DONE - GOING TO JAIL! -- Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release'

[billyerock1991]

and the boards closet republican idiot rides again

 

[Redfish]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

all opinion pieces

... and not even about what that moron claims. He idiotically claimed the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate changed to lower the rate.

He's now posted 2 articles whining about how the U-6 rate should be considered and 1 article about how long term unemployment would be measured by 5 years instead of 2.

Meanwhile, his moronic claim that "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work," remains a figment of his rightwing fervent imagination.

read the articles, moron. I know that is a challenge for you, but give it a try.

 

[bodecea]

Checking on Tues morning.....any indictments yet?

 

[bendog]

Checking on Tues morning.....any indictments yet?

Not yet, but it's not yet noon. (-:

 

[pinqy]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

all opinion pieces

... and not even about what that moron claims. He idiotically claimed the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate changed to lower the rate.

He's now posted 2 articles whining about how the U-6 rate should be considered and 1 article about how long term unemployment would be measured by 5 years instead of 2.

Meanwhile, his moronic claim that "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work," remains a figment of his rightwing fervent imagination.

read the articles, moron. I know that is a challenge for you, but give it a try.

Nothing in the articles show that the methodology has changed! Give a quote if you claim otherwise.

 

[billyerock1991]

I know you live in the make it up reality world is where you live ... you say we know some of her emails were classified ... you haven't any proof saying they were, just you know this... must be very satisfy to know that you can read minds predict what a person did or didn't do HUH ... yet you can't say that for shure ... its just and opinion of yours... kind of like sarah palin shrill ... I hope you get to hear that shrilll for the next 8 years .. oh lucky you... but you stay in your make it up world, you'll be happy there...
P. S.
you still have shown us one stick of evidence here that she had classified emails ... just your rants ... were still waiting for the evidence

It's been discussed, I'm not going to tutor you unless you pay me.

I would pick a illiterate tutor like you to teach any thing ...in other words we get it you're haven't a leg ti stand on ... just a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations ... Iv'e been following this thread from the get go... not one of you right wing nut jobs have been able to post one bit of factual proof or evidence just bunch of bull shit with a lot of might be or mat or a dozen could be's when confronted with the question you dodge it like you did here... we get it you're a liar

Jesus, talk about illiterate. What grade did you make it to? We know she broke the law because it's been quoted many times already. she wasn't allowed to do what she did. Period. Obviously she got classified information as SoS and she had it all on her personal homebrew setup, duh. Then deleting it, or so she thought.

At least 22 emails will never be seen in any form since they were so sensitive.

whats been quoted in the news by all media says this hillary clinton may have so22 emails that are considered to be classified ... then nut jobs like you turn that around salon hillary had 22 emails that arte classified ... then you claim they got here ... the fact that you're the illiterate one who just can'y seem to comprehend what you read is your fault ... I guess you were to busy being lead around by your nose by your handlers

in the second paragraph:
The State Department said it is investigating whether the content of the unreleased emails was classified at the time it was sent or received

then they said:
But because she used a private server, it wasn’t protected by government technology personnel. Clinton’s campaign has said her private server had robust security protections, but neither she nor the campaign has gone into much detail about those practices.

I could go on and on but nut jobs like you won't accept what they say

You could go on with your ignorance, but it changes nothing. I know I have posted several times about the classified emails. The bottom line is you think it's all a vast right wing conspiracy and I think your head is up Hillary's ass.

no its you who thinks its the left wing media thats protecting her ... I've pointed out in all of your post where you were wrong ... even went to your post and pointed out all the maybe's and could have's but never once did your source say she did... when you are proven to be wrong, instead of admitting you're wrong you go in your usual rants ... hillary ass or kissing hillarys ass, or some pathetic remarks cause you can't grasp the idea you're wrong ...

 

[ChrisL]

So, some of you feel that old Hill is honest and has America's best interests at heart? Really?

 

[ChrisL]

Are there actually people out there who want Hillary Clinton to be the POTUS?? I find this pretty sad. It is really telling as to why we are where we are today and why we will never get out of this rut.

 

[billyerock1991]

Checking on Tues morning.....any indictments yet?

nope just a lot of whishful thinking ...

 

[Care4all]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

all opinion pieces

... and not even about what that moron claims. He idiotically claimed the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate changed to lower the rate.

He's now posted 2 articles whining about how the U-6 rate should be considered and 1 article about how long term unemployment would be measured by 5 years instead of 2.

Meanwhile, his moronic claim that "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work," remains a figment of his rightwing fervent imagination.

PRECISELY

He's posted NOTHING AT ALL to support his claim....trying to baffle us with his bull sh**

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Are there actually people out there who want Hillary Clinton to be the POTUS?? I find this pretty sad. It is really telling as to why we are where we are today and why we will never get out of this rut.

Yes, yes there are.... sad that it is 2016 and we're talking about a Bush and a Clinton.

 

[Faun]

looks like you caught fish lying again to justify his means ... now here comes the double talk from fish and a lot of childish remarks

Uh, nope.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

your site is and opinion pages not a factual source of information ... when are you going to learn the difference4

Ok, here's one from USA today, hardly a conservative rag.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-28-1Ajobless28_ST_N.htm

Holyfuckingshit!

That has nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated.



When will you start posting articles corroborating your idiocy rather than further exposing what an abject imbecile you are?

you asked for cites, I gave you 3 that refute your claims, do your own research,

here's how: google "changes in unemployment calculations" there are dozens of cites proving what I have said. Do it,

I asked for citations that agree with your claim that the methodology changed.

You've provided zero.

You did, however, post 3 articles about something else.

 

[Faun]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

Great, that's now three articles you've posted which don't say the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate has "changed," which remains your idiotic, and now proven false, claim.

Thanks for playin'!

did you bother to read them?

Of course I read them. That's how I know you lied.

 

[Redfish]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

all opinion pieces

... and not even about what that moron claims. He idiotically claimed the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate changed to lower the rate.

He's now posted 2 articles whining about how the U-6 rate should be considered and 1 article about how long term unemployment would be measured by 5 years instead of 2.

Meanwhile, his moronic claim that "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work," remains a figment of his rightwing fervent imagination.

PRECISELY

He's posted NOTHING AT ALL to support his claim....trying to baffle us with his bull sh**

read the cites, fool. your juvenile rantings are worthless.

 

[Faun]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

all opinion pieces

... and not even about what that moron claims. He idiotically claimed the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate changed to lower the rate.

He's now posted 2 articles whining about how the U-6 rate should be considered and 1 article about how long term unemployment would be measured by 5 years instead of 2.

Meanwhile, his moronic claim that "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work," remains a figment of his rightwing fervent imagination.

read the articles, moron. I know that is a challenge for you, but give it a try.

LOL

None of the articles you posted say they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work.

None.

And that was your retarded claim.

 

[Siete]

is Hilary in jail yet ?

 

[Faun]

is Hilary in jail yet ?

No, but Ammon Bundy is.

Rough week for Conservatives.

 

[Redfish]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

all opinion pieces

... and not even about what that moron claims. He idiotically claimed the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate changed to lower the rate.

He's now posted 2 articles whining about how the U-6 rate should be considered and 1 article about how long term unemployment would be measured by 5 years instead of 2.

Meanwhile, his moronic claim that "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work," remains a figment of his rightwing fervent imagination.

PRECISELY

He's posted NOTHING AT ALL to support his claim....trying to baffle us with his bull sh**

OK, fool, one more, this one from Forbes and Jack Welch. If you and your libtardian buddies are still unable to grasp it, there is nothing I can do for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/#24234ceb3438

 

[Siete]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

all opinion pieces

... and not even about what that moron claims. He idiotically claimed the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate changed to lower the rate.

He's now posted 2 articles whining about how the U-6 rate should be considered and 1 article about how long term unemployment would be measured by 5 years instead of 2.

Meanwhile, his moronic claim that "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work," remains a figment of his rightwing fervent imagination.

PRECISELY

He's posted NOTHING AT ALL to support his claim....trying to baffle us with his bull sh**

OK, fool, one more, this one from Forbes and Jack Welch. If you and your libtardian buddies are still unable to grasp it, there is nothing I can do for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/#24234ceb3438

great speculation ... suits you to a T chumbag,

 

[Redfish]

is Hilary in jail yet ?

No, but Ammon Bundy is.

Rough week for Conservatives.

you probably applauded the Waco massacre too.

It is very unlikely that the obozo administration will prosecute Hillary. That does not make her innocent, it makes our justice system a political sham. If she had an R behind her name you would be screaming to lock her up for life.

you libs are the most disingenuous people on earth.