existence of those private servers or accounts from people making sure they were conducting themselves appropriately.

This from the group of people who came into office promising that THEY would be the most transparent Administration ever!


----------



## Oldstyle

The obvious question that needs answering is whether it's simply a "coincidence" that all these government officials were working on private servers hidden away from scrutiny...or whether there was someone suggesting that this might be the way to do things so that nobody is the wiser about what it is they are doing?


----------



## HUGGY

westwall said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
Click to expand...


I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress. 

She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.


westwall said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
Click to expand...


RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.  

I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.


----------



## westwall

HUGGY said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
Click to expand...







Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.

Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.


----------



## JimH52

westwall said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
Click to expand...


And you are a liberal Democrat?  Sounds like Hillary is not the only one lying...


----------



## Oldstyle

HUGGY said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
Click to expand...


You really can't admit that Hillary Clinton has been caught telling one lie after another, can you, Huggy?  

Do you not get how ridiculous that makes you appear?


----------



## Oldstyle

westwall said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
Click to expand...


With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.

When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.


----------



## JimH52

Oldstyle said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.
> 
> When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
Click to expand...


Good grief, another history revisionist.  When will you people stop defending the criminal acts of the Booooosh administration?  Obviously the establishment republicans realize what a liability he is.  I don't see any of the GOP hopefuls asking him for advise.


----------



## westwall

JimH52 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are a liberal Democrat?  Sounds like Hillary is not the only one lying...
Click to expand...






Yes, I'm a liberal Democrat with a brain, and ethics.  Something you clearly lack.  here's the deal... when you turn a blind eye at the criminal behavior of poliicians on your side, they take ever more till finally there is nothing left for you.   You're ignorant so I will give you a pass for now but progressive politicians have done more harm to the middle class than even the repubs have.  And your lack of ethics allows the to do it.

Wake up and demand better of our representatives.


----------



## westwall

Oldstyle said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.
> 
> When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
Click to expand...







This is sort of true.  Armitage told Novak about her husband first, and then her role came out as well.  All of this occurred about the time that her husband was writing the Op-Ed.


----------



## Oldstyle

JimH52 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.
> 
> When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, another history revisionist.  When will you people stop defending the criminal acts of the Booooosh administration?  Obviously the establishment republicans realize what a liability he is.  I don't see any of the GOP hopefuls asking him for advise.
Click to expand...


What "criminal acts" are you referring to in regards to Valerie Plame?  Do you even know?

George W. Bush retired to his ranch in Texas when he finished his second term.  He seldom chimes in on ANY political discussions by choice.


----------



## Oldstyle

westwall said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.
> 
> When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is sort of true.  Armitage told Novak about her husband first, and then her role came out as well.  All of this occurred about the time that her husband was writing the Op-Ed.
Click to expand...


Be honest here, Westwall...Joe Wilson was introducing his wife to people at Washington cocktail parties and telling them that she worked at the CIA long before they wrote that op-ed.  To say that Armitage, Novak or anyone else "outed" her, always bordered on farce.  The whole "the Bushies outed Valerie because we blew the whistle on them" was the fallback position that Wilson and Plame took when their op-ed didn't get the results they were looking for and they were both not going to get rewarded by a grateful Kerry Administration.  The truth is...they both played hardball politics with that op-ed and they failed to pull it off.  What do you do at that point?  Well your careers in government obviously aren't going anywhere with Bush still in office!  So the only thing left to do is paint yourselves as victims and try and make some money selling your story.


----------



## rdean

westwall said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## westwall

Oldstyle said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.
> 
> When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is sort of true.  Armitage told Novak about her husband first, and then her role came out as well.  All of this occurred about the time that her husband was writing the Op-Ed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be honest here, Westwall...Joe Wilson was introducing his wife to people at Washington cocktail parties and telling them that she worked at the CIA long before they wrote that op-ed.  To say that Armitage, Novak or anyone else "outed" her, always bordered on farce.  The whole "the Bushies outed Valerie because we blew the whistle on them" was the fallback position that Wilson and Plame took when their op-ed didn't get the results they were looking for and they were both not going to get rewarded by a grateful Kerry Administration.  The truth is...they both played hardball politics with that op-ed and they failed to pull it off.  What do you do at that point?  Well your careers in government obviously aren't going anywhere with Bush still in office!  So the only thing left to do is paint yourselves as victims and try and make some money selling your story.
Click to expand...








I have never seen anything that would classified as anything other than hearsay on that.  I do agree that Wilson outed himself.  And yes they were definitely playing hardball politics.


----------



## rdean

Oldstyle said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.
> 
> When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, another history revisionist.  When will you people stop defending the criminal acts of the Booooosh administration?  Obviously the establishment republicans realize what a liability he is.  I don't see any of the GOP hopefuls asking him for advise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "criminal acts" are you referring to in regards to Valerie Plame?  Do you even know?
> 
> George W. Bush retired to his ranch in Texas when he finished his second term.  He seldom chimes in on ANY political discussions by choice.
Click to expand...

Valerie was a covert CIA agent.  Scooter outed her.  He went to prison.  Outing a covert agent is a federal offense.


----------



## Oldstyle

rdean said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.
> 
> When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, another history revisionist.  When will you people stop defending the criminal acts of the Booooosh administration?  Obviously the establishment republicans realize what a liability he is.  I don't see any of the GOP hopefuls asking him for advise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "criminal acts" are you referring to in regards to Valerie Plame?  Do you even know?
> 
> George W. Bush retired to his ranch in Texas when he finished his second term.  He seldom chimes in on ANY political discussions by choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Valerie was a covert CIA agent.  Scooter outed her.  He went to prison.  Outing a covert agent is a federal offense.
Click to expand...


You're a moron.  Scooter Libby didn't go to prison for outing Valerie Plame...he was convicted of lying to Federal agents.  Valerie Plame hadn't been a covert agent in years.  Don't you get tired of proving how ignorant you are about the world you live in?


----------



## Oldstyle

westwall said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.
> 
> When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is sort of true.  Armitage told Novak about her husband first, and then her role came out as well.  All of this occurred about the time that her husband was writing the Op-Ed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be honest here, Westwall...Joe Wilson was introducing his wife to people at Washington cocktail parties and telling them that she worked at the CIA long before they wrote that op-ed.  To say that Armitage, Novak or anyone else "outed" her, always bordered on farce.  The whole "the Bushies outed Valerie because we blew the whistle on them" was the fallback position that Wilson and Plame took when their op-ed didn't get the results they were looking for and they were both not going to get rewarded by a grateful Kerry Administration.  The truth is...they both played hardball politics with that op-ed and they failed to pull it off.  What do you do at that point?  Well your careers in government obviously aren't going anywhere with Bush still in office!  So the only thing left to do is paint yourselves as victims and try and make some money selling your story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen anything that would classified as anything other than hearsay on that.  I do agree that Wilson outed himself.  And yes they were definitely playing hardball politics.
Click to expand...


Let's be honest here...doing what they did...when they did it...was politics at it's sleaziest.  You accuse someone of something right before an election hoping enough people buy what you're selling without checking into it and that sways the election your way.  Then when the people you've smeared object to what you've accused them of...you accuse them of "outing" you even though you haven't been a covert agent in years and just co-authored an op-ed in a newspaper with the widest circulation of any newspaper in the US?

Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson are two very slimy people...who felt the end justified the means.  Now they are left wing "heroes" who make their living off of their notoriety.


----------



## westwall

Oldstyle said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.
> 
> When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is sort of true.  Armitage told Novak about her husband first, and then her role came out as well.  All of this occurred about the time that her husband was writing the Op-Ed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be honest here, Westwall...Joe Wilson was introducing his wife to people at Washington cocktail parties and telling them that she worked at the CIA long before they wrote that op-ed.  To say that Armitage, Novak or anyone else "outed" her, always bordered on farce.  The whole "the Bushies outed Valerie because we blew the whistle on them" was the fallback position that Wilson and Plame took when their op-ed didn't get the results they were looking for and they were both not going to get rewarded by a grateful Kerry Administration.  The truth is...they both played hardball politics with that op-ed and they failed to pull it off.  What do you do at that point?  Well your careers in government obviously aren't going anywhere with Bush still in office!  So the only thing left to do is paint yourselves as victims and try and make some money selling your story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen anything that would classified as anything other than hearsay on that.  I do agree that Wilson outed himself.  And yes they were definitely playing hardball politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's be honest here...doing what they did...when they did it...was politics at it's sleaziest.  You accuse someone of something right before an election hoping enough people buy what you're selling without checking into it and that sways the election your way.  Then when the people you've smeared object to what you've accused them of...you accuse them of "outing" you even though you haven't been a covert agent in years and just co-authored an op-ed in a newspaper with the widest circulation of any newspaper in the US?
> 
> Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson are two very slimy people...who felt the end justified the means.  Now they are left wing "heroes" who make their living off of their notoriety.
Click to expand...







Yes, they are.  They are CIA after all.  They are also Clinton creatures.


----------



## Oldstyle

You have to believe that they were convinced that if their little publicity stunt worked that John Kerry would have paid them back by finding them a nice little "Ambassadorship" somewhere.  When that didn't pan out for them they did what EVERY sleazeball does these days...they hired an agent and did a book deal.  What's amazing is that in that book, Joe Wilson admits that he did lie about what he discovered when he was in Africa...yet people like R-Derp remain clueless about that.


----------



## Synthaholic

westwall said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> the company maintaining her server had no security clearance
> 
> 
> 
> So?  They weren't reading her emails either.  And there was no classified info in her emails, anyway, so it's a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you truly that stupid?  If this were a private company being this cavalier with security their entire board of directors would be up on charges.  No classified emails can go ANYPLACE that has no security clearance.  PERIOD.  It is a FELONY you twit.
> 
> And more to the point (and the whole reason for security clearances in the first place you moron)  is how the hell do you know WHO was reading them?
> 
> That's the whole point of having clearances.
Click to expand...

Nothing was classified at the time it was on her server.  So it's a moot point.

And if nobody even knew she had a private server, how could foreign entities hack it?


----------



## Synthaholic

browsing deer said:


> But, the bad guys in Tehran and Pongyang and Caracus most likely were reading it.


How could they be reading it when no one knew she had a server in the first place?

Use your brain instead of Sean Hannity's defective one.

And no - nothing was classified on her server.


----------



## Synthaholic

Oldstyle said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> the company maintaining her server had no security clearance
> 
> 
> 
> So?  They weren't reading her emails either.  And there was no classified info in her emails, anyway, so it's a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious, Synth...how do you know what was in Hillary Clinton's e-mails since she erased over 50,000 of them?  You've decided to take the word of someone that has a long history of not telling the truth?
Click to expand...

Classified info is kept on secure government servers.  It cannot be transfered to a non-classified server.  Not "shouldn't be" - it can't.  There are safeguards that prevent it.

And there is only a long history of Right-wingers claiming that she hasn't told the truth.


----------



## browsing deer

Synthaholic said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the bad guys in Tehran and Pongyang and Caracus most likely were reading it.
> 
> 
> 
> How could they be reading it when no one knew she had a server in the first place?
> 
> Use your brain instead of Sean Hannity's defective one.
> 
> And no - nothing was classified on her server.
Click to expand...

There was a yon of classified stuff on there.  The found some on the first day, just taking a small sample.   That the classified stuff had the classification tags removed does not mean it became unclassified


----------



## Synthaholic

Zoom-boing said:


> First off, that you have zero problem with the company/people maintaining the Secretary of State's computer server having zero security clearance speaks volumes.


Maintaining a server doesn't include reading it's contents.

That you don't know this speaks volumes.


----------



## Synthaholic

HUGGY said:


> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.


Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'


----------



## Synthaholic

Esmeralda said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who probably voted twice for Barack "I don't have a clue what I'm doing" Obama...that's rather amusing, Esmeralda!  Just saying...
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid thing for you to say. Just childish and stupid.
> 
> For one thing, for anyone on the entire planet to think there is a comparison between Obama and Trump is crazy. Not even one of the weak and rather pathetic line up of current GOP candidates is anywhere near someone I would compare Trump to. Trump is a nut case. He is not a viable candidate for the the White House. He is not a viable person or individual to lead the free world, to lead the strongest nation on the planet.  You people who support him have lost your minds.
> 
> For the second thing, I'm not and never was a cheer leader for Obama: I wanted Mrs. Clinton, not Obama. At the same time, he has been viciously and without precedence or with any reason, been accused of being a horrible president, when the facts are that he has been quite adequate, to the point he is rated at 18 by presidential historians (while, BTW, GW Bush is rated nearly last).
> 
> So, people like you seem to live in some wierd, perverted la la land that not only ignores reality but makes up a skewed one to fit your perverse wishful image of what reality should be.  God help us if someone like Trump actually makes it to the White House: we would be at war literally and figuratively with most of the world within months.  He is completely without the skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding to be the US President.  The fact people like you in the GOP don't realize that is absolutely shocking and a sad, sad insight into contemporary America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO
Click to expand...

Slyhunter is a piece of shit.


----------



## Care4all

Think and make up in your heads what your spouting boys, but facts are facts....
and google is your friend.

_*Producer 
NBC News 

updated 5/29/2007 4:24:09 PM ET 


WASHINGTON — An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003. 


The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.


The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.


Undercover travel 
The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."


Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.


The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business."  The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times."  When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."*_

_*Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak*_


----------



## Synthaholic

westwall said:


> whenever a Benghazi email is finally released through an FOIA request it is heavily redacted!


OK, link to your evidence that this imaginary redacted Benghazi email was ever on her server.


----------



## Synthaholic

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, *if Trump is the nominee he'll win*...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG I didn't think you were that stupid.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## Synthaholic

JimH52 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that you think Barry Obama has the "skills, intellect, knowledge and understanding" to be POTUS but that Donald Trump has none of those things!
> 
> What exactly has Obama done in his life besides be fortunate enough to be "Johnny on the spot" when Harvard needed to send a signal that they were not a racist institution and decided that the easiest way to do that would be to name a black man as the first President of the Harvard Law Review?
> 
> If you REALLY look at the man's accomplishments before and since then...he's been (to use your own description!) nothing more than "adequate" at every thing he's done in life.  He was a mediocre lawyer.  He was a run of the mill college instructor.  He was an abysmal legislator.
> 
> Now compare that to Trump.  You may not like the man.  I don't particularly like him myself but *only a fool would say that he doesn't have skill, intellect, knowledge and understanding!  He has all of those in spades*.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG It is amazing.  Only a fool would think Donald Trump is worthy of a position as US president.  He is a buffoon.  Plain and simple.  He's like Palin on steroids.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You all think Palin is so cool and that she's viable as a presidential candidate.  Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you seen the democratic candidats?
> A socialist
> A murderer
> And a buffoon.
> I mean damn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat.....with Trump breathing, the GOP cannot win in 2016.  It does not matter who is the Dem. pick......just a fact.  He is in the process of screwing the your party over.  Nothing that you can do about it.  Sit back and watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep spewing this as if you believe it so I will assume you do.  Here's some free education, if Trump is the nominee he'll win...and that scares the crap out of me as a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you been on Mars?  He has lost the Hispanic vote, he can't win the black vote and most true conservatives hate him.  HE WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT!
Click to expand...

And now he's pissing off the Asians.  Obama got over 70% of the Asian vote against Romney, and Romney never mocked them like Trump does.


----------



## Synthaholic

westwall said:


> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.


Why? Because you say so?

Why should I believe it when a liar calls someone else a liar?


----------



## Zander

Hillary Clinton destroyed her own candidacy. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that the top three words people associate with her are “liar,” “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.” 

 

hiLIARy


----------



## Synthaholic

browsing deer said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the bad guys in Tehran and Pongyang and Caracus most likely were reading it.
> 
> 
> 
> How could they be reading it when no one knew she had a server in the first place?
> 
> Use your brain instead of Sean Hannity's defective one.
> 
> And no - nothing was classified on her server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was a yon of classified stuff on there.  The found some on the first day, just taking a small sample.   That the classified stuff had the classification tags removed does not mean it became unclassified
Click to expand...

Classified later on, not while she had it.


----------



## Meathead

Clearly, it's falling apart:

*Massimo Calabresi of Time recently noted that the law "makes it a crime not just to knowingly mishandle such secrets, but also to use them 'in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.'"

As a result, the FBI's investigation has gone "way beyond what the intelligence community's Inspector General ever would do," a senior intelligence official familiar with the case told Time.

The New York Times reported that the FBI's "unusual" decision to run the investigation out of its headquarters in Washington, DC.

"Nearly all [FBI] investigations are assigned to one of the bureau’s 56 field offices," according to The Times.

"But given this inquiry’s importance, senior FBI officials have opted to keep it closely held in Washington in the agency’s counterintelligence section, which investigates how national security secrets are handled."

REPORT: The FBI put its 'A-team' on the 'extremely serious' Hillary Clinton email probe*


----------



## Zander

Synthaholic said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the bad guys in Tehran and Pongyang and Caracus most likely were reading it.
> 
> 
> 
> How could they be reading it when no one knew she had a server in the first place?
> 
> Use your brain instead of Sean Hannity's defective one.
> 
> And no - nothing was classified on her server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was a yon of classified stuff on there.  The found some on the first day, just taking a small sample.   That the classified stuff had the classification tags removed does not mean it became unclassified
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classified later on, not while she had it.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. It was classified the entire time...

:The four emails in question "were classified when they were sent and are classified now," Official: Clinton emails included classified info - CNNPolitics.com

She's toast....No one likes her. She uninspiring and there’s no actual reason to vote for her.

And now Obama is essentially endorsing Biden. read this statement from Josh Earnest about Joe Biden:  "there is no one in American politics today who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign.”

Once Biden announces it will be all over. She only has herself to blame.


----------



## thanatos144

Synthaholic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> the company maintaining her server had no security clearance
> 
> 
> 
> So?  They weren't reading her emails either.  And there was no classified info in her emails, anyway, so it's a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you truly that stupid?  If this were a private company being this cavalier with security their entire board of directors would be up on charges.  No classified emails can go ANYPLACE that has no security clearance.  PERIOD.  It is a FELONY you twit.
> 
> And more to the point (and the whole reason for security clearances in the first place you moron)  is how the hell do you know WHO was reading them?
> 
> That's the whole point of having clearances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing was classified at the time it was on her server.  So it's a moot point.
> 
> And if nobody even knew she had a private server, how could foreign entities hack it?
Click to expand...

Dummy if it is online it can be hacked and it has already been proven that she had classified material on the servers.  Fucking shame it is a Obama ran justice department 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Oldstyle

Synthaholic said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the bad guys in Tehran and Pongyang and Caracus most likely were reading it.
> 
> 
> 
> How could they be reading it when no one knew she had a server in the first place?
> 
> Use your brain instead of Sean Hannity's defective one.
> 
> And no - nothing was classified on her server.
Click to expand...


How do you know what was on her servers, Synth?  She conducted all of her State Department business through those servers...so you're claiming that zero classified material went between the Secretary of State and the rest of the government via e-mails?  How is that possible?

Kindly explain why whenever Hillary Clinton DOES release emails...they are heavily redacted if there is no sensitive materials contained on those servers!  Explain why Clinton deleted 50,000 e-mails (that we know of) from those servers!  Explain why she hid the existence of those servers from Congress!


----------



## browsing deer

Care4all said:


> Think and make up in your heads what your spouting boys, but facts are facts....
> and google is your friend.
> 
> _*Producer
> NBC News
> 
> updated 5/29/2007 4:24:09 PM ET
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
> 
> 
> The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.
> 
> 
> The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.
> 
> 
> Undercover travel
> The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."
> 
> 
> Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
> 
> 
> The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business."  The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times."  When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."*_
> 
> _*Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak*_


She was not.  She listed cia employment on her who's who entry.  You can't get less covert than that


----------



## browsing deer

I don't see where that fi


Synthaholic said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the bad guys in Tehran and Pongyang and Caracus most likely were reading it.
> 
> 
> 
> How could they be reading it when no one knew she had a server in the first place?
> 
> Use your brain instead of Sean Hannity's defective one.
> 
> And no - nothing was classified on her server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was a yon of classified stuff on there.  The found some on the first day, just taking a small sample.   That the classified stuff had the classification tags removed does not mean it became unclassified
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classified later on, not while she had it.
Click to expand...

I don't see where that very tiny fig leaf gets you. That someone else removed the tags does not alter the fact that this stuff was by its nature classified.  She should not have used the private server for that material


----------



## Oldstyle

If Valerie Plame HAD been a covert agent then someone would have been brought up on a charge of outing a covert agent!  Nobody was.  Why?  Because Valerie Plame hadn't been a covert CIA agent for a long long time.

Don't embarrass yourself regurgitating the incorrect narrative that main stream news organizations went with back then.  All you've done is prove how willing those news outlets were to buy the bullshit that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were putting out prior to that election.


----------



## Care4all

browsing deer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think and make up in your heads what your spouting boys, but facts are facts....
> and google is your friend.
> 
> _*Producer
> NBC News
> 
> updated 5/29/2007 4:24:09 PM ET
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
> 
> 
> The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.
> 
> 
> The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.
> 
> 
> Undercover travel
> The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."
> 
> 
> Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
> 
> 
> The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business."  The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times."  When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."*_
> 
> _*Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak*_
> 
> 
> 
> She was not.  She listed cia employment on her who's who entry.  You can't get less covert than that
Click to expand...

link?


----------



## Oldstyle

Once again...there is a PATTERN established in the Obama White House of high ranking officials conducting official business secretly through the use of hidden private e-mail accounts.  You've got that taking place at the State Department...at the EPA...and at the IRS.  All done with the express purpose of hiding how they pushed certain agendas from the branch of government that is constitutionally given power to oversee them.


----------



## Care4all

Oldstyle said:


> If Valerie Plame HAD been a covert agent then someone would have been brought up on a charge of outing a covert agent!  Nobody was.  Why?  Because Valerie Plame hadn't been a covert CIA agent for a long long time.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself regurgitating the incorrect narrative that main stream news organizations went with back then.  All you've done is prove how willing those news outlets were to buy the bullshit that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were putting out prior to that election.


Read what the Republican appointed investigator, Fitzgerald, said regarding this...inform yourself.


----------



## Care4all

Oldstyle said:


> Once again...there is a PATTERN established in the Obama White House of high ranking officials conducting official business secretly through the use of hidden private e-mail accounts.  You've got that taking place at the State Department...at the EPA...and at the IRS.  All done with the express purpose of hiding how they pushed certain agendas from the branch of government that is constitutionally given power to oversee them.


What SECRET accounts?  

the previous administration also used private email accounts to conduct business along with gvt accts...it was the norm...this is why the Obama admin FINALLY put some rules to it.


----------



## Oldstyle

Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent at the time that she and her husband wrote that op-ed piece in The New York Times, Care!  I'm sorry, but she wasn't!  She was back in Washington working a desk job at the CIA.  She was introduced by her husband at cocktail parties as working at the CIA.  She put down that she worked at the CIA in her "Who's Who in Washington" for god's sake!  She was as far from a covert agent as you could get!  The Wilson's only came up with that claim when their attempt at knee capping the Bush reelection campaign failed to work when they started getting push back from the Bush Administration.


----------



## JimH52

Zander said:


> Hillary Clinton destroyed her own candidacy. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that the top three words people associate with her are “liar,” “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.”
> 
> 
> 
> hiLIARy



You need to keep up.  If Trump wins the nomination, a dog warden could beat him.  If he doesn't he runs third party....

THE GOP IS SCREWED!


----------



## Care4all

I say we examine all Congress critters emails and see what private email accounts they have used and see if any of their communications later became classified information....Start with the Republicans....

Do you think they can stand up to the scrutiny?


----------



## Oldstyle

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again...there is a PATTERN established in the Obama White House of high ranking officials conducting official business secretly through the use of hidden private e-mail accounts.  You've got that taking place at the State Department...at the EPA...and at the IRS.  All done with the express purpose of hiding how they pushed certain agendas from the branch of government that is constitutionally given power to oversee them.
> 
> 
> 
> What SECRET accounts?
> 
> the previous administration also used private email accounts to conduct business along with gvt accts...it was the norm...this is why the Obama admin FINALLY put some rules to it.
Click to expand...


The difference being...high ranking officials in the Obama Administration like Hillary Clinton and Lois Lerner used their private email accounts to hide how it was that they conducted business from Congress and they did so AFTER those rules were put in place to prohibit that.  So tell me who's been canned by Barack Obama for breaking those rules he put in place, Care?


----------



## Care4all

Oldstyle said:


> Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent at the time that she and her husband wrote that op-ed piece in The New York Times, Care!  I'm sorry, but she wasn't!  She was back in Washington working a desk job at the CIA.  She was introduced by her husband at cocktail parties as working at the CIA.  She put down that she worked at the CIA in her "Who's Who in Washington" for god's sake!  She was as far from a covert agent as you could get!  The Wilson's only came up with that claim when their attempt at knee capping the Bush reelection campaign failed to work when they started getting push back from the Bush Administration.



you've fallen for the lies....but your right wing media is good at presenting them...

SHE DID NOT put her name in the who's who list saying she was a CIA agent...

Who do I believe?  You, the right wing media, or the Independent Prosecutor and Investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, picked by the opposition, picked by Republicans to investigate?

Within the previous year of her outing, she made 7 to 10 trips as an official Cia operative or as a non official CIA operative, a NOC, overseas....  that my dear, under the rules and regs of the CIA, makes her an active CIA operative....

And Wilson was CORRECT, in his article...years of passing and analyzing roved he was correct.

The Administration was lying to us.


----------



## Oldstyle

High ranking officials at the EPA used private e-mail accounts to communicate with environmental groups so that those communications wouldn't show up in Freedom of Information requests.  Tell me who's been relieved of duty at the EPA for doing that?


----------



## Care4all

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again...there is a PATTERN established in the Obama White House of high ranking officials conducting official business secretly through the use of hidden private e-mail accounts.  You've got that taking place at the State Department...at the EPA...and at the IRS.  All done with the express purpose of hiding how they pushed certain agendas from the branch of government that is constitutionally given power to oversee them.
> 
> 
> 
> What SECRET accounts?
> 
> the previous administration also used private email accounts to conduct business along with gvt accts...it was the norm...this is why the Obama admin FINALLY put some rules to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference being...high ranking officials in the Obama Administration like Hillary Clinton and Lois Lerner used their private email accounts to hide how it was that they conducted business from Congress and they did so AFTER those rules were put in place to prohibit that.  So tell me who's been canned by Barack Obama for breaking those rules he put in place, Care?
Click to expand...

What's being hidden?


----------



## Oldstyle

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent at the time that she and her husband wrote that op-ed piece in The New York Times, Care!  I'm sorry, but she wasn't!  She was back in Washington working a desk job at the CIA.  She was introduced by her husband at cocktail parties as working at the CIA.  She put down that she worked at the CIA in her "Who's Who in Washington" for god's sake!  She was as far from a covert agent as you could get!  The Wilson's only came up with that claim when their attempt at knee capping the Bush reelection campaign failed to work when they started getting push back from the Bush Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you've fallen for the lies....but your right wing media is good at presenting them...
> 
> SHE DID NOT put her name in the who's who list saying she was a CIA agent...
> 
> Who do I believe?  You, the right wing media, or the Independent Prosecutor and Investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, picked by the opposition, picked by Republicans to investigate?
> 
> Within the previous year of her outing, she made 7 to 10 trips as an official Cia operative or as a non official CIA operative, a NOC, overseas....  that my dear, under the rules and regs of the CIA, makes her an CIA operative....
> 
> And Wilson was CORRECT, in his article...years of passing and analyzing roved he was correct.
> 
> The Administration was lying to us.
Click to expand...


That does not make her a covert CIA operative.

And Wilson admitted that he LIED in his report!


----------



## Care4all

Oldstyle said:


> High ranking officials at the EPA used private e-mail accounts to communicate with environmental groups so that those communications wouldn't show up in Freedom of Information requests.  Tell me who's been relieved of duty at the EPA for doing that?


Didn't the Bush Administration use the RNC Servers to conduct government business while bush was in office?  Was this to HIDE things from us?


----------



## Care4all

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent at the time that she and her husband wrote that op-ed piece in The New York Times, Care!  I'm sorry, but she wasn't!  She was back in Washington working a desk job at the CIA.  She was introduced by her husband at cocktail parties as working at the CIA.  She put down that she worked at the CIA in her "Who's Who in Washington" for god's sake!  She was as far from a covert agent as you could get!  The Wilson's only came up with that claim when their attempt at knee capping the Bush reelection campaign failed to work when they started getting push back from the Bush Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you've fallen for the lies....but your right wing media is good at presenting them...
> 
> SHE DID NOT put her name in the who's who list saying she was a CIA agent...
> 
> Who do I believe?  You, the right wing media, or the Independent Prosecutor and Investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, picked by the opposition, picked by Republicans to investigate?
> 
> Within the previous year of her outing, she made 7 to 10 trips as an official Cia operative or as a non official CIA operative, a NOC, overseas....  that my dear, under the rules and regs of the CIA, makes her an CIA operative....
> 
> And Wilson was CORRECT, in his article...years of passing and analyzing roved he was correct.
> 
> The Administration was lying to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not make her a covert CIA operative.
> 
> And Wilson admitted that he LIED in his report!
Click to expand...

one itty bitty fact that Wilson got wrong that he said was not true, ALL ELSE IN THE REPORT was a fact, jack.


----------



## Oldstyle

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again...there is a PATTERN established in the Obama White House of high ranking officials conducting official business secretly through the use of hidden private e-mail accounts.  You've got that taking place at the State Department...at the EPA...and at the IRS.  All done with the express purpose of hiding how they pushed certain agendas from the branch of government that is constitutionally given power to oversee them.
> 
> 
> 
> What SECRET accounts?
> 
> the previous administration also used private email accounts to conduct business along with gvt accts...it was the norm...this is why the Obama admin FINALLY put some rules to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference being...high ranking officials in the Obama Administration like Hillary Clinton and Lois Lerner used their private email accounts to hide how it was that they conducted business from Congress and they did so AFTER those rules were put in place to prohibit that.  So tell me who's been canned by Barack Obama for breaking those rules he put in place, Care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's being hidden?
Click to expand...


You tell me, Care!  What was in all those e-mails that Hillary Clinton erased?  What was in the private emails of Lois Lerner?  What was in the private e-mail conversations between high ranking EPA officials and environmental groups?

What part of the whole reason they conducted communication through private e-mail accounts was to hide what they were doing from scrutiny don't you "get"?


----------



## browsing deer

Care4all said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think and make up in your heads what your spouting boys, but facts are facts....
> and google is your friend.
> 
> _*Producer
> NBC News
> 
> updated 5/29/2007 4:24:09 PM ET
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
> 
> 
> The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.
> 
> 
> The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.
> 
> 
> Undercover travel
> The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."
> 
> 
> Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
> 
> 
> The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business."  The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times."  When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."*_
> 
> _*Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak*_
> 
> 
> 
> She was not.  She listed cia employment on her who's who entry.  You can't get less covert than that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link?
Click to expand...


it is an old scandal.  The deal was Wilson wrote an editorial full of of lies.  Claiming his wife was outed was one more lie 
"No one gave Novak Plame's name. Who's Who had it as part of Joe Wilson's listing. If her identity was such a secret, then one can reasonably assume that (a) Joe Wilson wouldn't have listed her under her professional name, but as Valerie _Wilson_; (b) CIA spokesman Bill Harlow wouldn't have confirmed her identity to Novak when Novak inquired about it; and (c) _Joe Wilson wouldn't have leaked details of the mission to the Washington Post and New York Times, and would have refrained from writing his own op-eds at the Times under his own name_."


----------



## Oldstyle

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent at the time that she and her husband wrote that op-ed piece in The New York Times, Care!  I'm sorry, but she wasn't!  She was back in Washington working a desk job at the CIA.  She was introduced by her husband at cocktail parties as working at the CIA.  She put down that she worked at the CIA in her "Who's Who in Washington" for god's sake!  She was as far from a covert agent as you could get!  The Wilson's only came up with that claim when their attempt at knee capping the Bush reelection campaign failed to work when they started getting push back from the Bush Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you've fallen for the lies....but your right wing media is good at presenting them...
> 
> SHE DID NOT put her name in the who's who list saying she was a CIA agent...
> 
> Who do I believe?  You, the right wing media, or the Independent Prosecutor and Investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, picked by the opposition, picked by Republicans to investigate?
> 
> Within the previous year of her outing, she made 7 to 10 trips as an official Cia operative or as a non official CIA operative, a NOC, overseas....  that my dear, under the rules and regs of the CIA, makes her an CIA operative....
> 
> And Wilson was CORRECT, in his article...years of passing and analyzing roved he was correct.
> 
> The Administration was lying to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not make her a covert CIA operative.
> 
> And Wilson admitted that he LIED in his report!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one itty bitty fact that Wilson got wrong that he said was not true, ALL ELSE IN THE REPORT was a fact, jack.
Click to expand...


He told a blatant lie, Care.  Repeated it in his op-ed piece.  Only admitted that he lied when it was pointed out to him that it was impossible for him to have known about it when he said he did.  That's who Joe Wilson IS!


----------



## Care4all

She was a NOC, on several occasions, Fitzgerald's report says such and shows such.....

A NOC is the MOST covert operative that there is....  with the MOST dangerous positions, and if they are caught on foreign soil, the CIA will deny knowing them...it takes a true patriot to put oneself in that position for your country.

please, just STOP with smearing her....


----------



## Care4all

Her name, was listed as Wilson's wife in a whos who....

IT DID NOT say that she was a CIA agent or employee, as was stated earlier....


----------



## Oldstyle

While it is true that Valerie Plame did conduct covert operations earlier in her CIA career, she hadn't done so for years.  She and her hubby only made the claim that she was a covert agent who's career had been ruined by being "outed" by people in the Bush Administration when people in the Bush Administration started pushing back against the narrative that the Wilson's put out in The New York Times!  

It should be rather obvious to anyone with half a brain that if you're in a Washington "Who's Who" stating that you work at the CIA...THEN YOU ARE NOT A COVERT AGENT ANYMORE!!!  When your husband tells people at cocktail parties that you work at the CIA...THEN YOU ARE NOT A COVERT AGENT ANYMORE!!!


----------



## HUGGY

Oldstyle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You really can't admit that Hillary Clinton has been caught telling one lie after another*, can you, Huggy?
> 
> Do you not get how ridiculous that makes you appear?
Click to expand...


I don't care.  Honestly.  I really don't.  The RWers are so very dishonest and have been for a few decades that these cheesy little snafus that Clinton has been accused of are seriously trivial.

I don't give a rip about Benghazi.  From what I could tell yes, she misreported the events surrounding that terrorist attack.  Did she do that with some ulterior motive?  I doubt it.  The RWers are trying to make this the biggest thing since the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor.  I'll concede that she should have waited til the evidence was totally in as to what exactly happened and what motivated the attack.  THAT is all that she should have/could have done.  BIG FYUCKIN WHOOP!!!  The ambassador is the one that screwed the pooch and paid for it with his life.  THAT is the TRUTH and all this other crap is just RWer hate propaganda.

I REALLY don't give a flying FYCK about the stupid e-mails.  The SOS has to communicate DUH!!!  Could she have found a more secure way to handle her own account/s?  I don't know COULD SHE HAVE???  These accounts both private and government issue get hacked all the time. The bed wetting over this non issue is so ridiculous it goes way past mental illness on the part of these ahole RWers.  This so called "national security issue" is ten steps lower than Arnold Schwarzenegger screwing the nanny IMHO.  Really???  e-mails???  If that's all you idiots have against her then let's just forgo the election and put her in the white house because I'm totally good with those creds.

Frankly I think the RWers in Congress should be investigated for wasting the taxpayer's money on this total nonsense.  Hows Them Cherries? 

I would rather they just lined Cheney, Rove and Bush up against a wall and fill em full of lead for all the hideous damage they caused in and outside of this country.  

You people are all in a tizzy about issues that will not be changed like abortion..  SO you think you can say and do any stupid thing that comes to mind and it's all good.  Well ..it is most certainly NOT ALL GOOD.  The RWers have MURDERED hundreds of thousands of people in TWO unnecessary wars, THREE is you count Bush's daddy's war ...which I do.  There was NO need to go to war to save those thieving Kuaittis.  They brought it on to themselves.  

But NNOOOOOOOooo...!!!!!!!   Benghazi!!!!!!  E-mails..!!!!!!!  Good grief!!!  Are you people REALLY  THIS delusional?????

Hillary lied!!!!  I honestly don't give a crap.  I'll trade a few lies for 100,000's of murders any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


----------



## HUGGY

JimH52 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter who the Dems run.  Donald has poisoned the GOP well. Even if he doesn't get the nomination, they will lose.  I am sure it is hard to admit or think about.
Click to expand...


The well was poisoned long before the Donald decided to run.  The nonsense these RWers spew may play well in the red states where all common sense goes out the window when they elect these religious fundamentalists to high office but frankly in the nation as a whole we are DONE with presidents that "talk to god".


----------



## HUGGY

westwall said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  A SMALL terrorist attack which the ambassador could have easily avoided had he been safe in the embassy on such an anniversary that had the whole world looking for reprisals.
> 
> The Ambassador and his puny contingent of security were obviously clearly in no position to handle an attack yet you morons want to blame Hillary.
> 
> You don't want the truth.  You people NEVER want the truth.  You are hideous hateful liars.
> 
> You will never win the Benghazi argument because you made it up out of whole cloth.  You will never win the e-mail argument because NOTHING illegal occurred.  There is no IS.  There is no fire..just smoke you aholes are constantly attempting to blow up Americans asses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that Hillary Clinton drew down the number of security personnel in Libya despite repeated requests from Christopher Stevens to maintain the same level absolves Clinton from blame for the subsequent deaths of Stevens and the other three men?  You talk about the "truth", Huggy but then you buy the lies that the Clinton State Department hid behind so that she wouldn't be held responsible for those deaths.
> 
> It was Hillary Clinton that frantically put out the narratives about YouTube videos causing a demonstration that escalated into a full on attack...it was Hillary Clinton that floated the trial balloon attempting to blame the GOP's cuts to the State Department budget for the woeful security.  It was Hillary Clinton that lied to the parents of those slain men.  It was Hillary Clinton that hid documents and communications from Congressional investigators and then asked "What difference does it make!" when Congress attempted over and over again to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is the claim her emails weren't classified, but whenever a Benghazi email is finally released through an FOIA request it is heavily redacted!  *That means it is classified! * You idiots are so in the tank for this old hag that you are blind to actual evidence of her lying through her teeth!
> 
> You are all laughable!
Click to expand...


No, it does not mean it was classified.  It means she didn't want to have the contents made public.  Her e-mails...her call.  There is no proof so far that she did anything illegal.  Until there is proof that she did something illegal with her e-mails then the REAL TRUTH is that the RWers are wasting taxpayers money with their stupid accusations.


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> 
> 
> You are extremely progressive and a liar to boot
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Hating the actions of one party does not make that individual the opposite.  I just hate liars.  The GOP has been taken over by liars.  It and my politics are just that simple.
> 
> As far as my personal heroes in politics they are Eisenhower and Goldwater.  If THAT makes me a liberal then go ahead and call me an Eisenhower/Goldwater liberal...  [emoji38]
> 
> You people are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!

I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*


----------



## HUGGY

Oldstyle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens was in no position to dictate personnel levels for the state department.  Congress set spending levels not in field ambassadors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably inaccurate, Huggy!  The State Department made a request for a certain number.  As with ALL government entities they asked for more than they really need because that's the way the game is played.  You ask for a million...they approve you for nine hundred thousand.  That's the way it works whether Congress is run by the GOP or the Democrats and I can very easily show you that the State Department's budget request when the Democrats controlled the Congress was NEVER granted in full either!
> 
> You see that lower amount as a "cut" when in reality it's almost ALWAYS an increase to an agency's budget...just not as big of an increase as they asked for.  If you were to ask an agency head off the record if he or she ever expected to get fully funded for the amount they asked for they'd laugh their heads off and admit that they'd be SHOCKED if they had received what they asked for!
> 
> As for Chris Stevens being in a position to "dictate" personnel levels?  Obviously he was not in that position because if he WAS then his requests that his security detail not be decreased would have been approved.  The person that WAS in a position to "dictate" personnel levels is the Secretary of State...a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton!  She's the one who decides where State Department funds get spent.  She's the one who decided that they wouldn't be spent in Libya because she was the one who decided that the "optics" of having a heavily armed "bunker" of a consulate didn't match the narrative that the Obama White House was putting out that they had Al Queda "on the run".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Benghazi and e-mails are your best chance of winning the white house house in 2016.....sad.  With the Trump factor, you are screwed.  But please don't lose hope.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to burst your stereotype bubble, Huggy but I'm an agnostic.  I don't "hide" behind the bible.
> 
> I'm always amused by how all of the liberals on this board go absolutely apoplectic any time someone accuses them of being a liberal.  It's amazing...you all espouse liberal positions...but NONE of you are liberals!
Click to expand...


Then you are a foolish agnostic.  Get it through your thick skull!!!!  I don't care a rip about Hillary.  What I DO CARE about is keeping the insane scum that has become the GOP out of the white house.  Are the RWer lies any less lies whether I am a liberal or not?  Will it make the mentally ill RWers any more or less crazy if I am or am not a liberal?  GOOD! Then you will just have to go with MY definition of my political leanings.  I am an Eisenhower/Goldwater republican that no longer has a party that represents me.  YOU don't get to assign me a political party so shove your stupid opinions up your ass.


----------



## Slyhunter

If I was in government I'd want a cloud so I can access any "secure" location and use it to access my personal desktop.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JimH52 said:


> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.



She's not in trouble for using private email.
She's in trouble for using her own server, instead of a secure government one, for government business.
She's in trouble for mishandling top secret documents on her private, non-secure server.
She's in trouble for not turning over all this material after she left office.


----------



## Oldstyle

HUGGY said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Hillary.  Although I do not share your belief that she is a liar.  At least not anywhere near the extent of the current GOP representatives in congress.
> 
> She handled the Benghazi description in a clumsy way true, but the venom you people spew towards her is beyond the pale.  I don't particularly support Obama either but the villification generated by the RWers is not only untrue ..it is traitorous in it's effect.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and e-mails are why Hillary Clinton isn't fit to be President.  All of that has nothing to do with who the GOP eventually decides to nominate.  Admit it...you liberals are freaked out right now because Hillary's campaign is imploding and you don't have a viable option to her.  What you thought was going to be a cake walk election in 2016 is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.  I am not a liberal.  I just hate liars.  The GOP is thick with butt hurt liars that will say anything, make up anything and do anything they believe will give them some perceived advantage.
> 
> You and your pathetic pack of dishonest scum keep calling me a liberal.  That just goes to show how out of touch and willing to repeat a lie you really are.
> 
> You are either just stupid or dishonest.  You are stupid if you cannot grasp how many true republicans despise what people like you have done to a once proud political party.
> 
> I am not a "liberal".  I am just realistic.  Hillary will run away with this election.  The reason Hillary will make fools out of people like you is because America sees right through you lying scum bags.  It has nothing to do with being "liberal".  What it has to do with is America is disgusted with your dishonesty.
> 
> The religious right stole the republican party.  You do not represent the true values of the GOP any more than a car thief has earned the right to drive his stolen automobile.
> 
> You can call me a "liberal" until you are blue in the face but that and all your bullshit is made no more true by the rote repetition.
> 
> You scum bags hide behind the bible and nothing could be more hypocritical.  You are not Christ like.  If anything you are more like Judas.  You are thieves of the GOP and like Judas you are owned out right by the Koch brothers and the Waltons and the Pharms and the HMO's, the modern Romans.  Like Judas you have taken the few coins and sold your integrity and sold out your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hate "liars" why do you support Hillary?  She's one of the biggest ones out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RWers have no business calling anyone a liar.  Bush lied us into two wars and his daddy lied to Saddam about Kuaitt.  Several hundred thousand human beings slaughtered because of the Bush's lies.  Several million displaced.  Lies upon lies murder upon murder and you people have the nerve to piss your panties because of a fumbled press conference about Benghazi?  And these e-mails...  Who cares?  What on earth is the big deal?  You people are seriously mentally defective if you think the stupid e-mail thing and how Benghazi was reported amounts to jack shit.  Just one lie by Bush, Rove and Cheney outing the CIA operative was a thousand times more destructive than ANYTHING Hillary has done.
> 
> I can't take you seriously.  Your perspective is cartoon like.  You people make things up at will and one more lie is more ridiculous than the last and the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You really can't admit that Hillary Clinton has been caught telling one lie after another*, can you, Huggy?
> 
> Do you not get how ridiculous that makes you appear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care.  Honestly.  I really don't.  The RWers are so very dishonest and have been for a few decades that these cheesy little snafus that Clinton has been accused of are seriously trivial.
> 
> I don't give a rip about Benghazi.  From what I could tell yes, she misreported the events surrounding that terrorist attack.  Did she do that with some ulterior motive?  I doubt it.  The RWers are trying to make this the biggest thing since the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor.  I'll concede that she should have waited til the evidence was totally in as to what exactly happened and what motivated the attack.  THAT is all that she should have/could have done.  BIG FYUCKIN WHOOP!!!  The ambassador is the one that screwed the pooch and paid for it with his life.  THAT is the TRUTH and all this other crap is just RWer hate propaganda.
> 
> I REALLY don't give a flying FYCK about the stupid e-mails.  The SOS has to communicate DUH!!!  Could she have found a more secure way to handle her own account/s?  I don't know COULD SHE HAVE???  These accounts both private and government issue get hacked all the time. The bed wetting over this non issue is so ridiculous it goes way past mental illness on the part of these ahole RWers.  This so called "national security issue" is ten steps lower than Arnold Schwarzenegger screwing the nanny IMHO.  Really???  e-mails???  If that's all you idiots have against her then let's just forgo the election and put her in the white house because I'm totally good with those creds.
> 
> Frankly I think the RWers in Congress should be investigated for wasting the taxpayer's money on this total nonsense.  Hows Them Cherries?
> 
> I would rather they just lined Cheney, Rove and Bush up against a wall and fill em full of lead for all the hideous damage they caused in and outside of this country.
> 
> You people are all in a tizzy about issues that will not be changed like abortion..  SO you think you can say and do any stupid thing that comes to mind and it's all good.  Well ..it is most certainly NOT ALL GOOD.  The RWers have MURDERED hundreds of thousands of people in TWO unnecessary wars, THREE is you count Bush's daddy's war ...which I do.  There was NO need to go to war to save those thieving Kuaittis.  They brought it on to themselves.
> 
> But NNOOOOOOOooo...!!!!!!!   Benghazi!!!!!!  E-mails..!!!!!!!  Good grief!!!  Are you people REALLY  THIS delusional?????
> 
> Hillary lied!!!!  I honestly don't give a crap.  I'll trade a few lies for 100,000's of murders any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Click to expand...


"Cheesy little snafus"?  Really, Huggy?  Clinton knew what happened in Benghazi and she lied to the families of the dead men as their caskets were coming off the plane at Andrews Air Force Base for political reasons.  Who does that, Huggy?  What kind of person looks someone's mother in the eye and lies to them about why their child died?


----------



## Oldstyle

And I could care less about whether items on Clinton's server were or were not classified.  What infuriates me about what Hillary Clinton did...what Lois Lerner did...what Lisa Jackson did...is that they deliberately used private e-mail accounts instead of official e-mail accounts and hid those private accounts from Congressional oversight because they didn't want us, the public, to know how they were conducting the public's business.  Lisa Jackson didn't use the alias "Richard Windsor" as a joke...Lois Lerner didn't use her dog's name as a joke...they used aliases like those to conceal things that they knew they shouldn't be doing from scrutiny.

Think about that long and hard.  Rules were put into place way back in the Carter Administration so that government officials couldn't do what these Obama Administration officials have done...and not a one of them was fired or disciplined in any way for breaking the rules.


----------



## Nyvin

Oldstyle said:


> And I could care less about whether items on Clinton's server were or were not classified.  What infuriates me about what Hillary Clinton did...what Lois Lerner did...what Lisa Jackson did...is that they deliberately used private e-mail accounts instead of official e-mail accounts and hid those private accounts from Congressional oversight because they didn't want us, the public, to know how they were conducting the public's business.  Lisa Jackson didn't use the alias "Richard Windsor" as a joke...Lois Lerner didn't use her dog's name as a joke...they used aliases like those to conceal things that they knew they shouldn't be doing from scrutiny.
> 
> Think about that long and hard.  Rules were put into place way back in the Carter Administration so that government officials couldn't do what these Obama Administration officials have done...and not a one of them was fired or disciplined in any way for breaking the rules.



Neither was Dick Cheney,  George Bush, or Karl Rove...

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/0...t-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/

Unless you want to call the RNC email server a government server, lol.


----------



## Oldstyle

There is a MASSIVE difference between what officials in the Obama White House have been doing with private e-mail accounts and what the Bush White House was doing back then.  The separate e-mail account was set up by the Bush White House because it was illegal to conduct reelection efforts through e-mail accounts paid for by the Federal Government.  The Bush people set up that separate account so that they wouldn't be in violation of the law not to skirt an existing law.

Now compare THAT to how officials in the Obama White House have set up private e-mail accounts under aliases and then used those e-mail accounts to conduct business that wouldn't be scrutinized by Congressional oversight.  Lisa Jackson at the EPA used a totally made up name for the e-mail account she communicated with environmental groups through because she didn't want anyone to see what it was that they were conspiring about.  Lois Lerner used an e-mail account with the name of her dog so that she could communicate with people in the Justice Department and the Obama White House and not have it be in the public record.  Hilary Clinton used a private server kept at her house so that Congressional wouldn't be able to look at the communications between her and her aides, hid the existence of that server from Congressional investigators and then erased 50,000 e-mails when the server's existence was discovered.


----------



## Oldstyle

So tell me, board progressives...who in the "most transparent Administration ever" has been punished for deliberately hiding their activities from Congress"?  Give me one name...


----------



## Nyvin

Oldstyle said:


> There is a MASSIVE difference between what officials in the Obama White House have been doing with private e-mail accounts and what the Bush White House was doing back then.  The separate e-mail account was set up by the Bush White House because it was illegal to conduct reelection efforts through e-mail accounts paid for by the Federal Government.  The Bush people set up that separate account so that they wouldn't be in violation of the law not to skirt an existing law.
> 
> Now compare THAT to how officials in the Obama White House have set up private e-mail accounts under aliases and then used those e-mail accounts to conduct business that wouldn't be scrutinized by Congressional oversight.  Lisa Jackson at the EPA used a totally made up name for the e-mail account she communicated with environmental groups through because she didn't want anyone to see what it was that they were conspiring about.  Lois Lerner used an e-mail account with the name of her dog so that she could communicate with people in the Justice Department and the Obama White House and not have it be in the public record.  Hilary Clinton used a private server kept at her house so that Congressional wouldn't be able to look at the communications between her and her aides, hid the existence of that server from Congressional investigators and then erased 50,000 e-mails when the server's existence was discovered.



Rove deleted 22 million emails from his private server.    You're going to try to tell me all those that were deleted were entirely partisan related to Bush's reelection?   Please:



> During the investigation, it came to light that Rove’s server had been used to send official, non-political emails — correspondence that was required by law to be preserved under the Presidential Records Act.



And this is just for the Scooter Libby scandal....who knows what else those 22 million emails had in them?     There was probably all kinds of talk about the Iraq War they wanted out of the spotlight, not to mention talk about Katrina, foreign affairs, tax cuts, etc etc etc.    The private server was used by almost everyone in the Bush Administration, they literally all had accounts on the thing.


----------



## rdean

Oldstyle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell operative.  At least use real facts and don't make them up.   I'm a liberal Democrat and all I ask is that everyone be treated the same.  Bush was LIED TOO, of that their is no doubt.  The question though is who lied to him.
> 
> Hillary though, she lies for her personal advantage at the expense of the American people, and that is unforgivable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect...Valerie Plame outed herself when she and her hubby decided to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times...probably the most widely read newspaper on the planet...attempting to "knee cap" George W. Bush's reelection campaign right before the election.  The Bush Administration was really left with no choice but to discredit her and her husband by addressing what really took place in Africa.
> 
> When all was said and done it was Joe Wilson who was forced to admit that HE was the one who lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, another history revisionist.  When will you people stop defending the criminal acts of the Booooosh administration?  Obviously the establishment republicans realize what a liability he is.  I don't see any of the GOP hopefuls asking him for advise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "criminal acts" are you referring to in regards to Valerie Plame?  Do you even know?
> 
> George W. Bush retired to his ranch in Texas when he finished his second term.  He seldom chimes in on ANY political discussions by choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Valerie was a covert CIA agent.  Scooter outed her.  He went to prison.  Outing a covert agent is a federal offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a moron.  Scooter Libby didn't go to prison for outing Valerie Plame...he was convicted of lying to Federal agents.  Valerie Plame hadn't been a covert agent in years.  Don't you get tired of proving how ignorant you are about the world you live in?
Click to expand...

Shut up asswipe.  Learn to use Google. If she hadn't been outed, he wouldn't have been caught lying.  One most certainly follows the other.  And he still went to prison.

Yes, Valerie Plame Was Covert

Karl Rove: Outing Valerie Plame - SourceWatch


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are extremely progressive and a liar to boot
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Hating the actions of one party does not make that individual the opposite.  I just hate liars.  The GOP has been taken over by liars.  It and my politics are just that simple.
> 
> As far as my personal heroes in politics they are Eisenhower and Goldwater.  If THAT makes me a liberal then go ahead and call me an Eisenhower/Goldwater liberal...  [emoji38]
> 
> You people are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
Click to expand...

I am not the one lying you are. Progressives seem incapable of telling the truth

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LilOlLady

Nyvin said:


> I honestly feel like this is just a watered down Benghazi...the only difference being that in this case there aren't any dead bodies for the GOP to point at and play blame games with.
> 
> How convenient that around the same time the email stuff starts up, conservative media goes silent about any issue about Benghazi.....that really shows how much they really cared about the four people that were killed.


Shit happens just like shit happened in Iraq and Afghanistan when millions died because Bush ignored numerous warning of 911 and no WMDs in Iraq. Soon no one cares about things we can do nothing about.


----------



## JimH52

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Hating the actions of one party does not make that individual the opposite.  I just hate liars.  The GOP has been taken over by liars.  It and my politics are just that simple.
> 
> As far as my personal heroes in politics they are Eisenhower and Goldwater.  If THAT makes me a liberal then go ahead and call me an Eisenhower/Goldwater liberal...  [emoji38]
> 
> You people are ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one lying you are. Progressives seem incapable of telling the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Given the falsehoods the RW is intent on spreading, you need to rethink that statement.  Consider Mr Trump.


----------



## Synthaholic

I've already explained that classified material cannot be moved off of classified servers.  There are safeguards that prevent it.  If you retards can't understand what that means, I can't help you.


----------



## Slyhunter

Synthaholic said:


> I've already explained that classified material cannot be moved off of classified servers.  There are safeguards that prevent it.  If you retards can't understand what that means, I can't help you.


Bullshit


----------



## JimH52

Slyhunter said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained that classified material cannot be moved off of classified servers.  There are safeguards that prevent it.  If you retards can't understand what that means, I can't help you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit
Click to expand...


Okay, tell us why, Horace.....


----------



## candycorn

JimH52 said:


> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.



Remains to be seen.
However, I don't see where deleted e-mails is much of a scandal.  I mean...nobody is going to be able to read a deleted e-mail. So if there were any classified e-mails, they are not in danger of landing in the hands of our enemy.   

It isn't as if it was a Petraeus type of scandal where he and his mistress were sharing a live-email account. 

Anyway, I'm pretty certain, this will be another useless fools errand by the GOP which seems to be operating a shadow Congress.  Has anyone heard anything out of this GOP congress yet except Trey Galldy (sp?) bitching about whatever he's bitching about today?


----------



## Slyhunter

JimH52 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained that classified material cannot be moved off of classified servers.  There are safeguards that prevent it.  If you retards can't understand what that means, I can't help you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, tell us why, Horace.....
Click to expand...

Then I'd be violating classified information.
Not all servers with classified information on them have safe guards or safe guards that are hard to bypass.


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Hating the actions of one party does not make that individual the opposite.  I just hate liars.  The GOP has been taken over by liars.  It and my politics are just that simple.
> 
> As far as my personal heroes in politics they are Eisenhower and Goldwater.  If THAT makes me a liberal then go ahead and call me an Eisenhower/Goldwater liberal...  [emoji38]
> 
> You people are ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one lying you are. Progressives seem incapable of telling the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


That's right I am the one lying and the Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter.

It's all been a horrible dream for weak people like yourself.  Why didn't the sky fairy save you?  The Koch's with all their money and FOX pounding the drum why couldn't the RWers take the white house FROM A NEGRO!!!!!?????  Oh the pain must be unbearable.  Why did Bush have to be so incompetent?  Why did he constantly have his foot in his mouth?  "Good Job Brownie"  "WMDs? Nothing under this desk"  Oh ya "Bring em on!!"  "We will hunt these people to the ends of the earth"  "Ossama? I don't think about him much anymore"

Ya... Bush NEVER happened.  Who was that moron that landed on the carrier brought into San Diego just for a photo op anyway? 

Katrina NEVER happened.  Outting Valerie Plaime :Valerie Elise Plame Wilson, known as Valerie Plame, Valerie E. Wilson, and Valerie Plame Wilson, is a former United States CIA operations officer, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson...oh ya she was just some secretary..right.  That NEVER happened..

Sure I am the liar here. That's because Bush NEVER happened and black presidents do not matter.

Hillary went on tv with some misinformation about what led up to the events in Benghazi.  The news people were HOWLING for her to make some kind of statement.  Yes she should have waited a day or two when all of the incoming reports were in and made a better informed statement to the press.  Well that means she was RESPONSIBLE for the whole thing ...naturally.

E-mails?  Bush's WHOLE STAFF had private accounts of which were ordered to be shown to congress and low and behold MILLIONS of e-mails disappeared.  Of course THAT never happened because as I said Bush NEVER happened. 

Ya you got me there Sport!  I am the liar here. You are just understandably forgetful.  No worries.


----------



## thanatos144

LilOlLady said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly feel like this is just a watered down Benghazi...the only difference being that in this case there aren't any dead bodies for the GOP to point at and play blame games with.
> 
> How convenient that around the same time the email stuff starts up, conservative media goes silent about any issue about Benghazi.....that really shows how much they really cared about the four people that were killed.
> 
> 
> 
> Shit happens just like shit happened in Iraq and Afghanistan when millions died because Bush ignored numerous warning of 911 and no WMDs in Iraq. Soon no one cares about things we can do nothing about.
Click to expand...

Wow what a mass of bullshit.  None of what you said is true in any way 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Synthaholic

_
BLITZER: Well, my understanding is those 300 e-mails they’re looking at now, that they haven’t definitively ruled that it was classified information. They’re going over it right now. There seems to be a dispute going on between the State Department and other agencies of the U.S. government what should have been classified, even if it had not been classified at the time. Is that your understanding, as well?

ISSA: *Well, it is.* But I’ll give you a little piece of history. *During my chairmanship, it was amazing how the State Department classified the most mundane information, even when publicly available.* In this case, it appears as though State would like to say these things weren’t particularly classified.
_


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one lying you are. Progressives seem incapable of telling the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right I am the one lying and the Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter.
> 
> It's all been a horrible dream for weak people like yourself.  Why didn't the sky fairy save you?  The Koch's with all their money and FOX pounding the drum why couldn't the RWers take the white house FROM A NEGRO!!!!!?????  Oh the pain must be unbearable.  Why did Bush have to be so incompetent?  Why did he constantly have his foot in his mouth?  "Good Job Brownie"  "WMDs? Nothing under this desk"  Oh ya "Bring em on!!"  "We will hunt these people to the ends of the earth"  "Ossama? I don't think about him much anymore"
> 
> Ya... Bush NEVER happened.  Who was that moron that landed on the carrier brought into San Diego just for a photo op anyway?
> 
> Katrina NEVER happened.  Outting Valerie Plaime :Valerie Elise Plame Wilson, known as Valerie Plame, Valerie E. Wilson, and Valerie Plame Wilson, is a former United States CIA operations officer, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson...oh ya she was just some secretary..right.  That NEVER happened..
> 
> Sure I am the liar here. That's because Bush NEVER happened and black presidents do not matter.
> 
> Hillary went on tv with some misinformation about what led up to the events in Benghazi.  The news people were HOWLING for her to make some kind of statement.  Yes she should have waited a day or two when all of the incoming reports were in and made a better informed statement to the press.  Well that means she was RESPONSIBLE for the whole thing ...naturally.
> 
> E-mails?  Bush's WHOLE STAFF had private accounts of which were ordered to be shown to congress and low and behold MILLIONS of e-mails disappeared.  Of course THAT never happened because as I said Bush NEVER happened.
> 
> Ya you got me there Sport!  I am the liar here. You are just understandably forgetful.  No worries.
Click to expand...

Awe look are the lying pussy accuse me of racism because he is exposed as a liar. You are pathetic 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## JimH52

And the GOP still has TRUMP!


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
> 
> 
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one lying you are. Progressives seem incapable of telling the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right I am the one lying and the Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter.
> 
> It's all been a horrible dream for weak people like yourself.  Why didn't the sky fairy save you?  The Koch's with all their money and FOX pounding the drum why couldn't the RWers take the white house FROM A NEGRO!!!!!?????  Oh the pain must be unbearable.  Why did Bush have to be so incompetent?  Why did he constantly have his foot in his mouth?  "Good Job Brownie"  "WMDs? Nothing under this desk"  Oh ya "Bring em on!!"  "We will hunt these people to the ends of the earth"  "Ossama? I don't think about him much anymore"
> 
> Ya... Bush NEVER happened.  Who was that moron that landed on the carrier brought into San Diego just for a photo op anyway?
> 
> Katrina NEVER happened.  Outting Valerie Plaime :Valerie Elise Plame Wilson, known as Valerie Plame, Valerie E. Wilson, and Valerie Plame Wilson, is a former United States CIA operations officer, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson...oh ya she was just some secretary..right.  That NEVER happened..
> 
> Sure I am the liar here. That's because Bush NEVER happened and black presidents do not matter.
> 
> Hillary went on tv with some misinformation about what led up to the events in Benghazi.  The news people were HOWLING for her to make some kind of statement.  Yes she should have waited a day or two when all of the incoming reports were in and made a better informed statement to the press.  Well that means she was RESPONSIBLE for the whole thing ...naturally.
> 
> E-mails?  Bush's WHOLE STAFF had private accounts of which were ordered to be shown to congress and low and behold MILLIONS of e-mails disappeared.  Of course THAT never happened because as I said Bush NEVER happened.
> 
> Ya you got me there Sport!  I am the liar here. You are just understandably forgetful.  No worries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look are the lying pussy accuse me of racism because he is exposed as a liar. You are pathetic
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Perfect!  All you have left is juvenile name calling.  I knew you had it in you just like you have shown.

NEVER take responsibility.  NEVER!  That's the ticket Sparky!


----------



## sealybobo

JimH52 said:


> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.


They've painted her as untrustworthy. She still kills any GOP candidate.

I told you all jeb would be the nominee. If not they have to run 3rd best and how popular is that guy or gal?


----------



## JoeMoma

sealybobo said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> They've painted her as untrustworthy. She still kills any GOP candidate.
> 
> I told you all jeb would be the nominee. If not they have to run 3rd best and how popular is that guy or gal?
Click to expand...

She has done her own painting.


----------



## JimH52

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one lying you are. Progressives seem incapable of telling the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right I am the one lying and the Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter.
> 
> It's all been a horrible dream for weak people like yourself.  Why didn't the sky fairy save you?  The Koch's with all their money and FOX pounding the drum why couldn't the RWers take the white house FROM A NEGRO!!!!!?????  Oh the pain must be unbearable.  Why did Bush have to be so incompetent?  Why did he constantly have his foot in his mouth?  "Good Job Brownie"  "WMDs? Nothing under this desk"  Oh ya "Bring em on!!"  "We will hunt these people to the ends of the earth"  "Ossama? I don't think about him much anymore"
> 
> Ya... Bush NEVER happened.  Who was that moron that landed on the carrier brought into San Diego just for a photo op anyway?
> 
> Katrina NEVER happened.  Outting Valerie Plaime :Valerie Elise Plame Wilson, known as Valerie Plame, Valerie E. Wilson, and Valerie Plame Wilson, is a former United States CIA operations officer, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson...oh ya she was just some secretary..right.  That NEVER happened..
> 
> Sure I am the liar here. That's because Bush NEVER happened and black presidents do not matter.
> 
> Hillary went on tv with some misinformation about what led up to the events in Benghazi.  The news people were HOWLING for her to make some kind of statement.  Yes she should have waited a day or two when all of the incoming reports were in and made a better informed statement to the press.  Well that means she was RESPONSIBLE for the whole thing ...naturally.
> 
> E-mails?  Bush's WHOLE STAFF had private accounts of which were ordered to be shown to congress and low and behold MILLIONS of e-mails disappeared.  Of course THAT never happened because as I said Bush NEVER happened.
> 
> Ya you got me there Sport!  I am the liar here. You are just understandably forgetful.  No worries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look are the lying pussy accuse me of racism because he is exposed as a liar. You are pathetic
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perfect!  All you have left is juvenile name calling.  I knew you had it in you just like you have shown.
> 
> NEVER take responsibility.  NEVER!  That's the ticket Sparky!
Click to expand...


And they actually think we read all the garbage that they type.  It is just FOX propaganda.


----------



## JimH52

sealybobo said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> They've painted her as untrustworthy. She still kills any GOP candidate.
> 
> I told you all jeb would be the nominee. If not they have to run 3rd best and how popular is that guy or gal?
Click to expand...


The Dems are praying Trump keeps his lead.  He is their greatest gift.....


----------



## Synthaholic

JimH52 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> They've painted her as untrustworthy. She still kills any GOP candidate.
> 
> I told you all jeb would be the nominee. If not they have to run 3rd best and how popular is that guy or gal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dems are praying Trump keeps his lead.  He is their greatest gift.....
Click to expand...

Even if he doesn't he's destroyed Bush and the rest of the clown car.  The base can't get excited about any of them after Trump's circus leaves town.  They're all low energy.


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one lying you are. Progressives seem incapable of telling the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right I am the one lying and the Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter.
> 
> It's all been a horrible dream for weak people like yourself.  Why didn't the sky fairy save you?  The Koch's with all their money and FOX pounding the drum why couldn't the RWers take the white house FROM A NEGRO!!!!!?????  Oh the pain must be unbearable.  Why did Bush have to be so incompetent?  Why did he constantly have his foot in his mouth?  "Good Job Brownie"  "WMDs? Nothing under this desk"  Oh ya "Bring em on!!"  "We will hunt these people to the ends of the earth"  "Ossama? I don't think about him much anymore"
> 
> Ya... Bush NEVER happened.  Who was that moron that landed on the carrier brought into San Diego just for a photo op anyway?
> 
> Katrina NEVER happened.  Outting Valerie Plaime :Valerie Elise Plame Wilson, known as Valerie Plame, Valerie E. Wilson, and Valerie Plame Wilson, is a former United States CIA operations officer, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson...oh ya she was just some secretary..right.  That NEVER happened..
> 
> Sure I am the liar here. That's because Bush NEVER happened and black presidents do not matter.
> 
> Hillary went on tv with some misinformation about what led up to the events in Benghazi.  The news people were HOWLING for her to make some kind of statement.  Yes she should have waited a day or two when all of the incoming reports were in and made a better informed statement to the press.  Well that means she was RESPONSIBLE for the whole thing ...naturally.
> 
> E-mails?  Bush's WHOLE STAFF had private accounts of which were ordered to be shown to congress and low and behold MILLIONS of e-mails disappeared.  Of course THAT never happened because as I said Bush NEVER happened.
> 
> Ya you got me there Sport!  I am the liar here. You are just understandably forgetful.  No worries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look are the lying pussy accuse me of racism because he is exposed as a liar. You are pathetic
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perfect!  All you have left is juvenile name calling.  I knew you had it in you just like you have shown.
> 
> NEVER take responsibility.  NEVER!  That's the ticket Sparky!
Click to expand...

Just answering the gross accusations you flung my way because you were exposed as a lying progressive. ... must suck to be you 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
Click to expand...




Oldstyle said:


> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!



Exactly! Think about that and why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
It's by design. That's what the scandals are for.


----------



## sealybobo

Synthaholic said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Dept. Says There Was No Policy Against Private Email
> 
> Is this the beginning of the end of the GOP's scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> They've painted her as untrustworthy. She still kills any GOP candidate.
> 
> I told you all jeb would be the nominee. If not they have to run 3rd best and how popular is that guy or gal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dems are praying Trump keeps his lead.  He is their greatest gift.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if he doesn't he's destroyed Bush and the rest of the clown car.  The base can't get excited about any of them after Trump's circus leaves town.  They're all low energy.
Click to expand...

I think once people here what Bernie has to say, he will be able to beat any of the GOP pretenders too.

Think about how horribly unpopular the GOP is.  First we have Trump but lets say Trump wasn't around.  Number two would be Ben Carson or Jeb Bush.  Ok, Ben who?  I haven't heard Ben Carson give one speech.  I don't know what his positions are on anything.  How is he taking 2nd away From Jeb?  

Now think about how unpopular the Bush name is.  At least the Clinton name gave us 8 great years.  We should be BEGGING to go back to the Clinton brand.  Why are people sick of the Clinton dynasty?  It was only 8 years and 8 great years at that.  Bill had a surplus.  

The only reason I don't LOVE Hillary is the same reason I don't LOVE Bill.  They aren't liberal enough.  Fact is Bill went along with the GOP on too much.  So the only reason Democrats don't love Hillary is not the same reason Republicans don't like her.  They say she isn't trustworthy.  Are they planting that seed now in case she's the nominee?  I think we need to stop listening to the corporate media and Republicans.  Hillary will be a great POTUS.  But right now I choose Bernie Sanders.

Anyways, back to the loser GOP field.  2nd is Ben Carson, 3rd is Jeb, and what the hell is going on with Christie, Walker, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Kasich and Santorum?  Do Republicans realize how bad this makes all these guys look?  I thought Walker was a rising star.  I guess not.  I thought Rubio was a shining star.  I guess not.  

Republicans were bragging about all the great candidates they have and how we had all our eggs in one basket.  All the GOP has is a basket full of cracked eggs.


----------



## thanatos144

Hutch Starskey said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
> 
> 
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one lying you are. Progressives seem incapable of telling the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right I am the one lying and the Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter.
> 
> It's all been a horrible dream for weak people like yourself.  Why didn't the sky fairy save you?  The Koch's with all their money and FOX pounding the drum why couldn't the RWers take the white house FROM A NEGRO!!!!!?????  Oh the pain must be unbearable.  Why did Bush have to be so incompetent?  Why did he constantly have his foot in his mouth?  "Good Job Brownie"  "WMDs? Nothing under this desk"  Oh ya "Bring em on!!"  "We will hunt these people to the ends of the earth"  "Ossama? I don't think about him much anymore"
> 
> Ya... Bush NEVER happened.  Who was that moron that landed on the carrier brought into San Diego just for a photo op anyway?
> 
> Katrina NEVER happened.  Outting Valerie Plaime :Valerie Elise Plame Wilson, known as Valerie Plame, Valerie E. Wilson, and Valerie Plame Wilson, is a former United States CIA operations officer, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson...oh ya she was just some secretary..right.  That NEVER happened..
> 
> Sure I am the liar here. That's because Bush NEVER happened and black presidents do not matter.
> 
> Hillary went on tv with some misinformation about what led up to the events in Benghazi.  The news people were HOWLING for her to make some kind of statement.  Yes she should have waited a day or two when all of the incoming reports were in and made a better informed statement to the press.  Well that means she was RESPONSIBLE for the whole thing ...naturally.
> 
> E-mails?  Bush's WHOLE STAFF had private accounts of which were ordered to be shown to congress and low and behold MILLIONS of e-mails disappeared.  Of course THAT never happened because as I said Bush NEVER happened.
> 
> Ya you got me there Sport!  I am the liar here. You are just understandably forgetful.  No worries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look are the lying pussy accuse me of racism because he is exposed as a liar. You are pathetic
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just because you will vote for Ben Carson does not make you not a racist.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You guys tried to make a scandal out of something not in Hillary's control.  If this happened on Bush's watch, and it probably did 100 times, you guys would not say a word.

In fact if Obama lied us into a war you would have impeached him.  But you gave Bush a free pass.  

And don't say Bush didn't lie us into a war you liar.  Because we all know if Obama "was given bad intelligence" like Bush was, you would see clearly that he lied us into a war for money.  Not only should Bush be hung for treason you should be hung next to him Thano.  I know a Thano.  He's a dumb Greek guy.  Are you a dumb Greek too or are you a Marvel character?


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You guys just want to drag this into 2016 but the fact is you will only make yourselves look dumb.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/reasons-benghazi-clintons.html


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are extremely progressive and a liar to boot
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Hating the actions of one party does not make that individual the opposite.  I just hate liars.  The GOP has been taken over by liars.  It and my politics are just that simple.
> 
> As far as my personal heroes in politics they are Eisenhower and Goldwater.  If THAT makes me a liberal then go ahead and call me an Eisenhower/Goldwater liberal...  [emoji38]
> 
> You people are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
Click to expand...

They don't care.  They think their bad behavior attacking Bill Clinton paid off in 2000.  Maybe they are right.  Maybe it did.

And their bad behavior wasn't punished in the 2010 or 2012 midterms either.  Until voters start showing up and punishing Republicans, they will continue this bad behavior.  

If their bad behavior can get people to not bother showing up to vote, they have won.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

thanatos144 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


No one " allowed" anything to happen.
It's settled. How many investigations, hearings and reports do you require before you are satisfied of that?


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

An FBI agent looked GW Bush in the eyes and told him terrorists were going to use airplanes as weapons.  

“And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice. He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer and said. ‘All right, You’ve covered your ass, now.’”

And then Bush did nothing with that intelligence.  How many people died because he dropped the ball?


----------



## sealybobo

Hutch Starskey said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one " allowed" anything to happen.
> It's settled. How many investigations, hearings and reports do you require before you are satisfied of that?
Click to expand...

Bush allowed 9-11 to happen so he could use it to lie us into Iraq.  I don't think he helped the terrorists but the timing couldn't have been any better for his push to go to war with Iraq which the GOP had planned out long before Bush stole the 2000 election.

The *Project for the New American Century* (PNAC) was a neo-conservative think tank (1997 to 2006) 

PNAC's policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocated for total global military domination. Many PNAC members held highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration.

PNAC is noteworthy for its focus on Iraq, a preoccupation that began before Bush became president and predates the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In 1998, the group wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott (then Senate Majority Leader) andNewt Gingrich (then Speaker of the House of Representatives), demanding a harder line against Iraq.


----------



## Oldstyle

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An FBI agent looked GW Bush in the eyes and told him terrorists were going to use airplanes as weapons.
> 
> “And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice. He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer and said. ‘All right, You’ve covered your ass, now.’”
> 
> And then Bush did nothing with that intelligence.  How many people died because he dropped the ball?
Click to expand...


That has always been total bullshit and you know it.  US intelligence didn't see 9/11 coming and it's a massive reach to declare that Bush "dropped the ball"!  Bush was briefed daily with all kinds of potential threats.  That briefing on a rumor that Al Queda might be thinking about targeting commercial airliners was just one of hundreds of others that came across his desk.  As dramatic as you tried to make it...no FBI agent looked W. in the eyes and told him that terrorists were going to use airplanes as weapons!


----------



## Oldstyle

sealybobo said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one " allowed" anything to happen.
> It's settled. How many investigations, hearings and reports do you require before you are satisfied of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush allowed 9-11 to happen so he could use it to lie us into Iraq.  I don't think he helped the terrorists but the timing couldn't have been any better for his push to go to war with Iraq which the GOP had planned out long before Bush stole the 2000 election.
> 
> The *Project for the New American Century* (PNAC) was a neo-conservative think tank (1997 to 2006)
> 
> PNAC's policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocated for total global military domination. Many PNAC members held highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration.
> 
> PNAC is noteworthy for its focus on Iraq, a preoccupation that began before Bush became president and predates the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In 1998, the group wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott (then Senate Majority Leader) andNewt Gingrich (then Speaker of the House of Representatives), demanding a harder line against Iraq.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot, Sealy!  George W. Bush didn't allow 9/11 to happen so he could go to war in Iraq years later.  That's such an idiotic premise that it would be laughable if it wasn't so outrageous.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one lying you are. Progressives seem incapable of telling the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right I am the one lying and the Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter. Bush's never happened and black presidents don't matter.
> 
> It's all been a horrible dream for weak people like yourself.  Why didn't the sky fairy save you?  The Koch's with all their money and FOX pounding the drum why couldn't the RWers take the white house FROM A NEGRO!!!!!?????  Oh the pain must be unbearable.  Why did Bush have to be so incompetent?  Why did he constantly have his foot in his mouth?  "Good Job Brownie"  "WMDs? Nothing under this desk"  Oh ya "Bring em on!!"  "We will hunt these people to the ends of the earth"  "Ossama? I don't think about him much anymore"
> 
> Ya... Bush NEVER happened.  Who was that moron that landed on the carrier brought into San Diego just for a photo op anyway?
> 
> Katrina NEVER happened.  Outting Valerie Plaime :Valerie Elise Plame Wilson, known as Valerie Plame, Valerie E. Wilson, and Valerie Plame Wilson, is a former United States CIA operations officer, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson...oh ya she was just some secretary..right.  That NEVER happened..
> 
> Sure I am the liar here. That's because Bush NEVER happened and black presidents do not matter.
> 
> Hillary went on tv with some misinformation about what led up to the events in Benghazi.  The news people were HOWLING for her to make some kind of statement.  Yes she should have waited a day or two when all of the incoming reports were in and made a better informed statement to the press.  Well that means she was RESPONSIBLE for the whole thing ...naturally.
> 
> E-mails?  Bush's WHOLE STAFF had private accounts of which were ordered to be shown to congress and low and behold MILLIONS of e-mails disappeared.  Of course THAT never happened because as I said Bush NEVER happened.
> 
> Ya you got me there Sport!  I am the liar here. You are just understandably forgetful.  No worries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look are the lying pussy accuse me of racism because he is exposed as a liar. You are pathetic
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because you will vote for Ben Carson does not make you not a racist.
Click to expand...


I will not be voting for Carson.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Hating the actions of one party does not make that individual the opposite.  I just hate liars.  The GOP has been taken over by liars.  It and my politics are just that simple.
> 
> As far as my personal heroes in politics they are Eisenhower and Goldwater.  If THAT makes me a liberal then go ahead and call me an Eisenhower/Goldwater liberal...  [emoji38]
> 
> You people are ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care.  They think their bad behavior attacking Bill Clinton paid off in 2000.  Maybe they are right.  Maybe it did.
> 
> And their bad behavior wasn't punished in the 2010 or 2012 midterms either.  Until voters start showing up and punishing Republicans, they will continue this bad behavior.
> 
> If their bad behavior can get people to not bother showing up to vote, they have won.
Click to expand...


That has always been the main goal of the christian fundamentalists to attempt to reduce the number of people going to the polls.  Their message is only believed by a small percentage of fools.  Fortunately they have exposed themselves as dangerous to the majority of Americans.  THAT they cannot hide from or talk thinking Americans into believing in them.  Hillbillies are not critical thinkers as it turns out.  There are just not enough of them to win national elections.


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with you hating the GOP . Has to do with what you post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary's e-mails is not a real scandal nor was Benghazi.  The new GOP just makes things up they think will play well in the press and beats these dead horses relentlessly.
> 
> Many Americans hate what the GOP has become under the leadership of the Christian phony's.
> 
> I have every right to point out the traitorous actions and words of my former party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awe look at you lick Clinton ass and deny you are progressive lmao .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sick fyuck.  You idiots are howling like you have been kicked in the balls.  You have been doing that for three decades.  Stop wasting taxpayers money.  If Clinton did something illegal then prove it or STFU!  There is so much insanity ingrained in the RWrer mind.  Face it.  You people need mental evaluations.  That is SSOOOooo...very true no matter how Clinton announced the events at Benghazi or how ever she handled her stupid e-mails.  You aren't just crazy...you are *C-R-A-Z-Y !!!!!
> 
> I'll tell ya what...you morons can man up and admit that the Bush's damn near destroyed our country and I'll vote republican again.  Till then shove it where the sun don't shine you pathetic traitorous losers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care.  They think their bad behavior attacking Bill Clinton paid off in 2000.  Maybe they are right.  Maybe it did.
> 
> And their bad behavior wasn't punished in the 2010 or 2012 midterms either.  Until voters start showing up and punishing Republicans, they will continue this bad behavior.
> 
> If their bad behavior can get people to not bother showing up to vote, they have won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has always been the main goal of the christian fundamentalists to attempt to reduce the number of people going to the polls.  Their message is only believed by a small percentage of fools.  Fortunately they have exposed themselves as dangerous to the majority of Americans.  THAT they cannot hide from or talk thinking Americans into believing in them.  Hillbillies are not critical thinkers as it turns out. [emoji38] There are just not enough of them to win national elections.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Christians but you democrats that did all those things....you should try not to lie . 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know that if Hillary comes out of this unscathed, as it looks like she will, there is NO ONE in the GOP clown car that can even get within 10 points of her.  They will fan the flames and propagate lies, hoping that something will stick to the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An FBI agent looked GW Bush in the eyes and told him terrorists were going to use airplanes as weapons.
> 
> “And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice. He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer and said. ‘All right, You’ve covered your ass, now.’”
> 
> And then Bush did nothing with that intelligence.  How many people died because he dropped the ball?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has always been total bullshit and you know it.  US intelligence didn't see 9/11 coming and it's a massive reach to declare that Bush "dropped the ball"!  Bush was briefed daily with all kinds of potential threats.  That briefing on a rumor that Al Queda might be thinking about targeting commercial airliners was just one of hundreds of others that came across his desk.  As dramatic as you tried to make it...no FBI agent looked W. in the eyes and told him that terrorists were going to use airplanes as weapons!
Click to expand...

Bullshit Mr. Ben gazzy.


----------



## sealybobo

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack?  Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls!  Think about that!  Forget about the GOP (where recent polls show that *everyone *would beat Clinton) she's got her hands full beating an avowed Socialist for the Democratic nomination...let alone the general election!
> 
> It's rather obvious that the American people have reached a point of "over saturation" with Hillary Clinton and scandals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude are you smoking crack? Hillary's reputation is taking such a beating from these scandals that Bernie Sanders is leading her in the polls! Think about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one " allowed" anything to happen.
> It's settled. How many investigations, hearings and reports do you require before you are satisfied of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush allowed 9-11 to happen so he could use it to lie us into Iraq.  I don't think he helped the terrorists but the timing couldn't have been any better for his push to go to war with Iraq which the GOP had planned out long before Bush stole the 2000 election.
> 
> The *Project for the New American Century* (PNAC) was a neo-conservative think tank (1997 to 2006)
> 
> PNAC's policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocated for total global military domination. Many PNAC members held highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration.
> 
> PNAC is noteworthy for its focus on Iraq, a preoccupation that began before Bush became president and predates the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In 1998, the group wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott (then Senate Majority Leader) andNewt Gingrich (then Speaker of the House of Representatives), demanding a harder line against Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot, Sealy!  George W. Bush didn't allow 9/11 to happen so he could go to war in Iraq years later.  That's such an idiotic premise that it would be laughable if it wasn't so outrageous.
Click to expand...

I thought you were gonna say true. It's true.

I bet you think that bank robbery in Bush's last year wasn't planned in the 90's too.


----------



## Oldstyle

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Think about that why that is while you continue to suck on that putrid teet that is Benghazi.
> 
> 
> 
> Because allowing 4 brave Americans to be slaughtered is something we should just ignore because it was  a Democrat that did it? Fuck that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one " allowed" anything to happen.
> It's settled. How many investigations, hearings and reports do you require before you are satisfied of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush allowed 9-11 to happen so he could use it to lie us into Iraq.  I don't think he helped the terrorists but the timing couldn't have been any better for his push to go to war with Iraq which the GOP had planned out long before Bush stole the 2000 election.
> 
> The *Project for the New American Century* (PNAC) was a neo-conservative think tank (1997 to 2006)
> 
> PNAC's policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocated for total global military domination. Many PNAC members held highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration.
> 
> PNAC is noteworthy for its focus on Iraq, a preoccupation that began before Bush became president and predates the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In 1998, the group wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott (then Senate Majority Leader) andNewt Gingrich (then Speaker of the House of Representatives), demanding a harder line against Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot, Sealy!  George W. Bush didn't allow 9/11 to happen so he could go to war in Iraq years later.  That's such an idiotic premise that it would be laughable if it wasn't so outrageous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you were gonna say true. It's true.
> 
> I bet you think that bank robbery in Bush's last year wasn't planned in the 90's too.
Click to expand...


You've got a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, little buddy!


----------



## JimH52

It seems the "classified" e-mails coming to light were "retroactively" assigned the classified distinction.  So, they were not classified when Hillary sent or received them.....GOP......FAIL!!!!!


----------



## thanatos144

JimH52 said:


> It seems the "classified" e-mails coming to light were "retroactively" assigned the classified distinction.  So, they were not classified when Hillary sent or received them.....GOP......FAIL!!!!!


Prove that

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## JimH52

thanatos144 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the "classified" e-mails coming to light were "retroactively" assigned the classified distinction.  So, they were not classified when Hillary sent or received them.....GOP......FAIL!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


That is what the media is reporting.  If they find otherwise, I am sure we will hear about it.  You might come out from under the FOX umbrella occasionally.


----------



## thanatos144

JimH52 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the "classified" e-mails coming to light were "retroactively" assigned the classified distinction.  So, they were not classified when Hillary sent or received them.....GOP......FAIL!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what the media is reporting.  If they find otherwise, I am sure we will hear about it.  You might come out from under the FOX umbrella occasionally.
Click to expand...

Prove that 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Oldstyle

I could care less about whether e-mails were classified or not!  What angers me is the pattern exhibited by numerous Obama officials in using private e-mail accounts to hide how they conducted official business from Congressional oversight.  There were laws put into place to stop just that from taking place but the "most transparent administration in history" seems to have decided that the end justifies the means when it comes to those laws.

Hillary Clinton, Lisa Jackson, Lois Lerner...they all used private e-mails for official business because they didn't want the public to see how they operated.  That's what is really scandalous about this scandal!


----------



## JimH52

Oldstyle said:


> I could care less about whether e-mails were classified or not!  What angers me is the pattern exhibited by numerous Obama officials in using private e-mail accounts to hide how they conducted official business from Congressional oversight.  There were laws put into place to stop just that from taking place but the "most transparent administration in history" seems to have decided that the end justifies the means when it comes to those laws.
> 
> Hillary Clinton, Lisa Jackson, Lois Lerner...they all used private e-mails for official business because they didn't want the public to see how they operated.  That's what is really scandalous about this scandal!



Bush Administration Appointees Also Used ‘Secret E-mail Addresses’

Yup, really sucks....huh?


----------



## JimH52

Oh, how about one more....LET THE OUTRAGE BEGIN!

Clinton Email Kerfluffle: Bush/Cheney Used Private Email for Official Business to Dodge Scrutiny - Democratic Underground


----------



## HUGGY

Oldstyle said:


> I could care less about whether e-mails were classified or not!  What angers me is the pattern exhibited by numerous Obama officials in using private e-mail accounts to hide how they conducted official business from *Congressional oversight*.  There were laws put into place to stop just that from taking place but the "most transparent administration in history" seems to have decided that the end justifies the means when it comes to those laws.
> 
> Hillary Clinton, Lisa Jackson, Lois Lerner...they all used private e-mails for official business because they didn't want the public to see how they operated.  That's what is really scandalous about this scandal!



You can't be serious.  Daryll Issa would try (and does) to make a federal case out of which brand of breakfast cereal Hillary or Obama chooses.  Not having anything factual to spew his hate campaign on he makes things up out of whole cloth.  It has been a very long time since a congressman has abused the position to gin up such ridiculous charges against members of the opposite party like Issa has.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

thanatos144 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the "classified" e-mails coming to light were "retroactively" assigned the classified distinction.  So, they were not classified when Hillary sent or received them.....GOP......FAIL!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what the media is reporting.  If they find otherwise, I am sure we will hear about it.  You might come out from under the FOX umbrella occasionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released - BBC News

_
State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted by AFP as saying the process of re-evaluating the remaining unreleased emails was continuing.

The emails were not marked as classified at the time Mrs Clinton sent or received them. The vast majority of the correspondence concerned mundane matters of daily life at workplace, including phone messages and relays of daily schedules._


----------



## Oldstyle

HUGGY said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less about whether e-mails were classified or not!  What angers me is the pattern exhibited by numerous Obama officials in using private e-mail accounts to hide how they conducted official business from *Congressional oversight*.  There were laws put into place to stop just that from taking place but the "most transparent administration in history" seems to have decided that the end justifies the means when it comes to those laws.
> 
> Hillary Clinton, Lisa Jackson, Lois Lerner...they all used private e-mails for official business because they didn't want the public to see how they operated.  That's what is really scandalous about this scandal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be serious.  Daryll Issa would try (and does) to make a federal case out of which brand of breakfast cereal Hillary or Obama chooses.  Not having anything factual to spew his hate campaign on he makes things up out of whole cloth.  It has been a very long time since a congressman has abused the position to gin up such ridiculous charges against members of the opposite party like Issa has.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that Clinton, Jackson and Lerner DIDN'T use private e-mail accounts to hide how they were conducting business at the State Department, the EPA and the IRS?

People are making a "federal case" out of this because it's something that our Federal officials aren't supposed to do.


----------



## Oldstyle

Hutch Starskey said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the "classified" e-mails coming to light were "retroactively" assigned the classified distinction.  So, they were not classified when Hillary sent or received them.....GOP......FAIL!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what the media is reporting.  If they find otherwise, I am sure we will hear about it.  You might come out from under the FOX umbrella occasionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released - BBC News
> 
> _
> State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted by AFP as saying the process of re-evaluating the remaining unreleased emails was continuing.
> 
> The emails were not marked as classified at the time Mrs Clinton sent or received them. The vast majority of the correspondence concerned mundane matters of daily life at workplace, including phone messages and relays of daily schedules._
Click to expand...


With all due respect, Hutch...your point about e-mails not being marked classified at the time Clinton sent them is in large part semantics.  If an e-mail that you send is later determined to be "classified" as so many of Hillary Clinton's redacted e-mails have been...then obviously you were in reality sending classified materials over an unsecured private e-mail server!


----------



## Oldstyle

JimH52 said:


> Oh, how about one more....LET THE OUTRAGE BEGIN!
> 
> Clinton Email Kerfluffle: Bush/Cheney Used Private Email for Official Business to Dodge Scrutiny - Democratic Underground



The Democratic Underground?  Really, Jim?  LOL


----------



## JimH52

Oldstyle said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, how about one more....LET THE OUTRAGE BEGIN!
> 
> Clinton Email Kerfluffle: Bush/Cheney Used Private Email for Official Business to Dodge Scrutiny - Democratic Underground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Underground?  Really, Jim?  LOL
Click to expand...


Sorry I didn't quote Daryll Issa, that example  of impartiality....


----------



## sealybobo

JimH52 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, how about one more....LET THE OUTRAGE BEGIN!
> 
> Clinton Email Kerfluffle: Bush/Cheney Used Private Email for Official Business to Dodge Scrutiny - Democratic Underground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Underground?  Really, Jim?  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I didn't quote Daryll Issa, that example  of impartiality....
Click to expand...

Now you will see the GOP and corporate media will have a field day with Hillary's personal emails.  Did you hear this morning ABC Good Morning America were commenting on personal emails going back from Hillary and Chelsea. Totally personal and not newsworthy.  If they had anything they would not be commenting on her personal back and forth with family and friends.    

She should have told them all to fuck off.  Her personal email is personal.  OR, give us Trump, Ben Carson, Fiorino, Walker's, Rubio and Cruz' personal emails.  We need to see what is in them.  They MIGHT have talked about classified shit on their personal emails.  We MUST know.  And if they don't give them up then they must have something to hide, right?  Fucking Republican Losers.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the "classified" e-mails coming to light were "retroactively" assigned the classified distinction.  So, they were not classified when Hillary sent or received them.....GOP......FAIL!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what the media is reporting.  If they find otherwise, I am sure we will hear about it.  You might come out from under the FOX umbrella occasionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released - BBC News
> 
> _
> State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted by AFP as saying the process of re-evaluating the remaining unreleased emails was continuing.
> 
> The emails were not marked as classified at the time Mrs Clinton sent or received them. The vast majority of the correspondence concerned mundane matters of daily life at workplace, including phone messages and relays of daily schedules._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Hutch...your point about e-mails not being marked classified at the time Clinton sent them is in large part semantics.  If an e-mail that you send is later determined to be "classified" as so many of Hillary Clinton's redacted e-mails have been...then obviously you were in reality sending classified materials over an unsecured private e-mail server!
Click to expand...



That's not either true or how it works.

If something is deemed sensetive or otherwise classified months after it was initially sent, it was still not classified at the time. There could be parts of her daily schedule that were not classified but now may be as that info is being released. These are probably classified now because entire conversations about various subjects are being released with these mails and they don't want that information disclosed.That seems totally reasonable to me especially since they are going through all of them individually before release. Probably to ensue there isn't a clear picture of anything that may be sensitive.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less about whether e-mails were classified or not!  What angers me is the pattern exhibited by numerous Obama officials in using private e-mail accounts to hide how they conducted official business from *Congressional oversight*.  There were laws put into place to stop just that from taking place but the "most transparent administration in history" seems to have decided that the end justifies the means when it comes to those laws.
> 
> Hillary Clinton, Lisa Jackson, Lois Lerner...they all used private e-mails for official business because they didn't want the public to see how they operated.  That's what is really scandalous about this scandal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be serious.  Daryll Issa would try (and does) to make a federal case out of which brand of breakfast cereal Hillary or Obama chooses.  Not having anything factual to spew his hate campaign on he makes things up out of whole cloth.  It has been a very long time since a congressman has abused the position to gin up such ridiculous charges against members of the opposite party like Issa has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that Clinton, Jackson and Lerner DIDN'T use private e-mail accounts to hide how they were conducting business at the State Department, the EPA and the IRS?
> 
> People are making a "federal case" out of this because it's something that our Federal officials aren't supposed to do.
Click to expand...


Or to protect themselves from republican ***** like Issa.


----------



## Oldstyle

JimH52 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, how about one more....LET THE OUTRAGE BEGIN!
> 
> Clinton Email Kerfluffle: Bush/Cheney Used Private Email for Official Business to Dodge Scrutiny - Democratic Underground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Underground?  Really, Jim?  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I didn't quote Daryll Issa, that example  of impartiality....
Click to expand...


No, you quoted The Democratic Underground, a perfect example of left wing propaganda.  So why even bother?


----------



## Oldstyle

Hutch Starskey said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the media is reporting.  If they find otherwise, I am sure we will hear about it.  You might come out from under the FOX umbrella occasionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released - BBC News
> 
> _
> State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted by AFP as saying the process of re-evaluating the remaining unreleased emails was continuing.
> 
> The emails were not marked as classified at the time Mrs Clinton sent or received them. The vast majority of the correspondence concerned mundane matters of daily life at workplace, including phone messages and relays of daily schedules._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Hutch...your point about e-mails not being marked classified at the time Clinton sent them is in large part semantics.  If an e-mail that you send is later determined to be "classified" as so many of Hillary Clinton's redacted e-mails have been...then obviously you were in reality sending classified materials over an unsecured private e-mail server!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not either true or how it works.
> 
> If something is deemed sensetive or otherwise classified months after it was initially sent, it was still not classified at the time. There could be parts of her daily schedule that were not classified but now may be as that info is being released. These are probably classified now because entire conversations about various subjects are being released with these mails and they don't want that information disclosed.That seems totally reasonable to me especially since they are going through all of them individually before release. Probably to ensue there isn't a clear picture of anything that may be sensitive.
Click to expand...


So how does it work, Hutch?  Hillary Clinton wants to send an e-mail to Huma Abedin.  She opens up her e-mail.  She sends the message.  Now if something in that message IS sensitive then how can it possibly be "classified" when Clinton sends it...especially since it's being sent through one of the private servers set up at Clinton's house?

Since so many of them were determined to be "classified" by the State Department months or years later when they finally are given those e-mails by Clinton have they somehow magically "morphed" into a different message?  Obviously that's not the case.  The only thing that's changed from the time those original e-mails were sent is that they are no longer private between Clinton staffers but now are being looked at to determine if they are or are not sensitive.  My point remains...if so much of the Clinton emails are *now* being redacted because they are too sensitive for the public to see then it's pretty obvious that they were JUST as sensitive back then when they were secret!


----------



## Oldstyle

So when Clinton claims that she didn't send any classified e-mails...she's technically correct...but only because the sensitive e-mails that she was sending through those private servers hadn't been designated as classified yet.


----------



## Oldstyle

In reality...how can ANY e-mail have been "classified" when the very people who would designate them as such were not privy to their existence?


----------



## JimH52

Oldstyle said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, how about one more....LET THE OUTRAGE BEGIN!
> 
> Clinton Email Kerfluffle: Bush/Cheney Used Private Email for Official Business to Dodge Scrutiny - Democratic Underground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Underground?  Really, Jim?  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I didn't quote Daryll Issa, that example  of impartiality....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you quoted The Democratic Underground, a perfect example of left wing propaganda.  So why even bother?
Click to expand...




Oldstyle said:


> In reality...how can ANY e-mail have been "classified" when the very people who would designate them as such were not privy to their existence?



You really need to get a life....


----------



## Synthaholic

Yeah, it would be devastating if the Russians and Chinese had found out that Hillary liked Parks And Recreation and was trying to get gifilte fish for a Congressman.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the media is reporting.  If they find otherwise, I am sure we will hear about it.  You might come out from under the FOX umbrella occasionally.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released - BBC News
> 
> _
> State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted by AFP as saying the process of re-evaluating the remaining unreleased emails was continuing.
> 
> The emails were not marked as classified at the time Mrs Clinton sent or received them. The vast majority of the correspondence concerned mundane matters of daily life at workplace, including phone messages and relays of daily schedules._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Hutch...your point about e-mails not being marked classified at the time Clinton sent them is in large part semantics.  If an e-mail that you send is later determined to be "classified" as so many of Hillary Clinton's redacted e-mails have been...then obviously you were in reality sending classified materials over an unsecured private e-mail server!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not either true or how it works.
> 
> If something is deemed sensetive or otherwise classified months after it was initially sent, it was still not classified at the time. There could be parts of her daily schedule that were not classified but now may be as that info is being released. These are probably classified now because entire conversations about various subjects are being released with these mails and they don't want that information disclosed.That seems totally reasonable to me especially since they are going through all of them individually before release. Probably to ensue there isn't a clear picture of anything that may be sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does it work, Hutch?  Hillary Clinton wants to send an e-mail to Huma Abedin.  She opens up her e-mail.  She sends the message.  Now if something in that message IS sensitive then how can it possibly be "classified" when Clinton sends it...especially since it's being sent through one of the private servers set up at Clinton's house?
> 
> Since so many of them were determined to be "classified" by the State Department months or years later when they finally are given those e-mails by Clinton have they somehow magically "morphed" into a different message?  Obviously that's not the case.  The only thing that's changed from the time those original e-mails were sent is that they are no longer private between Clinton staffers but now are being looked at to determine if they are or are not sensitive.  My point remains...if so much of the Clinton emails are *now* being redacted because they are too sensitive for the public to see then it's pretty obvious that they were JUST as sensitive back then when they were secret!
Click to expand...


Look dumbass, if it's not classified AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT,then it wasn't classified.
What's  so hard to understand? They told you they weren't classified at the time. Why they are now, they haven't said.

Yes the emails at the time WERE NOT CLASSIFIED. It may only be redacted or classified now because they are making them public.

Show us the emails you are speaking of with staffers.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the media is reporting.  If they find otherwise, I am sure we will hear about it.  You might come out from under the FOX umbrella occasionally.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released - BBC News
> 
> _
> State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted by AFP as saying the process of re-evaluating the remaining unreleased emails was continuing.
> 
> The emails were not marked as classified at the time Mrs Clinton sent or received them. The vast majority of the correspondence concerned mundane matters of daily life at workplace, including phone messages and relays of daily schedules._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Hutch...your point about e-mails not being marked classified at the time Clinton sent them is in large part semantics.  If an e-mail that you send is later determined to be "classified" as so many of Hillary Clinton's redacted e-mails have been...then obviously you were in reality sending classified materials over an unsecured private e-mail server!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not either true or how it works.
> 
> If something is deemed sensetive or otherwise classified months after it was initially sent, it was still not classified at the time. There could be parts of her daily schedule that were not classified but now may be as that info is being released. These are probably classified now because entire conversations about various subjects are being released with these mails and they don't want that information disclosed.That seems totally reasonable to me especially since they are going through all of them individually before release. Probably to ensue there isn't a clear picture of anything that may be sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does it work, Hutch?  Hillary Clinton wants to send an e-mail to Huma Abedin.  She opens up her e-mail.  She sends the message.  Now if something in that message IS sensitive then how can it possibly be "classified" when Clinton sends it...especially since it's being sent through one of the private servers set up at Clinton's house?
> 
> Since so many of them were determined to be "classified" by the State Department months or years later when they finally are given those e-mails by Clinton have they somehow magically "morphed" into a different message?  Obviously that's not the case.  The only thing that's changed from the time those original e-mails were sent is that they are no longer private between Clinton staffers but now are being looked at to determine if they are or are not sensitive.  My point remains...if so much of the Clinton emails are *now* being redacted because they are too sensitive for the public to see then it's pretty obvious that they were JUST as sensitive back then when they were secret!
Click to expand...




Oldstyle said:


> then it's pretty obvious that they were JUST as sensitive back then when they were secret!



Not at all. They may only be redacted now because they're being released to the public.


----------



## Oldstyle

Hutch Starskey said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released - BBC News
> 
> _
> State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted by AFP as saying the process of re-evaluating the remaining unreleased emails was continuing.
> 
> The emails were not marked as classified at the time Mrs Clinton sent or received them. The vast majority of the correspondence concerned mundane matters of daily life at workplace, including phone messages and relays of daily schedules._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Hutch...your point about e-mails not being marked classified at the time Clinton sent them is in large part semantics.  If an e-mail that you send is later determined to be "classified" as so many of Hillary Clinton's redacted e-mails have been...then obviously you were in reality sending classified materials over an unsecured private e-mail server!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not either true or how it works.
> 
> If something is deemed sensetive or otherwise classified months after it was initially sent, it was still not classified at the time. There could be parts of her daily schedule that were not classified but now may be as that info is being released. These are probably classified now because entire conversations about various subjects are being released with these mails and they don't want that information disclosed.That seems totally reasonable to me especially since they are going through all of them individually before release. Probably to ensue there isn't a clear picture of anything that may be sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does it work, Hutch?  Hillary Clinton wants to send an e-mail to Huma Abedin.  She opens up her e-mail.  She sends the message.  Now if something in that message IS sensitive then how can it possibly be "classified" when Clinton sends it...especially since it's being sent through one of the private servers set up at Clinton's house?
> 
> Since so many of them were determined to be "classified" by the State Department months or years later when they finally are given those e-mails by Clinton have they somehow magically "morphed" into a different message?  Obviously that's not the case.  The only thing that's changed from the time those original e-mails were sent is that they are no longer private between Clinton staffers but now are being looked at to determine if they are or are not sensitive.  My point remains...if so much of the Clinton emails are *now* being redacted because they are too sensitive for the public to see then it's pretty obvious that they were JUST as sensitive back then when they were secret!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dumbass, if it's not classified AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT,then it wasn't classified.
> What's  so hard to understand? They told you they weren't classified at the time. Why they are now, they haven't said.
> 
> Yes the emails at the time WERE NOT CLASSIFIED. It may only be redacted or classified now because they are making them public.
> 
> Show us the emails you are speaking of with staffers.
Click to expand...


So the e-mails weren't classified when Hillary sent them because the people that classify those kinds of things didn't KNOW she was sending them since she was using a private server based out of her house!  When the people who classify those kinds of things actually did see them...then they became classified?

Do you have any idea how stupid you come across defending that kind of logic?

And that's not even talking about the 50,000 e-mails that Hillary erased from her server!  Unless you're the world's most naive person you've got to KNOW that those bad boys contained the stuff that Hillary REALLY doesn't want anyone to see!

The damaging stuff we're seeing now...as bad as that is...don't forget that all that stuff is the stuff that Hillary's crew decided didn't make the grade of the REALLY bad stuff!


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released - BBC News
> 
> _
> State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted by AFP as saying the process of re-evaluating the remaining unreleased emails was continuing.
> 
> The emails were not marked as classified at the time Mrs Clinton sent or received them. The vast majority of the correspondence concerned mundane matters of daily life at workplace, including phone messages and relays of daily schedules._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Hutch...your point about e-mails not being marked classified at the time Clinton sent them is in large part semantics.  If an e-mail that you send is later determined to be "classified" as so many of Hillary Clinton's redacted e-mails have been...then obviously you were in reality sending classified materials over an unsecured private e-mail server!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not either true or how it works.
> 
> If something is deemed sensetive or otherwise classified months after it was initially sent, it was still not classified at the time. There could be parts of her daily schedule that were not classified but now may be as that info is being released. These are probably classified now because entire conversations about various subjects are being released with these mails and they don't want that information disclosed.That seems totally reasonable to me especially since they are going through all of them individually before release. Probably to ensue there isn't a clear picture of anything that may be sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does it work, Hutch?  Hillary Clinton wants to send an e-mail to Huma Abedin.  She opens up her e-mail.  She sends the message.  Now if something in that message IS sensitive then how can it possibly be "classified" when Clinton sends it...especially since it's being sent through one of the private servers set up at Clinton's house?
> 
> Since so many of them were determined to be "classified" by the State Department months or years later when they finally are given those e-mails by Clinton have they somehow magically "morphed" into a different message?  Obviously that's not the case.  The only thing that's changed from the time those original e-mails were sent is that they are no longer private between Clinton staffers but now are being looked at to determine if they are or are not sensitive.  My point remains...if so much of the Clinton emails are *now* being redacted because they are too sensitive for the public to see then it's pretty obvious that they were JUST as sensitive back then when they were secret!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dumbass, if it's not classified AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT,then it wasn't classified.
> What's  so hard to understand? They told you they weren't classified at the time. Why they are now, they haven't said.
> 
> Yes the emails at the time WERE NOT CLASSIFIED. It may only be redacted or classified now because they are making them public.
> 
> Show us the emails you are speaking of with staffers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the e-mails weren't classified when Hillary sent them because the people that classify those kinds of things didn't KNOW she was sending them since she was using a private server based out of her house!  When the people who classify those kinds of things actually did see them...then they became classified?
> 
> Do you have any idea how stupid you come across defending that kind of logic?
> 
> And that's not even talking about the 50,000 e-mails that Hillary erased from her server!  Unless you're the world's most naive person you've got to KNOW that those bad boys contained the stuff that Hillary REALLY doesn't want anyone to see!
> 
> The damaging stuff we're seeing now...as bad as that is...don't forget that all that stuff is the stuff that Hillary's crew decided didn't make the grade of the REALLY bad stuff!
Click to expand...


Look dullard, if the transmission of classified material is a crime, you cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not classified when it was sent or received. We don't have pre-crime laws as of yet. If alcohol becomes illegal next month you can't charge me for posession yesterday. Get it?  Why ,when and how those communications were later classified has not been disclosed, but since they weren't at the time it's really irrelevant as to why they are now.

BTW, it was 55k work emails released to state and 30k private that were erased.


----------



## Mac1958

I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.

She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.

Just sayin'.
.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Mac1958 said:


> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .



Very true. She's taken some hits but she hasn't even hit the trail hard yet and is still leading. It comes down to electability. Both sides will rally around whoever has the best chance of winning for their side. Right now that's still Hillary for the dems.


----------



## Oldstyle

Hutch Starskey said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true. She's taken some hits but she hasn't even hit the trail hard yet and is still leading. It comes down to electability. Both sides will rally around whoever has the best chance of winning for their side. Right now that's still Hillary for the dems.
Click to expand...


Some hits?  She's gone from leading the nearest challenger by something close to 50 points to being almost neck and neck with Bernie Sanders!  All that happening as she slowly trickles out e-mails trying to mitigate the damage.

You do realize that at some point what was contained in the e-mails she erased SHOULD be recovered by FBI investigators?  What's coming out now is the stuff her team have deemed LEAST damaging.  What will be coming later is the stuff they really don't want anyone to see.


----------



## Oldstyle

Hutch Starskey said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Hutch...your point about e-mails not being marked classified at the time Clinton sent them is in large part semantics.  If an e-mail that you send is later determined to be "classified" as so many of Hillary Clinton's redacted e-mails have been...then obviously you were in reality sending classified materials over an unsecured private e-mail server!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not either true or how it works.
> 
> If something is deemed sensetive or otherwise classified months after it was initially sent, it was still not classified at the time. There could be parts of her daily schedule that were not classified but now may be as that info is being released. These are probably classified now because entire conversations about various subjects are being released with these mails and they don't want that information disclosed.That seems totally reasonable to me especially since they are going through all of them individually before release. Probably to ensue there isn't a clear picture of anything that may be sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does it work, Hutch?  Hillary Clinton wants to send an e-mail to Huma Abedin.  She opens up her e-mail.  She sends the message.  Now if something in that message IS sensitive then how can it possibly be "classified" when Clinton sends it...especially since it's being sent through one of the private servers set up at Clinton's house?
> 
> Since so many of them were determined to be "classified" by the State Department months or years later when they finally are given those e-mails by Clinton have they somehow magically "morphed" into a different message?  Obviously that's not the case.  The only thing that's changed from the time those original e-mails were sent is that they are no longer private between Clinton staffers but now are being looked at to determine if they are or are not sensitive.  My point remains...if so much of the Clinton emails are *now* being redacted because they are too sensitive for the public to see then it's pretty obvious that they were JUST as sensitive back then when they were secret!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dumbass, if it's not classified AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT,then it wasn't classified.
> What's  so hard to understand? They told you they weren't classified at the time. Why they are now, they haven't said.
> 
> Yes the emails at the time WERE NOT CLASSIFIED. It may only be redacted or classified now because they are making them public.
> 
> Show us the emails you are speaking of with staffers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the e-mails weren't classified when Hillary sent them because the people that classify those kinds of things didn't KNOW she was sending them since she was using a private server based out of her house!  When the people who classify those kinds of things actually did see them...then they became classified?
> 
> Do you have any idea how stupid you come across defending that kind of logic?
> 
> And that's not even talking about the 50,000 e-mails that Hillary erased from her server!  Unless you're the world's most naive person you've got to KNOW that those bad boys contained the stuff that Hillary REALLY doesn't want anyone to see!
> 
> The damaging stuff we're seeing now...as bad as that is...don't forget that all that stuff is the stuff that Hillary's crew decided didn't make the grade of the REALLY bad stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dullard, if the transmission of classified material is a crime, you cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not classified when it was sent or received. We don't have pre-crime laws as of yet. If alcohol becomes illegal next month you can't charge me for posession yesterday. Get it?  Why ,when and how those communications were later classified has not been disclosed, but since they weren't at the time it's really irrelevant as to why they are now.
> 
> BTW, it was 55k work emails released to state and 30k private that were erased.
Click to expand...


So you admit that Hillary Clinton was in fact sending sensitive e-mails on private, unsecured e-mail accounts...e-mails that were *later* deemed to be classified?

You're just claiming that "technically" she's not guilty of a crime?


----------



## Oldstyle

Mac1958 said:


> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .



The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.  The only people running against her were Martin O'Malley (who nobody's ever heard of) and Bernie Sanders (who's the crazy old guy from down the street who protests everything)!  Essentially she was running in the Kentucky Derby against a sloth and a tortoise.

So the problem that the Democratic Party now has is that they have a candidate that the majority of the country sees as being completely dishonest but they can't get rid of her because she's Hillary and Hillary wants the Presidency so bad she'd toss her mother under a train to get it...and if they DO get her to step aside...they don't have another viable candidate ready to run!  Biden?  Gore?  Warren?  They all have major "warts".


----------



## Mac1958

Oldstyle said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably true, so it will be interesting to see if Biden gets in.  If he doesn't, then the Dems will no doubt be nervous after she's nominated.  The shit could then hit the fan at just the wrong time.
.


----------



## Care4all

Oldstyle said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.  The only people running against her were Martin O'Malley (who nobody's ever heard of) and Bernie Sanders (who's the crazy old guy from down the street who protests everything)!  Essentially she was running in the Kentucky Derby against a sloth and a tortoise.
> 
> So the problem that the Democratic Party now has is that they have a candidate that the majority of the country sees as being completely dishonest but they can't get rid of her because she's Hillary and Hillary wants the Presidency so bad she'd toss her mother under a train to get it...and if they DO get her to step aside...they don't have another viable candidate ready to run!  Biden?  Gore?  Warren?  They all have major "warts".
Click to expand...

There is plenty of time for the truth to come out and the right wing spinning, twisting, turning and crying wolf to be exposed.

What I won't let happen if I have a voice left to scream and fingers left to write is Republicans picking the Democratic candidate for us through fear mongering and political, fabricated smears....it's what you did last time with Hillary running....scaring the crowd in to believing the republicans in congress would fabricate one "gate" after another if she were picked, and then you all caused even more he'll on Earth with Obama...

We know your modus operandi now....

Tell me something, any emails yet implicating Hillary or Obama with criminal actions taken with Benghazi?

No!

Did Hillary and Obama tell the CIA TO STAND DOWN?
Did Hillary and Obama watch while rubbing their hands in glee a live feed as the 4 were being killed?

Was Ambassador Stevens raped by the Muslims who actually brought him to the hospital?

How about Lerner, you've had all of her emails for months, where are the emails that show she was a criminal and in cahoots with Obama....  Ohhhhh, there aren't any....

You,  the Republicans, have cried wolf, one too many times and have been simply full of crapola....it's hard for anyone paying attention to ever believe you....even if you ever have something you are truthful on....  that's what happens when you fabricate and regurgitate, so many, many, many lies.

I'm certain you think the same thing about Dems....

There is no foreseeable end to this.... imo.


----------



## Oldstyle

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.  The only people running against her were Martin O'Malley (who nobody's ever heard of) and Bernie Sanders (who's the crazy old guy from down the street who protests everything)!  Essentially she was running in the Kentucky Derby against a sloth and a tortoise.
> 
> So the problem that the Democratic Party now has is that they have a candidate that the majority of the country sees as being completely dishonest but they can't get rid of her because she's Hillary and Hillary wants the Presidency so bad she'd toss her mother under a train to get it...and if they DO get her to step aside...they don't have another viable candidate ready to run!  Biden?  Gore?  Warren?  They all have major "warts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is plenty of time for the truth to come out and the right wing spinning, twisting, turning and crying wolf to be exposed.
> 
> What I won't let happen if I have a voice left to scream and fingers left to write is Republicans picking the Democratic candidate for us through fear mongering and political, fabricated smears....it's what you did last time with Hillary running....scaring the crowd in to believing the republicans in congress would fabricate one "gate" after another if she were picked, and then you all caused even more he'll on Earth with Obama...
> 
> We know your modus operandi now....
> 
> Tell me something, any emails yet implicating Hillary or Obama with criminal actions taken with Benghazi?
> 
> No!
> 
> Did Hillary and Obama tell the CIA TO STAND DOWN?
> Did Hillary and Obama watch while rubbing their hands in glee a live feed as the 4 were being killed?
> 
> Was Ambassador Stevens raped by the Muslims who actually brought him to the hospital?
> 
> How about Lerner, you've had all of her emails for months, where are the emails that show she was a criminal and in cahoots with Obama....  Ohhhhh, there aren't any....
> 
> You,  the Republicans, have cried wolf, one too many times and have been simply full of crapola....it's hard for anyone paying attention to ever believe you....even if you ever have something you are truthful on....  that's what happens when you fabricate and regurgitate, so many, many, many lies.
> 
> I'm certain you think the same thing about Dems....
> 
> There is no foreseeable end to this.... imo.
Click to expand...


I'd be oh so careful what you wish for here, Care...I think it's reasonable to assume that the e-mails that Clinton is slowly releasing now are the least damaging of the e-mails that she sent.  The ones that she didn't want anyone to see EVER were the ones that she erased from her servers.  Those e-mails the FBI is supposedly attempting to recover.  This is quite literally a "death of a thousand cuts" with (as you put it) no foreseeable end in sight but that isn't because of the GOP...that's because Clinton has stonewalled this scandal just as she's stonewalled so many in the past.

As for Clinton losing to Obama?  Don't blame that on conservatives...we're not the ones who chose a guy with zero experience to be President based on some vague promise of "Hope & Change"...that would be you liberals that bought into that song and dance!


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true. She's taken some hits but she hasn't even hit the trail hard yet and is still leading. It comes down to electability. Both sides will rally around whoever has the best chance of winning for their side. Right now that's still Hillary for the dems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some hits?  She's gone from leading the nearest challenger by something close to 50 points to being almost neck and neck with Bernie Sanders!  All that happening as she slowly trickles out e-mails trying to mitigate the damage.
> 
> You do realize that at some point what was contained in the e-mails she erased SHOULD be recovered by FBI investigators?  What's coming out now is the stuff her team have deemed LEAST damaging.  What will be coming later is the stuff they really don't want anyone to see.
Click to expand...


" her team has deemed least damaging"?
You are so full of shit.

When she gets out there campaigning as much as everyone else and after some debates her numbers will go back up.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not either true or how it works.
> 
> If something is deemed sensetive or otherwise classified months after it was initially sent, it was still not classified at the time. There could be parts of her daily schedule that were not classified but now may be as that info is being released. These are probably classified now because entire conversations about various subjects are being released with these mails and they don't want that information disclosed.That seems totally reasonable to me especially since they are going through all of them individually before release. Probably to ensue there isn't a clear picture of anything that may be sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does it work, Hutch?  Hillary Clinton wants to send an e-mail to Huma Abedin.  She opens up her e-mail.  She sends the message.  Now if something in that message IS sensitive then how can it possibly be "classified" when Clinton sends it...especially since it's being sent through one of the private servers set up at Clinton's house?
> 
> Since so many of them were determined to be "classified" by the State Department months or years later when they finally are given those e-mails by Clinton have they somehow magically "morphed" into a different message?  Obviously that's not the case.  The only thing that's changed from the time those original e-mails were sent is that they are no longer private between Clinton staffers but now are being looked at to determine if they are or are not sensitive.  My point remains...if so much of the Clinton emails are *now* being redacted because they are too sensitive for the public to see then it's pretty obvious that they were JUST as sensitive back then when they were secret!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dumbass, if it's not classified AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT,then it wasn't classified.
> What's  so hard to understand? They told you they weren't classified at the time. Why they are now, they haven't said.
> 
> Yes the emails at the time WERE NOT CLASSIFIED. It may only be redacted or classified now because they are making them public.
> 
> Show us the emails you are speaking of with staffers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the e-mails weren't classified when Hillary sent them because the people that classify those kinds of things didn't KNOW she was sending them since she was using a private server based out of her house!  When the people who classify those kinds of things actually did see them...then they became classified?
> 
> Do you have any idea how stupid you come across defending that kind of logic?
> 
> And that's not even talking about the 50,000 e-mails that Hillary erased from her server!  Unless you're the world's most naive person you've got to KNOW that those bad boys contained the stuff that Hillary REALLY doesn't want anyone to see!
> 
> The damaging stuff we're seeing now...as bad as that is...don't forget that all that stuff is the stuff that Hillary's crew decided didn't make the grade of the REALLY bad stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dullard, if the transmission of classified material is a crime, you cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not classified when it was sent or received. We don't have pre-crime laws as of yet. If alcohol becomes illegal next month you can't charge me for posession yesterday. Get it?  Why ,when and how those communications were later classified has not been disclosed, but since they weren't at the time it's really irrelevant as to why they are now.
> 
> BTW, it was 55k work emails released to state and 30k private that were erased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that Hillary Clinton was in fact sending sensitive e-mails on private, unsecured e-mail accounts...e-mails that were *later* deemed to be classified?
> 
> You're just claiming that "technically" she's not guilty of a crime?
Click to expand...


They may be deemed as sensitive and therefore classified when viewed as a whole. None of these communications were meant to be seen by the public and certainly not all of them.
No, they said they weren't classified at the time. What part of that don't you understand? If they weren't classified then where is the crime?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.  The only people running against her were Martin O'Malley (who nobody's ever heard of) and Bernie Sanders (who's the crazy old guy from down the street who protests everything)!  Essentially she was running in the Kentucky Derby against a sloth and a tortoise.
> 
> So the problem that the Democratic Party now has is that they have a candidate that the majority of the country sees as being completely dishonest but they can't get rid of her because she's Hillary and Hillary wants the Presidency so bad she'd toss her mother under a train to get it...and if they DO get her to step aside...they don't have another viable candidate ready to run!  Biden?  Gore?  Warren?  They all have major "warts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is plenty of time for the truth to come out and the right wing spinning, twisting, turning and crying wolf to be exposed.
> 
> What I won't let happen if I have a voice left to scream and fingers left to write is Republicans picking the Democratic candidate for us through fear mongering and political, fabricated smears....it's what you did last time with Hillary running....scaring the crowd in to believing the republicans in congress would fabricate one "gate" after another if she were picked, and then you all caused even more he'll on Earth with Obama...
> 
> We know your modus operandi now....
> 
> Tell me something, any emails yet implicating Hillary or Obama with criminal actions taken with Benghazi?
> 
> No!
> 
> Did Hillary and Obama tell the CIA TO STAND DOWN?
> Did Hillary and Obama watch while rubbing their hands in glee a live feed as the 4 were being killed?
> 
> Was Ambassador Stevens raped by the Muslims who actually brought him to the hospital?
> 
> How about Lerner, you've had all of her emails for months, where are the emails that show she was a criminal and in cahoots with Obama....  Ohhhhh, there aren't any....
> 
> You,  the Republicans, have cried wolf, one too many times and have been simply full of crapola....it's hard for anyone paying attention to ever believe you....even if you ever have something you are truthful on....  that's what happens when you fabricate and regurgitate, so many, many, many lies.
> 
> I'm certain you think the same thing about Dems....
> 
> There is no foreseeable end to this.... imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be oh so careful what you wish for here, Care...I think it's reasonable to assume that the e-mails that Clinton is slowly releasing now are the least damaging of the e-mails that she sent.  The ones that she didn't want anyone to see EVER were the ones that she erased from her servers.  Those e-mails the FBI is supposedly attempting to recover.  This is quite literally a "death of a thousand cuts" with (as you put it) no foreseeable end in sight but that isn't because of the GOP...that's because Clinton has stonewalled this scandal just as she's stonewalled so many in the past.
> 
> As for Clinton losing to Obama?  Don't blame that on conservatives...we're not the ones who chose a guy with zero experience to be President based on some vague promise of "Hope & Change"...that would be you liberals that bought into that song and dance!
Click to expand...




Oldstyle said:


> I think it's reasonable to assume that the e-mails that Clinton is slowly releasing now are the least damaging of the e-mails that she sent.



Clinton isn't releasing anything. The State department is. She turned these over quite a while ago.
55k takes a while to go through.
It's State that is redacting and classifying these before release not Clinton.


----------



## RedTeamTex

Can't say I've waded through all 32 pages of this thread, but based on the discussion here at the end, I might mention at the risk of redundancy:

Hillary Clinton & Email Scandal -- Clinton Ordered 'Born Classified' Info Sent to Her Private Account | National Review Online

Born Classified.

Assuming merely that is true or also that information deriving from originally marked classified documents wound their way through those entrepreneurs' bathroom, then here's precisely the laws that were broken (from http://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html ) :

*"WHAT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND POLICIES HAVE POTENTIAL APPLICATION?*
_
109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):_

_Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both._
_110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:_

_Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both._
_111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:_

_Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both._
_ 112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.
113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.
114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:_

_All [Sensitive Compartmented Information] must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive._
_ 115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:_

_Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas._
_116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:_

_Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material._
_117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:_

_Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored."_
I'm rooting for the warrior princess above to carry the day:  I'd love for Hillary to choke out the competition for the Democratic nomination so we have her and her paper trail of brazen arrogance to run against in the general.


Funny how the longer this thread goes, the better it's summed up by the first two posts.


----------



## browsing deer

Care4all said:


> She was a NOC, on several occasions, Fitzgerald's report says such and shows such.....
> 
> A NOC is the MOST covert operative that there is....  with the MOST dangerous positions, and if they are caught on foreign soil, the CIA will deny knowing them...it takes a true patriot to put oneself in that position for your country.
> 
> please, just STOP with smearing her....


She was as covert as a 110 piece brass band plus the glockenspiels and the timpani's.  She was covert enough with her who's who entries.


----------



## Oldstyle

Hutch Starskey said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how does it work, Hutch?  Hillary Clinton wants to send an e-mail to Huma Abedin.  She opens up her e-mail.  She sends the message.  Now if something in that message IS sensitive then how can it possibly be "classified" when Clinton sends it...especially since it's being sent through one of the private servers set up at Clinton's house?
> 
> Since so many of them were determined to be "classified" by the State Department months or years later when they finally are given those e-mails by Clinton have they somehow magically "morphed" into a different message?  Obviously that's not the case.  The only thing that's changed from the time those original e-mails were sent is that they are no longer private between Clinton staffers but now are being looked at to determine if they are or are not sensitive.  My point remains...if so much of the Clinton emails are *now* being redacted because they are too sensitive for the public to see then it's pretty obvious that they were JUST as sensitive back then when they were secret!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look dumbass, if it's not classified AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT,then it wasn't classified.
> What's  so hard to understand? They told you they weren't classified at the time. Why they are now, they haven't said.
> 
> Yes the emails at the time WERE NOT CLASSIFIED. It may only be redacted or classified now because they are making them public.
> 
> Show us the emails you are speaking of with staffers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the e-mails weren't classified when Hillary sent them because the people that classify those kinds of things didn't KNOW she was sending them since she was using a private server based out of her house!  When the people who classify those kinds of things actually did see them...then they became classified?
> 
> Do you have any idea how stupid you come across defending that kind of logic?
> 
> And that's not even talking about the 50,000 e-mails that Hillary erased from her server!  Unless you're the world's most naive person you've got to KNOW that those bad boys contained the stuff that Hillary REALLY doesn't want anyone to see!
> 
> The damaging stuff we're seeing now...as bad as that is...don't forget that all that stuff is the stuff that Hillary's crew decided didn't make the grade of the REALLY bad stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dullard, if the transmission of classified material is a crime, you cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not classified when it was sent or received. We don't have pre-crime laws as of yet. If alcohol becomes illegal next month you can't charge me for posession yesterday. Get it?  Why ,when and how those communications were later classified has not been disclosed, but since they weren't at the time it's really irrelevant as to why they are now.
> 
> BTW, it was 55k work emails released to state and 30k private that were erased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that Hillary Clinton was in fact sending sensitive e-mails on private, unsecured e-mail accounts...e-mails that were *later* deemed to be classified?
> 
> You're just claiming that "technically" she's not guilty of a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may be deemed as sensitive and therefore classified when viewed as a whole. None of these communications were meant to be seen by the public and certainly not all of them.
> No, they said they weren't classified at the time. What part of that don't you understand? If they weren't classified then where is the crime?
Click to expand...


My question for you is a simple one...have any of the e-mails that Hillary Clinton sent or received on her private e-mail account been subsequently designated as classified?


----------



## Oldstyle

Hutch Starskey said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.  The only people running against her were Martin O'Malley (who nobody's ever heard of) and Bernie Sanders (who's the crazy old guy from down the street who protests everything)!  Essentially she was running in the Kentucky Derby against a sloth and a tortoise.
> 
> So the problem that the Democratic Party now has is that they have a candidate that the majority of the country sees as being completely dishonest but they can't get rid of her because she's Hillary and Hillary wants the Presidency so bad she'd toss her mother under a train to get it...and if they DO get her to step aside...they don't have another viable candidate ready to run!  Biden?  Gore?  Warren?  They all have major "warts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is plenty of time for the truth to come out and the right wing spinning, twisting, turning and crying wolf to be exposed.
> 
> What I won't let happen if I have a voice left to scream and fingers left to write is Republicans picking the Democratic candidate for us through fear mongering and political, fabricated smears....it's what you did last time with Hillary running....scaring the crowd in to believing the republicans in congress would fabricate one "gate" after another if she were picked, and then you all caused even more he'll on Earth with Obama...
> 
> We know your modus operandi now....
> 
> Tell me something, any emails yet implicating Hillary or Obama with criminal actions taken with Benghazi?
> 
> No!
> 
> Did Hillary and Obama tell the CIA TO STAND DOWN?
> Did Hillary and Obama watch while rubbing their hands in glee a live feed as the 4 were being killed?
> 
> Was Ambassador Stevens raped by the Muslims who actually brought him to the hospital?
> 
> How about Lerner, you've had all of her emails for months, where are the emails that show she was a criminal and in cahoots with Obama....  Ohhhhh, there aren't any....
> 
> You,  the Republicans, have cried wolf, one too many times and have been simply full of crapola....it's hard for anyone paying attention to ever believe you....even if you ever have something you are truthful on....  that's what happens when you fabricate and regurgitate, so many, many, many lies.
> 
> I'm certain you think the same thing about Dems....
> 
> There is no foreseeable end to this.... imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be oh so careful what you wish for here, Care...I think it's reasonable to assume that the e-mails that Clinton is slowly releasing now are the least damaging of the e-mails that she sent.  The ones that she didn't want anyone to see EVER were the ones that she erased from her servers.  Those e-mails the FBI is supposedly attempting to recover.  This is quite literally a "death of a thousand cuts" with (as you put it) no foreseeable end in sight but that isn't because of the GOP...that's because Clinton has stonewalled this scandal just as she's stonewalled so many in the past.
> 
> As for Clinton losing to Obama?  Don't blame that on conservatives...we're not the ones who chose a guy with zero experience to be President based on some vague promise of "Hope & Change"...that would be you liberals that bought into that song and dance!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's reasonable to assume that the e-mails that Clinton is slowly releasing now are the least damaging of the e-mails that she sent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton isn't releasing anything. The State department is. She turned these over quite a while ago.
> 55k takes a while to go through.
> It's State that is redacting and classifying these before release not Clinton.
Click to expand...


Gee, I wonder if the reason that it's taking them so long to release e-mails is that there is so much sensitive material contained in them that needs to be redacted?  There are a lot more e-mails than 55 thousand!  That's just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Is Hillary's e-mail scandal falling apart?"

It's conservatives who are falling apart as well.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Oldstyle said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look dumbass, if it's not classified AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT,then it wasn't classified.
> What's  so hard to understand? They told you they weren't classified at the time. Why they are now, they haven't said.
> 
> Yes the emails at the time WERE NOT CLASSIFIED. It may only be redacted or classified now because they are making them public.
> 
> Show us the emails you are speaking of with staffers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the e-mails weren't classified when Hillary sent them because the people that classify those kinds of things didn't KNOW she was sending them since she was using a private server based out of her house!  When the people who classify those kinds of things actually did see them...then they became classified?
> 
> Do you have any idea how stupid you come across defending that kind of logic?
> 
> And that's not even talking about the 50,000 e-mails that Hillary erased from her server!  Unless you're the world's most naive person you've got to KNOW that those bad boys contained the stuff that Hillary REALLY doesn't want anyone to see!
> 
> The damaging stuff we're seeing now...as bad as that is...don't forget that all that stuff is the stuff that Hillary's crew decided didn't make the grade of the REALLY bad stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dullard, if the transmission of classified material is a crime, you cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not classified when it was sent or received. We don't have pre-crime laws as of yet. If alcohol becomes illegal next month you can't charge me for posession yesterday. Get it?  Why ,when and how those communications were later classified has not been disclosed, but since they weren't at the time it's really irrelevant as to why they are now.
> 
> BTW, it was 55k work emails released to state and 30k private that were erased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that Hillary Clinton was in fact sending sensitive e-mails on private, unsecured e-mail accounts...e-mails that were *later* deemed to be classified?
> 
> You're just claiming that "technically" she's not guilty of a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may be deemed as sensitive and therefore classified when viewed as a whole. None of these communications were meant to be seen by the public and certainly not all of them.
> No, they said they weren't classified at the time. What part of that don't you understand? If they weren't classified then where is the crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question for you is a simple one...have any of the e-mails that Hillary Clinton sent or received on her private e-mail account been subsequently designated as classified?
Click to expand...

And this is an example of how most, if not all, on the right have no understanding of the actual issue.

If they did, such inane 'questions' wouldn't be asked.


----------



## Oldstyle

Mac1958 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's probably true, so it will be interesting to see if Biden gets in.  If he doesn't, then the Dems will no doubt be nervous after she's nominated.  The shit could then hit the fan at just the wrong time.
> .
Click to expand...


Call me crazy, Mac...but if I'm on the GOP side and I've got the goods on Clinton...I'm not coming out with that until she's the Democratic nominee.  What would be the point of doing it earlier?  I also have to believe that someone out there has copies of the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton's people scrubbed from her home server.  If it's someone with no love lost for the Clintons then that information will be leaked at what they think will be the worst possible time for her.


----------



## Oldstyle

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the e-mails weren't classified when Hillary sent them because the people that classify those kinds of things didn't KNOW she was sending them since she was using a private server based out of her house!  When the people who classify those kinds of things actually did see them...then they became classified?
> 
> Do you have any idea how stupid you come across defending that kind of logic?
> 
> And that's not even talking about the 50,000 e-mails that Hillary erased from her server!  Unless you're the world's most naive person you've got to KNOW that those bad boys contained the stuff that Hillary REALLY doesn't want anyone to see!
> 
> The damaging stuff we're seeing now...as bad as that is...don't forget that all that stuff is the stuff that Hillary's crew decided didn't make the grade of the REALLY bad stuff!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look dullard, if the transmission of classified material is a crime, you cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not classified when it was sent or received. We don't have pre-crime laws as of yet. If alcohol becomes illegal next month you can't charge me for posession yesterday. Get it?  Why ,when and how those communications were later classified has not been disclosed, but since they weren't at the time it's really irrelevant as to why they are now.
> 
> BTW, it was 55k work emails released to state and 30k private that were erased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that Hillary Clinton was in fact sending sensitive e-mails on private, unsecured e-mail accounts...e-mails that were *later* deemed to be classified?
> 
> You're just claiming that "technically" she's not guilty of a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may be deemed as sensitive and therefore classified when viewed as a whole. None of these communications were meant to be seen by the public and certainly not all of them.
> No, they said they weren't classified at the time. What part of that don't you understand? If they weren't classified then where is the crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question for you is a simple one...have any of the e-mails that Hillary Clinton sent or received on her private e-mail account been subsequently designated as classified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is an example of how most, if not all, on the right have no understanding of the actual issue.
> 
> If they did, such inane 'questions' wouldn't be asked.
Click to expand...


Admit it, Clayton...you don't want  ANY questions asked of Hillary!  You want the whole thing to go away so that Hillary can "cruise" to the Presidency.  Sorry, Sparky...that's so not happening!


----------



## Care4all

browsing deer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was a NOC, on several occasions, Fitzgerald's report says such and shows such.....
> 
> A NOC is the MOST covert operative that there is....  with the MOST dangerous positions, and if they are caught on foreign soil, the CIA will deny knowing them...it takes a true patriot to put oneself in that position for your country.
> 
> please, just STOP with smearing her....
> 
> 
> 
> She was as covert as a 110 piece brass band plus the glockenspiels and the timpani's.  She was covert enough with her who's who entries.
Click to expand...

what did the who's who entry say of hers?


----------



## westwall

Oldstyle said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's probably true, so it will be interesting to see if Biden gets in.  If he doesn't, then the Dems will no doubt be nervous after she's nominated.  The shit could then hit the fan at just the wrong time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, Mac...but if I'm on the GOP side and I've got the goods on Clinton...I'm not coming out with that until she's the Democratic nominee.  What would be the point of doing it earlier?  I also have to believe that someone out there has copies of the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton's people scrubbed from her home server.  If it's someone with no love lost for the Clintons then that information will be leaked at what they think will be the worst possible time for her.
Click to expand...








Yep.  Talk about an "October surprise".  That would be nuclear in effect.   Just think of all that wasted money and time.


----------



## Mac1958

Oldstyle said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's probably true, so it will be interesting to see if Biden gets in.  If he doesn't, then the Dems will no doubt be nervous after she's nominated.  The shit could then hit the fan at just the wrong time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, Mac...but if I'm on the GOP side and I've got the goods on Clinton...I'm not coming out with that until she's the Democratic nominee.  What would be the point of doing it earlier?  I also have to believe that someone out there has copies of the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton's people scrubbed from her home server.  If it's someone with no love lost for the Clintons then that information will be leaked at what they think will be the worst possible time for her.
Click to expand...

Yikes, hadn't thought about that.

If the GOP actually DID have the goods on her, yeah, I can see them doing that.  My assumption, though, is that the investigation she's under by the feds will be pretty thorough.

On the other hand, to extend your idea a bit, maybe the GOP would hide that stuff from the feds too!

I can't think of a more interesting campaign season, considering both sides, in my lifetime.
.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look dumbass, if it's not classified AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT,then it wasn't classified.
> What's  so hard to understand? They told you they weren't classified at the time. Why they are now, they haven't said.
> 
> Yes the emails at the time WERE NOT CLASSIFIED. It may only be redacted or classified now because they are making them public.
> 
> Show us the emails you are speaking of with staffers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the e-mails weren't classified when Hillary sent them because the people that classify those kinds of things didn't KNOW she was sending them since she was using a private server based out of her house!  When the people who classify those kinds of things actually did see them...then they became classified?
> 
> Do you have any idea how stupid you come across defending that kind of logic?
> 
> And that's not even talking about the 50,000 e-mails that Hillary erased from her server!  Unless you're the world's most naive person you've got to KNOW that those bad boys contained the stuff that Hillary REALLY doesn't want anyone to see!
> 
> The damaging stuff we're seeing now...as bad as that is...don't forget that all that stuff is the stuff that Hillary's crew decided didn't make the grade of the REALLY bad stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dullard, if the transmission of classified material is a crime, you cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not classified when it was sent or received. We don't have pre-crime laws as of yet. If alcohol becomes illegal next month you can't charge me for posession yesterday. Get it?  Why ,when and how those communications were later classified has not been disclosed, but since they weren't at the time it's really irrelevant as to why they are now.
> 
> BTW, it was 55k work emails released to state and 30k private that were erased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that Hillary Clinton was in fact sending sensitive e-mails on private, unsecured e-mail accounts...e-mails that were *later* deemed to be classified?
> 
> You're just claiming that "technically" she's not guilty of a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may be deemed as sensitive and therefore classified when viewed as a whole. None of these communications were meant to be seen by the public and certainly not all of them.
> No, they said they weren't classified at the time. What part of that don't you understand? If they weren't classified then where is the crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question for you is a simple one...have any of the e-mails that Hillary Clinton sent or received on her private e-mail account been subsequently designated as classified?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.  The only people running against her were Martin O'Malley (who nobody's ever heard of) and Bernie Sanders (who's the crazy old guy from down the street who protests everything)!  Essentially she was running in the Kentucky Derby against a sloth and a tortoise.
> 
> So the problem that the Democratic Party now has is that they have a candidate that the majority of the country sees as being completely dishonest but they can't get rid of her because she's Hillary and Hillary wants the Presidency so bad she'd toss her mother under a train to get it...and if they DO get her to step aside...they don't have another viable candidate ready to run!  Biden?  Gore?  Warren?  They all have major "warts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is plenty of time for the truth to come out and the right wing spinning, twisting, turning and crying wolf to be exposed.
> 
> What I won't let happen if I have a voice left to scream and fingers left to write is Republicans picking the Democratic candidate for us through fear mongering and political, fabricated smears....it's what you did last time with Hillary running....scaring the crowd in to believing the republicans in congress would fabricate one "gate" after another if she were picked, and then you all caused even more he'll on Earth with Obama...
> 
> We know your modus operandi now....
> 
> Tell me something, any emails yet implicating Hillary or Obama with criminal actions taken with Benghazi?
> 
> No!
> 
> Did Hillary and Obama tell the CIA TO STAND DOWN?
> Did Hillary and Obama watch while rubbing their hands in glee a live feed as the 4 were being killed?
> 
> Was Ambassador Stevens raped by the Muslims who actually brought him to the hospital?
> 
> How about Lerner, you've had all of her emails for months, where are the emails that show she was a criminal and in cahoots with Obama....  Ohhhhh, there aren't any....
> 
> You,  the Republicans, have cried wolf, one too many times and have been simply full of crapola....it's hard for anyone paying attention to ever believe you....even if you ever have something you are truthful on....  that's what happens when you fabricate and regurgitate, so many, many, many lies.
> 
> I'm certain you think the same thing about Dems....
> 
> There is no foreseeable end to this.... imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be oh so careful what you wish for here, Care...I think it's reasonable to assume that the e-mails that Clinton is slowly releasing now are the least damaging of the e-mails that she sent.  The ones that she didn't want anyone to see EVER were the ones that she erased from her servers.  Those e-mails the FBI is supposedly attempting to recover.  This is quite literally a "death of a thousand cuts" with (as you put it) no foreseeable end in sight but that isn't because of the GOP...that's because Clinton has stonewalled this scandal just as she's stonewalled so many in the past.
> 
> As for Clinton losing to Obama?  Don't blame that on conservatives...we're not the ones who chose a guy with zero experience to be President based on some vague promise of "Hope & Change"...that would be you liberals that bought into that song and dance!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's reasonable to assume that the e-mails that Clinton is slowly releasing now are the least damaging of the e-mails that she sent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton isn't releasing anything. The State department is. She turned these over quite a while ago.
> 55k takes a while to go through.
> It's State that is redacting and classifying these before release not Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, I wonder if the reason that it's taking them so long to release e-mails is that there is so much sensitive material contained in them that needs to be redacted?  There are a lot more e-mails than 55 thousand!  That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...


They need to be redacted because none of them let alone all of them were meant to be seen by the public. It's not hard to understand why the State dept may not want a clear picture of the communications of the SOS her entire time at State.


----------



## Oldstyle

Mac1958 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's probably true, so it will be interesting to see if Biden gets in.  If he doesn't, then the Dems will no doubt be nervous after she's nominated.  The shit could then hit the fan at just the wrong time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, Mac...but if I'm on the GOP side and I've got the goods on Clinton...I'm not coming out with that until she's the Democratic nominee.  What would be the point of doing it earlier?  I also have to believe that someone out there has copies of the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton's people scrubbed from her home server.  If it's someone with no love lost for the Clintons then that information will be leaked at what they think will be the worst possible time for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yikes, hadn't thought about that.
> 
> If the GOP actually DID have the goods on her, yeah, I can see them doing that.  My assumption, though, is that the investigation she's under by the feds will be pretty thorough.
> 
> On the other hand, to extend your idea a bit, maybe the GOP would hide that stuff from the feds too!
> 
> I can't think of a more interesting campaign season, considering both sides, in my lifetime.
> .
Click to expand...


Hmmm...after watching how the Obama Justice Department has dragged their heels on some investigations (I think the FBI is still trying to FIND Benghazi!) do you wonder if how Hillary is investigated on this will be decided by people in the Obama inner circle?  I get the feeling that there is no love lost between the Clinton's and the Obama's.  They put a good face on it when they need to but there's little question that there's always been friction between those two rivals.  I'll be curious to see if Obama's parting shot to Clinton is to scuttle her last chance to become President.


----------



## Oldstyle

Hutch Starskey said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the e-mails weren't classified when Hillary sent them because the people that classify those kinds of things didn't KNOW she was sending them since she was using a private server based out of her house!  When the people who classify those kinds of things actually did see them...then they became classified?
> 
> Do you have any idea how stupid you come across defending that kind of logic?
> 
> And that's not even talking about the 50,000 e-mails that Hillary erased from her server!  Unless you're the world's most naive person you've got to KNOW that those bad boys contained the stuff that Hillary REALLY doesn't want anyone to see!
> 
> The damaging stuff we're seeing now...as bad as that is...don't forget that all that stuff is the stuff that Hillary's crew decided didn't make the grade of the REALLY bad stuff!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look dullard, if the transmission of classified material is a crime, you cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not classified when it was sent or received. We don't have pre-crime laws as of yet. If alcohol becomes illegal next month you can't charge me for posession yesterday. Get it?  Why ,when and how those communications were later classified has not been disclosed, but since they weren't at the time it's really irrelevant as to why they are now.
> 
> BTW, it was 55k work emails released to state and 30k private that were erased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that Hillary Clinton was in fact sending sensitive e-mails on private, unsecured e-mail accounts...e-mails that were *later* deemed to be classified?
> 
> You're just claiming that "technically" she's not guilty of a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may be deemed as sensitive and therefore classified when viewed as a whole. None of these communications were meant to be seen by the public and certainly not all of them.
> No, they said they weren't classified at the time. What part of that don't you understand? If they weren't classified then where is the crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question for you is a simple one...have any of the e-mails that Hillary Clinton sent or received on her private e-mail account been subsequently designated as classified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


So what you're admitting is that Clinton was sending or receiving e-mails that were later determined to be sensitive enough to be given a "classified" designation!  She may not be technically guilty of a crime but if that is the case then she is guilty of using extremely poor judgement in using an unsecured private e-mail server to relay sensitive materials.


----------



## Oldstyle

westwall said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's probably true, so it will be interesting to see if Biden gets in.  If he doesn't, then the Dems will no doubt be nervous after she's nominated.  The shit could then hit the fan at just the wrong time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, Mac...but if I'm on the GOP side and I've got the goods on Clinton...I'm not coming out with that until she's the Democratic nominee.  What would be the point of doing it earlier?  I also have to believe that someone out there has copies of the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton's people scrubbed from her home server.  If it's someone with no love lost for the Clintons then that information will be leaked at what they think will be the worst possible time for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Talk about an "October surprise".  That would be nuclear in effect.   Just think of all that wasted money and time.
Click to expand...


There are people in the CIA and the Armed Forces who are still pissed at what they saw as an attack on David Petraeus by Clinton and the Obama Administration.  How much pleasure do you think those people would take skewering Clinton on essentially the same charges that were brought against Petraeus?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look dullard, if the transmission of classified material is a crime, you cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not classified when it was sent or received. We don't have pre-crime laws as of yet. If alcohol becomes illegal next month you can't charge me for posession yesterday. Get it?  Why ,when and how those communications were later classified has not been disclosed, but since they weren't at the time it's really irrelevant as to why they are now.
> 
> BTW, it was 55k work emails released to state and 30k private that were erased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that Hillary Clinton was in fact sending sensitive e-mails on private, unsecured e-mail accounts...e-mails that were *later* deemed to be classified?
> 
> You're just claiming that "technically" she's not guilty of a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may be deemed as sensitive and therefore classified when viewed as a whole. None of these communications were meant to be seen by the public and certainly not all of them.
> No, they said they weren't classified at the time. What part of that don't you understand? If they weren't classified then where is the crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question for you is a simple one...have any of the e-mails that Hillary Clinton sent or received on her private e-mail account been subsequently designated as classified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're admitting is that Clinton was sending or receiving e-mails that were later determined to be sensitive enough to be given a "classified" designation!  She may not be technically guilty of a crime but if that is the case then she is guilty of using extremely poor judgement in using an unsecured private e-mail server to relay sensitive materials.
Click to expand...


No moron. Then everyone in every government office who has ever communicated via email and those emails were LATER classified is guilty of a crime. Does that make any damned sense?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's probably true, so it will be interesting to see if Biden gets in.  If he doesn't, then the Dems will no doubt be nervous after she's nominated.  The shit could then hit the fan at just the wrong time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, Mac...but if I'm on the GOP side and I've got the goods on Clinton...I'm not coming out with that until she's the Democratic nominee.  What would be the point of doing it earlier?  I also have to believe that someone out there has copies of the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton's people scrubbed from her home server.  If it's someone with no love lost for the Clintons then that information will be leaked at what they think will be the worst possible time for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Talk about an "October surprise".  That would be nuclear in effect.   Just think of all that wasted money and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people in the CIA and the Armed Forces who are still pissed at what they saw as an attack on David Petraeus by Clinton and the Obama Administration.  How much pleasure do you think those people would take skewering Clinton on essentially the same charges that were brought against Petraeus?
Click to expand...


It's not the same thing.


----------



## Oldstyle

Hutch Starskey said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that Hillary Clinton was in fact sending sensitive e-mails on private, unsecured e-mail accounts...e-mails that were *later* deemed to be classified?
> 
> You're just claiming that "technically" she's not guilty of a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may be deemed as sensitive and therefore classified when viewed as a whole. None of these communications were meant to be seen by the public and certainly not all of them.
> No, they said they weren't classified at the time. What part of that don't you understand? If they weren't classified then where is the crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question for you is a simple one...have any of the e-mails that Hillary Clinton sent or received on her private e-mail account been subsequently designated as classified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're admitting is that Clinton was sending or receiving e-mails that were later determined to be sensitive enough to be given a "classified" designation!  She may not be technically guilty of a crime but if that is the case then she is guilty of using extremely poor judgement in using an unsecured private e-mail server to relay sensitive materials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No moron. Then everyone in every government office who has ever communicated via email and those emails were LATER classified is guilty of a crime. Does that make any damned sense?
Click to expand...


Ah, people who work in government offices are prohibited by law from conducting official business through non-governmental channels since the Nixon days.  That was done so that they couldn't hide what they do from the public a la Nixon.  What's pathetic is that the administration that came in promising to be the most transparent in history has actually been one of the most secretive in history with officials at the State Department, the EPA and the IRS all hiding how they conducted day to day business by using private e-mail accounts.


----------



## thanatos144

Mac1958 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's probably true, so it will be interesting to see if Biden gets in.  If he doesn't, then the Dems will no doubt be nervous after she's nominated.  The shit could then hit the fan at just the wrong time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, Mac...but if I'm on the GOP side and I've got the goods on Clinton...I'm not coming out with that until she's the Democratic nominee.  What would be the point of doing it earlier?  I also have to believe that someone out there has copies of the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton's people scrubbed from her home server.  If it's someone with no love lost for the Clintons then that information will be leaked at what they think will be the worst possible time for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yikes, hadn't thought about that.
> 
> If the GOP actually DID have the goods on her, yeah, I can see them doing that.  My assumption, though, is that the investigation she's under by the feds will be pretty thorough.
> 
> On the other hand, to extend your idea a bit, maybe the GOP would hide that stuff from the feds too!
> 
> I can't think of a more interesting campaign season, considering both sides, in my lifetime.
> .
Click to expand...

There is no investigation.  Democrats get a pass from thier crimes in office 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Oldstyle

thanatos144 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing proactive epitaphs for Hillary's candidacy, The Democratic Party Would Be Foolish to Nominate Hillary Clinton, for example.  And certainly plenty of victory dances being done on USMB.
> 
> She's still in the race, and she's still leading in most polls.  Something pretty dramatic would have to happen for her to drop out of the nominating process, and the GOP may still not run a nationally attractive candidate.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's probably true, so it will be interesting to see if Biden gets in.  If he doesn't, then the Dems will no doubt be nervous after she's nominated.  The shit could then hit the fan at just the wrong time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, Mac...but if I'm on the GOP side and I've got the goods on Clinton...I'm not coming out with that until she's the Democratic nominee.  What would be the point of doing it earlier?  I also have to believe that someone out there has copies of the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton's people scrubbed from her home server.  If it's someone with no love lost for the Clintons then that information will be leaked at what they think will be the worst possible time for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yikes, hadn't thought about that.
> 
> If the GOP actually DID have the goods on her, yeah, I can see them doing that.  My assumption, though, is that the investigation she's under by the feds will be pretty thorough.
> 
> On the other hand, to extend your idea a bit, maybe the GOP would hide that stuff from the feds too!
> 
> I can't think of a more interesting campaign season, considering both sides, in my lifetime.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no investigation.  Democrats get a pass from thier crimes in office
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


You haven't been paying attention for the past six years, Thanatos!  The way it works with this administration is when there's something that they REALLY don't want to talk about...they generally trot out the old "I can't comment on that because it's part of an ongoing investigation."  It's like "No comment" except you don't look so unwilling to talk.  If the spokesman is really good they'll give it a little embellishment like "I'd like to talk about that but I can't...because it's part of an ongoing investigation!"

The trick, you see, is to have a Justice Department run by someone like Eric Holder who does what he's told and couldn't care less about something as inconsequential as "the law".  Under Holder there were all kinds of "ongoing investigations" and amazingly...they never found out anything!  Has anyone ever heard anything about how that FBI investigation into the murders in Benghazi is coming?  Have they actually managed to find Libya yet?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Oldstyle said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's allowed Hillary to survive this politically, Mac is that nobody from the Democratic side was running against her!  Let's be honest with ourselves here...the Democratic nomination of Clinton was etched in stone.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's probably true, so it will be interesting to see if Biden gets in.  If he doesn't, then the Dems will no doubt be nervous after she's nominated.  The shit could then hit the fan at just the wrong time.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, Mac...but if I'm on the GOP side and I've got the goods on Clinton...I'm not coming out with that until she's the Democratic nominee.  What would be the point of doing it earlier?  I also have to believe that someone out there has copies of the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton's people scrubbed from her home server.  If it's someone with no love lost for the Clintons then that information will be leaked at what they think will be the worst possible time for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yikes, hadn't thought about that.
> 
> If the GOP actually DID have the goods on her, yeah, I can see them doing that.  My assumption, though, is that the investigation she's under by the feds will be pretty thorough.
> 
> On the other hand, to extend your idea a bit, maybe the GOP would hide that stuff from the feds too!
> 
> I can't think of a more interesting campaign season, considering both sides, in my lifetime.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no investigation.  Democrats get a pass from thier crimes in office
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't been paying attention for the past six years, Thanatos!  The way it works with this administration is when there's something that they REALLY don't want to talk about...they generally trot out the old "I can't comment on that because it's part of an ongoing investigation."  It's like "No comment" except you don't look so unwilling to talk.  If the spokesman is really good they'll give it a little embellishment like "I'd like to talk about that but I can't...because it's part of an ongoing investigation!"
> 
> The trick, you see, is to have a Justice Department run by someone like Eric Holder who does what he's told and couldn't care less about something as inconsequential as "the law".  Under Holder there were all kinds of "ongoing investigations" and amazingly...they never found out anything!  Has anyone ever heard anything about how that FBI investigation into the murders in Benghazi is coming?  Have they actually managed to find Libya yet?
Click to expand...

No. The " trick" is actually having something of substance to investigate. Republicans are so weak that the only way they can compete with dem presidents is to try and gin up some dirt.  They've done this relentlessly to the last two dem presidents.  It's sad really .


----------



## Oldstyle

"Relentless" isn't a very good description of any Eric Holder investigation of a liberal...is it, Hutch?


----------



## Geaux4it

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWs have no use for facts or truth so, they'll keep flogging this and lying about for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> It illustrates how desperate they are, and their lack of courage to allow the voters to decide during the General Election.
Click to expand...


We saw what the voters decided the last two cycles and the conclusion is crystal clear...

They're greedy and out of their minds but ultimately, not very smart

-Geaux


----------



## thanatos144

Ever notice how the communist liberals like to call of us who want to keep more of what WE earn greedy? Yet since they demand everything they want provided to thier lazy scumbag ass by us without working for it proves they are the true greedy ones. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> Ever notice how the communist liberals like to call of us who want to keep more of what WE earn greedy? Yet since they demand everything they want provided to thier lazy scumbag ass by us without working for it proves they are the true greedy ones.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


Greed is a conservative value. 
This quote "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine " 
Is the truest definition of conservatism.


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever notice how the communist liberals like to call of us who want to keep more of what WE earn greedy? Yet since they demand everything they want provided to thier lazy scumbag ass by us without working for it proves they are the true greedy ones.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Greed is a conservative value.
> This quote "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine "
> Is the truest definition of conservatism.
Click to expand...

Idiot that is you to a tee.... are you saying you are conservative? 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever notice how the communist liberals like to call of us who want to keep more of what WE earn greedy? Yet since they demand everything they want provided to thier lazy scumbag ass by us without working for it proves they are the true greedy ones.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Greed is a conservative value.
> This quote "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine "
> Is the truest definition of conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot that is you to a tee.... are you saying you are conservative?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sure it is ( extreme sarcasm).


----------



## browsing deer

Slyhunter said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained that classified material cannot be moved off of classified servers.  There are safeguards that prevent it.  If you retards can't understand what that means, I can't help you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, tell us why, Horace.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I'd be violating classified information.
> Not all servers with classified information on them have safe guards or safe guards that are hard to bypass.
Click to expand...

this is part of the smoke Hillary was blowing.  What has been happening is more parsing of "is."
From the beginning we have been conflating "information" and "material."  I have been making the same mistake.  Information is classified, whether or not it has the labels.  In this case mrs Clinton has been very careful to use "material" in her speeches.  

Synthoholic is partially right.  *Material* belongs on specific government servers.  You can't copy paste it and email it. It is physically impossible. However, you read the _*information*_ and email that.  The Clinton people are talking as if the information is not classified.  This is obviously bunk.  the same words do not lose their classification if it is copied on a different machine.  Since doing this is obviously mishandling it is by itself a felony.  Sending it on without its classification is another.

This is another way the Clintons are their apologists are lying by obfuscation.


----------



## daws101

The wich hunt is circling the bowl.


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> The wich hunt is circling the bowl.


She is like her husband in breaking the law 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeMoma

daws101 said:


> The wich hunt is circling the bowl.


The witch is circling the bowl.


----------



## Wyatt earp

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever notice how the communist liberals like to call of us who want to keep more of what WE earn greedy? Yet since they demand everything they want provided to thier lazy scumbag ass by us without working for it proves they are the true greedy ones.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Greed is a conservative value.
> This quote "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine "
> Is the truest definition of conservatism.
Click to expand...


Bull shit 

"What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" ~that's a wife.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wich hunt is circling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> She is like her husband in breaking the law
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

really who says?


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wich hunt is circling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> She is like her husband in breaking the law
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really who says?
Click to expand...

The fucking espionage laws you fucking retard.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

JoeMoma said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wich hunt is circling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> The witch is circling the bowl.
Click to expand...

thanks for the correction of the spelling .
my assertion stands.


----------



## daws101

bear513 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever notice how the communist liberals like to call of us who want to keep more of what WE earn greedy? Yet since they demand everything they want provided to thier lazy scumbag ass by us without working for it proves they are the true greedy ones.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Greed is a conservative value.
> This quote "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine "
> Is the truest definition of conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit
> 
> "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" ~that's a wife.
Click to expand...

true! conservatism is just like a greedy controlling wife.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wich hunt is circling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> She is like her husband in breaking the law
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fucking espionage laws you fucking retard.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

really where ? or are like always talking out your ass?


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wich hunt is circling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> She is like her husband in breaking the law
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fucking espionage laws you fucking retard.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really where ? or are like always talking out your ass?
Click to expand...

Look them up retard . Learn something 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities. (44 U.S. Code § 3101)



Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Another important modern improvement is the ease of communication now afforded to the Department world-wide through the use of E-mail. . . . All employees must be aware that some of the variety of the messages being exchanged on E-mail are important to the Department and must be preserved; such messages are considered Federal records under the law. (5 FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual] 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wich hunt is circling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> She is like her husband in breaking the law
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fucking espionage laws you fucking retard.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really where ? or are like always talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look them up retard . Learn something
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

 like always talking out your ass


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is like her husband in breaking the law
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> really who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fucking espionage laws you fucking retard.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really where ? or are like always talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look them up retard . Learn something
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like always talking out your ass
Click to expand...

Like always you refuse to read and learn something.... fucking retarded ass

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


none of the emails under dispute have any defense related or classified material in them.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really who says?
> 
> 
> 
> The fucking espionage laws you fucking retard.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really where ? or are like always talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look them up retard . Learn something
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like always talking out your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like always you refuse to read and learn something.... fucking retarded ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

false!  I know you didn't read any of the stuff you claim to.
if you had you'd see that her emails don't fit the criteria.


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> none of the emails under dispute have any defense related or classified material in them.
Click to expand...

All of them are illegal stupid.  She isn't suppose to have her state department work on her personal servers. It is against the law! 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> none of the emails under dispute have any defense related or classified material in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them are illegal stupid.  She isn't suppose to have her state department work on her personal servers. It is against the law!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

false! that's not what the investigation is saying.
strike two.


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> none of the emails under dispute have any defense related or classified material in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them are illegal stupid.  She isn't suppose to have her state department work on her personal servers. It is against the law!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! that's not what the investigation is saying.
> strike two.
Click to expand...

That's because you idiot the administration is covering her fat saggy ass

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> none of the emails under dispute have any defense related or classified material in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them are illegal stupid.  She isn't suppose to have her state department work on her personal servers. It is against the law!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! that's not what the investigation is saying.
> strike two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you idiot the administration is covering her fat saggy ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

thanks for proving my point,  you have not actually read or understand those laws !


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> none of the emails under dispute have any defense related or classified material in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them are illegal stupid.  She isn't suppose to have her state department work on her personal servers. It is against the law!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! that's not what the investigation is saying.
> strike two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you idiot the administration is covering her fat saggy ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks for proving my point,  you have not actually read or understand those laws !
Click to expand...

Actually I have you ignorant ass. They have all the evidence they need for a grand jury.  Why isn't obama's justice department calling for it?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> none of the emails under dispute have any defense related or classified material in them.
> 
> 
> 
> All of them are illegal stupid.  She isn't suppose to have her state department work on her personal servers. It is against the law!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! that's not what the investigation is saying.
> strike two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you idiot the administration is covering her fat saggy ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks for proving my point,  you have not actually read or understand those laws !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I have you ignorant ass. They have all the evidence they need for a grand jury.  Why isn't obama's justice department calling for it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

false! again you don't know jack shit about what kind of evidence is needed to call a grand jury.
it's a good thing ignorant fucks don't make the rules


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of them are illegal stupid.  She isn't suppose to have her state department work on her personal servers. It is against the law!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> false! that's not what the investigation is saying.
> strike two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you idiot the administration is covering her fat saggy ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks for proving my point,  you have not actually read or understand those laws !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I have you ignorant ass. They have all the evidence they need for a grand jury.  Why isn't obama's justice department calling for it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! again you don't know jack shit about what kind of evidence is needed to call a grand jury.
> it's a good thing ignorant fucks don't make the rules
Click to expand...

Proof you didn't read anything I posted. Go away fool I am done with your dishonest ass 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! that's not what the investigation is saying.
> strike two.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you idiot the administration is covering her fat saggy ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks for proving my point,  you have not actually read or understand those laws !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I have you ignorant ass. They have all the evidence they need for a grand jury.  Why isn't obama's justice department calling for it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! again you don't know jack shit about what kind of evidence is needed to call a grand jury.
> it's a good thing ignorant fucks don't make the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof you didn't read anything I posted. Go away fool I am done with your dishonest ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I read all the bullshit you posted  and guess what it's just that  bullshit!


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you idiot the administration is covering her fat saggy ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for proving my point,  you have not actually read or understand those laws !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I have you ignorant ass. They have all the evidence they need for a grand jury.  Why isn't obama's justice department calling for it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! again you don't know jack shit about what kind of evidence is needed to call a grand jury.
> it's a good thing ignorant fucks don't make the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof you didn't read anything I posted. Go away fool I am done with your dishonest ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the bullshit you posted  and guess what it's just that  bullshit!
Click to expand...

Not bullshit moron they are called laws and statues 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for proving my point,  you have not actually read or understand those laws !
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have you ignorant ass. They have all the evidence they need for a grand jury.  Why isn't obama's justice department calling for it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! again you don't know jack shit about what kind of evidence is needed to call a grand jury.
> it's a good thing ignorant fucks don't make the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof you didn't read anything I posted. Go away fool I am done with your dishonest ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the bullshit you posted  and guess what it's just that  bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not bullshit moron they are called laws and statues
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

and you don't understand them..


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have you ignorant ass. They have all the evidence they need for a grand jury.  Why isn't obama's justice department calling for it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> false! again you don't know jack shit about what kind of evidence is needed to call a grand jury.
> it's a good thing ignorant fucks don't make the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof you didn't read anything I posted. Go away fool I am done with your dishonest ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the bullshit you posted  and guess what it's just that  bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not bullshit moron they are called laws and statues
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you don't understand them..
Click to expand...

Liar 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! again you don't know jack shit about what kind of evidence is needed to call a grand jury.
> it's a good thing ignorant fucks don't make the rules
> 
> 
> 
> Proof you didn't read anything I posted. Go away fool I am done with your dishonest ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the bullshit you posted  and guess what it's just that  bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not bullshit moron they are called laws and statues
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you don't understand them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes you are.


----------



## JoeMoma

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof you didn't read anything I posted. Go away fool I am done with your dishonest ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> I read all the bullshit you posted  and guess what it's just that  bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not bullshit moron they are called laws and statues
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you don't understand them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you are.
Click to expand...


----------



## RedTeamTex

Hillary Clinton’s e-mail issues have become a massive political problem

Falling apart!  Any minute now....I'm sure of it!  Surely this week...?


----------



## Synthaholic

RedTeamTex said:


> Hillary Clinton’s e-mail issues have become a massive political problem
> 
> Falling apart!  Any minute now....I'm sure of it!  Surely this week...?


A political problem is different than a legal problem, wingnut.


----------



## Synthaholic

This is just another fake Right-Wing "scandal" that is all smoke.

The DoJ cleared Hillary of any wrongdoing, even stating that had she kept all the emails on a government server she would still have the right to go through them all *and delete whatever she considered* personal emails.

Sorry wingnuts.


----------



## JimH52

IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER!

Whomever the Dems pick will defeat the bloviating Trump.


----------



## RedTeamTex

Synthaholic said:


> This is just another fake Right-Wing "scandal" that is all smoke.
> 
> The DoJ cleared Hillary of any wrongdoing, even stating that had she kept all the emails on a government server she would still have the right to go through them all *and delete whatever she considered* personal emails.
> 
> Sorry wingnuts.


"The DoJ cleared Hillary of any wrongdoing...."

Now this is a perfect example of spin doctoring that just might work on anyone who can't be bothered to read.  The DoJ was commenting *only* with regard to HRC deleting personal emails (and assuming those deleted were in fact merely personal.)

Now surely you're aware of the question of storing classified emails on an unsecure server most certainly has not been exonerated by the DoJ or anyone else, and in fact has earned the attention of non-partisan elements in the intelligence community.

So if liberals are so intellectually superior and enlightened, how do you explain your lack of logic and proclivity to resort to name calling?

Is it for the benefit of the swing vote?  I don't think they're buying it these days...

The liberal echo chamber?  Well yeah, I guess that one has pretty relaxed standards....


----------



## Care4all

RedTeamTex said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just another fake Right-Wing "scandal" that is all smoke.
> 
> The DoJ cleared Hillary of any wrongdoing, even stating that had she kept all the emails on a government server she would still have the right to go through them all *and delete whatever she considered* personal emails.
> 
> Sorry wingnuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The DoJ cleared Hillary of any wrongdoing...."
> 
> Now this is a perfect example of spin doctoring that just might work on anyone who can't be bothered to read.  The DoJ was commenting *only* with regard to HRC deleting personal emails (and assuming those deleted were in fact merely personal.)
> 
> 
> Now surely you're aware of the question of storing classified emails on an unsecure server most certainly has not been exonerated by the DoJ or anyone else, and in fact has earned the attention of non-partisan elements in the intelligence community.
> 
> So if liberals are so intellectually superior and enlightened, how do you explain your lack of logic and proclivity to resort to name calling?
> 
> Is it for the benefit of the swing vote?  I don't think they're buying it these days...
> 
> The liberal echo chamber?  Well yeah, I guess that one has pretty relaxed standards....
Click to expand...

*Okay, talk about spin doctors, shall we?  And what your side has spun in to a web of lies, moving the goal post every time your accusations are proven false, you move on to another round of spinning on something completely different on the emails.*

*-When this began, it was all about Hillary using a personal email for her . gov use....then it comes out lots of folks do this in the government and it was not against the rules at the time she did it.  But oh boy oh boy, she was going to jail according to the right wing's blogs and the sheep followers.*

*Then, when Hillary turns over all of her emails, about 30000 of them on 50000 pages, you guys come out screaming and yelling that she is a criminal (soon to be wearing orange, accompanied by pictures) and has something to hide because she deleted her personal emails from the work emails, and she was criminal for deleting all of her own personal emails....yah dahdahdahdahdah  Now it comes out she was following government procedure, to only save the documents that you have that are government related for the .gov archives....that each and every gvt employee was responsible to make this judgement, even in menial jobs, so once again, you and your spin meisters made a huge huge huge and did I say HUGE? BIG ENORMOUS DEAL out of her doing such and THIS is actually what started the negative slide for Hillary, when it was all based on a LIE, with spinning and twisting and turning and giving their souls to Satan levels of lies, all fabricated by the right wing media, yeah, I said it, right wing media and blogosphere...  which is a master of deceit, as you can clearly see in just the two things I have mentioned above...*

*And then there is the spinning and twisting of the Right Wing Spin Meisters saying Hillary's computer was an insecure or unsecured server.... And then we find out it was a Secured server set up for President Clinton by the Secret Service, shortly after his presidential term was up.*

*then the right wing spin meisters claimed Hillary had TWO EMAIL ADDRESSES and she LIED when she said she only had one that she did official government business on, and your Master put up pastings of Hillary's emails with 2 different address and you are all screaming and hollering that the soon to be in ORANGE lady will look good in her new colors!  You had her clear as day, she's a criminal!!!  Then it comes out that those 2 email addresses were one and the same, and the second email address was not even created until after she left office and IT says when she printed out her emails, which was after she had already changed her email to a new one, this happens.  SHE DID NOT HAVE TWO EMAILS for gvt work while she was Secretary of State so the SPIN MEISTERS, and the spinners that spin the lies for their masters, were wrong again, or maybe fooled again, to give you the benefit of the doubt.*

*then your masters began another one of their Spins claiming Hillary deleted all of her gvt emails beginning in Dec. 2012 through the end of January 2013, and spun it that this was things she was hiding and didn't want the Benghazi commission to see bull crud.... Again with how much of a despicable, lying criminal, Hillary is and how good that bitch will finally look in ORANGE!!!  Then it comes out that this was not a missing gap as claimed, and that there were many many emails u until her last day in office originated by Hillary and received by Hillary....  so ANOTHER BIG OLE LIE BY YOU ALL BIT THE DUST.*

*So then it comes out that the Inspector General, who was examining the emails the Kerry Dept of State released to Judicial Watch on a FOIA request found 4 that were classified.*
*And you all made the biggest deal EVHA!  Turned it in to hundreds and hundreds of them....That she was stupid enough to send classified information on an unsecured server bull crud and that she was not fit to be President.  among a thousand other FABRICATED and SPECULATED accusations and she was in ORANGE FOR CERTAIN!!!!!  then it comes out that emails Hillary had sent or received were not classified at the time and the Inspector General's office clarified such, and said many times, an initial email is not classified in the initial state, but when further things happen that add to that email which could be classified... that they go back, retroactively and classify such emails at at this later date.*

*so, now debunked on that FALSE ACCUSATION, YOU AND YOUR SPIN MEISTER right wing media outlets start in on her UNSECURED server storing classified information is putting her in orange for certain.  Which again is all spin and no fact, first it was NOT an unsecured server, it was a secured server, just not a .gov server, which incidentally was probably more secure than if she were on the .gov system that is hacked by the Chinese all of the time.  And again, the emails were not classified at the time.  There are a gazillion gvt workers that use their personal email address and servers of AOL or others to send gvt information from time to time (which is no different other than being less secure than Hillary's private server), which may later be deemed classified...shoot lets start examining how many personal email address gvt emails were sent by the congress critters doing the Benghazi investigations...let's examine their use of their private emails for gvt use to start....and see what has later on been retro classified,  and those are stored on Aol etc secured server and not a secured private server.....sheesh.*

*then you all start up on her wiping her server clean, so you could not see what she wiped out that was personal or in gvt that she was for certain hiding...she's a criminal for wiping her server clean, she's in orange for wiping her server clean, she's hiding something for wiping her server clean, and for not turning it over to the gvt yahdahdahdahdah  and then she turns over her computer and some saved storage, and the new private firm that handles her new server who took over the old server to transfer files, came out and said that there was absolutely no indication that her old server was wiped clean, she merely deleted her personal emails, (as Hillary stated all along).  So the gvt HAS EVERYTHING, but the lying scum on your precious right are still hounding on her wearing orange cuz she wiped her server clean....a criminal she is....  sheesh again...*

*There are a million billion zillion of other accusations that have all fallen apart and I don't have the time to write them all but in just the handful mentioned:*

*At what point, will you guys recognize yourselves as pawns and fools?  Or are you simply happy to play the part of being the Spinners for the Spin Meister, because your goal is to hurt Hillary's run for the Presidency, come hell or high water?*

*I'm sorry, no one who has stayed abreast of this manufactured conspiracy believes you anymore, and for good reason, not just partisan allegiance.*


----------



## Synthaholic

RedTeamTex said:


> The DoJ was commenting *only* with regard to HRC deleting personal emails (*and assuming those deleted were in fact merely personal.*)


And it would have been solely up to her to decide which were personal.

Sorry wingnut.


----------



## RedTeamTex

Care4all said:


> *Okay, talk about spin doctors, shall we?  And what your side has spun in to a web of lies, moving the goal post every time your accusations are proven false, you move on to another round of spinning on something completely different on the emails.*
> 
> *-When this began, it was all about Hillary using a personal email for her . gov use....then it comes out lots of folks do this in the government and it was not against the rules at the time she did it.  But oh boy oh boy, she was going to jail according to the right wing's blogs and the sheep followers.*
> 
> *Then, when Hillary turns over all of her emails, about 30000 of them on 50000 pages, you guys come out screaming and yelling that she is a criminal (soon to be wearing orange, accompanied by pictures) and has something to hide because she deleted her personal emails from the work emails, and she was criminal for deleting all of her own personal emails....yah dahdahdahdahdah  Now it comes out she was following government procedure, to only save the documents that you have that are government related for the .gov archives....that each and every gvt employee was responsible to make this judgement, even in menial jobs, so once again, you and your spin meisters made a huge huge huge and did I say HUGE? BIG ENORMOUS DEAL out of her doing such and THIS is actually what started the negative slide for Hillary, when it was all based on a LIE, with spinning and twisting and turning and giving their souls to Satan levels of lies, all fabricated by the right wing media, yeah, I said it, right wing media and blogosphere...  which is a master of deceit, as you can clearly see in just the two things I have mentioned above...*
> 
> *And then there is the spinning and twisting of the Right Wing Spin Meisters saying Hillary's computer was an insecure or unsecured server.... And then we find out it was a Secured server set up for President Clinton by the Secret Service, shortly after his presidential term was up.*
> 
> *then the right wing spin meisters claimed Hillary had TWO EMAIL ADDRESSES and she LIED when she said she only had one that she did official government business on, and your Master put up pastings of Hillary's emails with 2 different address and you are all screaming and hollering that the soon to be in ORANGE lady will look good in her new colors!  You had her clear as day, she's a criminal!!!  Then it comes out that those 2 email addresses were one and the same, and the second email address was not even created until after she left office and IT says when she printed out her emails, which was after she had already changed her email to a new one, this happens.  SHE DID NOT HAVE TWO EMAILS for gvt work while she was Secretary of State so the SPIN MEISTERS, and the spinners that spin the lies for their masters, were wrong again, or maybe fooled again, to give you the benefit of the doubt.*
> 
> *then your masters began another one of their Spins claiming Hillary deleted all of her gvt emails beginning in Dec. 2012 through the end of January 2013, and spun it that this was things she was hiding and didn't want the Benghazi commission to see bull crud.... Again with how much of a despicable, lying criminal, Hillary is and how good that bitch will finally look in ORANGE!!!  Then it comes out that this was not a missing gap as claimed, and that there were many many emails u until her last day in office originated by Hillary and received by Hillary....  so ANOTHER BIG OLE LIE BY YOU ALL BIT THE DUST.*
> 
> *So then it comes out that the Inspector General, who was examining the emails the Kerry Dept of State released to Judicial Watch on a FOIA request found 4 that were classified.*
> *And you all made the biggest deal EVHA!  Turned it in to hundreds and hundreds of them....That she was stupid enough to send classified information on an unsecured server bull crud and that she was not fit to be President.  among a thousand other FABRICATED and SPECULATED accusations and she was in ORANGE FOR CERTAIN!!!!!  then it comes out that emails Hillary had sent or received were not classified at the time and the Inspector General's office clarified such, and said many times, an initial email is not classified in the initial state, but when further things happen that add to that email which could be classified... that they go back, retroactively and classify such emails at at this later date.*
> 
> *so, now debunked on that FALSE ACCUSATION, YOU AND YOUR SPIN MEISTER right wing media outlets start in on her UNSECURED server storing classified information is putting her in orange for certain.  Which again is all spin and no fact, first it was NOT an unsecured server, it was a secured server, just not a .gov server, which incidentally was probably more secure than if she were on the .gov system that is hacked by the Chinese all of the time.  And again, the emails were not classified at the time.  There are a gazillion gvt workers that use their personal email address and servers of AOL or others to send gvt information from time to time (which is no different other than being less secure than Hillary's private server), which may later be deemed classified...shoot lets start examining how many personal email address gvt emails were sent by the congress critters doing the Benghazi investigations...let's examine their use of their private emails for gvt use to start....and see what has later on been retro classified,  and those are stored on Aol etc secured server and not a secured private server.....sheesh.*
> 
> *then you all start up on her wiping her server clean, so you could not see what she wiped out that was personal or in gvt that she was for certain hiding...she's a criminal for wiping her server clean, she's in orange for wiping her server clean, she's hiding something for wiping her server clean, and for not turning it over to the gvt yahdahdahdahdah  and then she turns over her computer and some saved storage, and the new private firm that handles her new server who took over the old server to transfer files, came out and said that there was absolutely no indication that her old server was wiped clean, she merely deleted her personal emails, (as Hillary stated all along).  So the gvt HAS EVERYTHING, but the lying scum on your precious right are still hounding on her wearing orange cuz she wiped her server clean....a criminal she is....  sheesh again...*
> 
> *There are a million billion zillion of other accusations that have all fallen apart and I don't have the time to write them all but in just the handful mentioned:*
> 
> *At what point, will you guys recognize yourselves as pawns and fools?  Or are you simply happy to play the part of being the Spinners for the Spin Meister, because your goal is to hurt Hillary's run for the Presidency, come hell or high water?*
> 
> *I'm sorry, no one who has stayed abreast of this manufactured conspiracy believes you anymore, and for good reason, not just partisan allegiance.*


That's a thorough reply, Warrior Princess!  I'll admit it's formidable enough to ward off an effort to reply in equally as thorough a manner by most...and for most I wouldn't bother.  However, for you I would--because so far I find you a direct and informed debater.

While such an effort will have to wait until I have more time on my hands, for now I'll venture the following highlights:

1.  Regarding "shifting goalposts" of opposition politics that smell a scandal...I don't think you'll find a very different behavior by the collective Democratic party in response to the slowly unfolding scandal of Watergate.  I doubt you'd argue they were in err doing so.  His and his staff's records are full of dismissive platitudes over the Democrats and their shifting accusations and new goalposts for every new news cycle.  Did President Nixon end up deserving any more deference and benefit of the doubt than he received?  No?  Then I think you'd have to appreciate the fact we're not inclined to think Clinton does either.  Whether you approve or not, no stone will go unturned.  This unforced disaster was simply inexcusable and unjustifiable by anyone wishing to pass themselves off as being qualified for the Presidency.  The best she can hope for is to be lucky enough that dissemination of top secret information didn't escape her contraption.  She can never hope to have her judgment to risk it vindicated.

2.  I concede some ambiguity to the use of the word "secure" in reference to servers.  I think you're hiding behind that ambiguity rather than addressing the issue of Clinton's utility of a private, ungoverned server (with slipshod efforts at "securing") was an unnecessary, unprofessional, and legally dubious risk of classified information.  How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System?  If what she did was permissible, then why did Mr Deutch need a pardon?

3.  "*I'm sorry, no one who has stayed abreast of this manufactured conspiracy believes you anymore, and for good reason, not just partisan allegiance.*"  Ummmm...you're wrong?  And not just swing voters, but enough Democrats know it now that this was just a silly thing to say.  Not even the echo chamber can shut out the tremors underneath the ground within the Democatic Party that's unmistakably shifting its weight.  How do explain that if not for this scandal?

Oh btw: I don't claim any masters, LOL.  This rhetorical devise is beneath you.


----------

