RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


PeonForHer -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 1:54:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC

Its ok for all you dumbocrats to keep burying your head in the sand. But if you want you be enlightened.....

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/8/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-probe-confirmed-state-d/?page=all


'Dumbocrats'. Again. Oh god save me.

Has it ever occurred to you that every time you open your cretinous old ranting, right wing mouth, you create another right wing hater, you silly old fart? Jeez. You're embarrassing.




MasterBrentC -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 1:57:21 PM)

But it's okay for all you left-wing libturds to insult me every chance you get? Guess again, dumbass. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.




mnottertail -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:06:44 PM)

LOL. Have you actually stood behind the courage of your convictions and rationally given an explication, or do you link some nutsucker felching site and say something 'profound' about nutsuckerism?

My understanding is that St. Wrinklemeat was a vegetable even in the days when Buckley used to interview him on public tv at the citizens expense, I guess there was no felching about supporting public media in those days. So; resolved, Reagan was a vegetable when he was governor of California, and was a basket case when president. Pretty much didnt have the brains of a fuckin ice cube, a dildo in a necktie.

You go, daddio.




PeonForHer -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:12:58 PM)

Gawd. You're not getting it, are you? Sadly for you, we can indeed take it, and dish it out much, *much* better than you, Brent.

Seriously, you should at least stop using terms like 'dumbocrat' and 'libturd'. That just makes you sound like the nitwitted girlfriend of a redneck lowbrow. Or, if you want to carry on speaking and arguing the way you do, at least get rid of that avatar and replace it with that of a very young woman, preferably one with extremely generous breasts and wearing lots of make up.

[God, don't people get embarrassed in the USA anymore? This is making me cringe. Assuming that Brent is unable/unwilling to take my advice, could one of the gentler and more diplomatic right wingers here PM him with some simple home truths? Absolutely sincerely - I'd be grateful. Thanks in advance.]




thishereboi -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:21:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC

But it's okay for all you left-wing libturds to insult me every chance you get? Guess again, dumbass. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.


Actually he is spot on but I honestly don't expect you to understand. You are too busy wallowing in the shit with the other trolls claiming you can't help yourself because they dove in first, but in the end you will all smell the same.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:24:32 PM)

quote:

Seriously, you should at least stop using terms like 'dumbocrat' and 'libturd'.

And yet you are apparently OK with "felchers", "nutsuckers", and "cockgarglers". Interesting.




Wayward5oul -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:24:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
God, don't people get embarrassed in the USA anymore? This is making me cringe.

Yes, yes we do. I cringe just about every time that he posts.




Wayward5oul -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:29:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
That just makes you sound like the nitwitted girlfriend of a redneck lowbrow.

Though I would appreciate you leaving us rednecks out of it. We have standards too, ya know.




mnottertail -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:41:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Seriously, you should at least stop using terms like 'dumbocrat' and 'libturd'.

And yet you are apparently OK with "felchers", "nutsuckers", and "cockgarglers". Interesting.



I am ok with it, if there is any confusion on the matter.




MrRodgers -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:44:05 PM)

From the Washington Times link:

The most recent release of Mrs. Clinton’s emails found more than 26 percent of them contained information that the government now deems classified or secret. Another 22 messages have been deemed “top secret” and can’t be released even in part.

Mrs. Clinton said none of the messages was marked classified at the time she sent or received them and that the Obama administration has overused secrecy tags for her messages.

Last week, the State Department revealed that former Secretary Colin L. Powell had a handful of email messages that contained information that the department now deems sensitive enough to be classified, as did several aides to former Secretary Condoleezza Rice.

Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell served under President George W. Bush.


So am I to understand that what is really going on, is that HRC should run as a repub ?




thishereboi -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:49:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC

Its ok for all you dumbocrats to keep burying your head in the sand. But if you want you be enlightened.....

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/8/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-probe-confirmed-state-d/?page=all


'Dumbocrats'. Again. Oh god save me.

Has it ever occurred to you that every time you open your cretinous old ranting, right wing mouth, you create another right wing hater, you silly old fart? Jeez. You're embarrassing.



Actually he is only going to create another right wing hater if said hater is ignorant enough to think that he speaks for everyone on the right. They pick and choose idiots and try to claim they represent whatever group they belong to. In this case the right. Kinda like the asshats who think all muslims are terrorists or all blacks are welfare seeking lowlifes.




PeonForHer -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:49:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Seriously, you should at least stop using terms like 'dumbocrat' and 'libturd'.

And yet you are apparently OK with "felchers", "nutsuckers", and "cockgarglers". Interesting.


Ron is not my sock and I'm not his, TDC.




thishereboi -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 2:53:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Seriously, you should at least stop using terms like 'dumbocrat' and 'libturd'.

And yet you are apparently OK with "felchers", "nutsuckers", and "cockgarglers". Interesting.


Ron is not my sock and I'm not his, TDC.


I don't think she was implying you were. I think she is just confused because you called out brent for being an asshat, and rightly so. But I can't recall you ever jumping on the ones from the left who do the same exact thing.




PeonForHer -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 3:05:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


I don't think she was implying you were. I think she is just confused because you called out brent for being an asshat, and rightly so. But I can't recall you ever jumping on the ones from the left who do the same exact thing.


Hmm. I can't recall her jumping on Ron for his 'nutsuckers', etc, nor can I can recall you jumping on Brent for any his terms, before I did so myself just now. Bit too late for you to jump on that high horse now, I'd say, THB.




Cinnamongirl67 -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 3:51:22 PM)

Shut the fuck up.
You are not a man.
You are a bitch. Plain and simple.




DesideriScuri -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 4:06:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
From the Washington Times link:
...
Mrs. Clinton said none of the messages was marked classified at the time she sent or received them and that the Obama administration has overused secrecy tags for her messages.
...


Does it really fucking matter if the Administration overuses secrecy tags? If the President marked something as "secret," and it was something incredibly ridiculous to label as "secret," does she have the authority to over-rule the President and wipe away the "secret" tag?

She doesn't have to agree with the tag. She just has to act according to the law.

quote:

Last week, the State Department revealed that former Secretary Colin L. Powell had a handful of email messages that contained information that the department now deems sensitive enough to be classified, as did several aides to former Secretary Condoleezza Rice.
Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell served under President George W. Bush.
So am I to understand that what is really going on, is that HRC should run as a repub ?


Did Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice break the law? I understand and have no problem with Hillary having things on her private server that were there before they were deemed classified. That happens (and that's what happened with Powell and Rice). There are claims that there were emails on her private server that were deemed classified when they were put on her server, which isn't allowed. And, there are even allegations that she ignored things on her private server for FOIA requests. If that's true (and I have no idea if it is or isn't), that's certainly not legal.

What happens if Sanders drops out and runs as an Independent, and then over the Summer, Clinton is indicted? Does Bernie come back to the D's, or does he nod smugly and and ask if they are finally feeling the Bern?




bounty44 -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 4:42:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Last week, the State Department revealed that former Secretary Colin L. Powell had a handful of email messages that contained information that the department now deems sensitive enough to be classified, as did several aides to former Secretary Condoleezza Rice.

Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell served under President George W. Bush.

So am I to understand that what is really going on, is that HRC should run as a repub ?


that sort of stuff is maddening, as if there is an honest or equivalent comparison.

I posted this last month, and the information has really been out there for anyone who wants to see it:

"Email Scandal Spin: No, Hillary, Powell and Rice Didn't 'Do It Too'"

quote:

Team Clinton seized on this report yesterday, claiming it was an email scandal "game-changer" that shifts the terrain of a controversy that has plagued Hillary's campaign for months. It is, and does, nothing of the sort, for reasons we'll address in a moment...

(1) Yesterday evening, Hillary said, "I never sent or received any classified material," without her (legally irrelevant) "marked" caveat. This is a flat falsehood. It is an established fact that she personally sent and received classified material. The State Department's review has discovered more than 1,600 classified emails on her server thus far, with another batch still outstanding -- to say nothing of the 32,000 messages she unilaterally deleted, some of which we now know did pertain to official business.

(2) She also blames this controversy on the issue of retroactive classification, which Powell complains about, too. This gripe may apply to some of Hillary's emails, and to both of Powell's, but Hillary is being deeply disingenuous here. The nonpartisan IC Inspector General has determined that a number of her classified emails were absolutely classified at the time they originated, including top secret and beyond-top-secret intelligence. There was nothing "retroactive" about these classifications. News organizations have also confirmed that scores of her emails were, in fact, classified at the time. It was her duty to identify and protect highly sensitive information, regardless of markings, a responsibility she acknowledged and swore to uphold upon assuming office:

(3) "See? Condi and Colin did it, too!" relies on a thoroughly bogus equivalency. Above all else, neither Rice nor Powell set up and used a recklessly unsecure private emails server on which they conducted all of their official business, against "clear cut rules" implemented in 2005....Beyond her exclusive use of an improper and unsecure server, Sec. Clinton was personally and specifically warned about the vulnerability of her email scheme in 2011, when a State Department security expert sounded the alarm over foreign hackers seeking to infiltrate US secrets by targeting high-ranking officials' private emails. Mrs. Clinton carried on with her arrangement anyway.

In summary, Hillary Clinton's server is the scandal. It's possible that Rice's aides and Sec. Powell may have acted improperly (though the email rules were set forth after Powell left office). They may have been sloppy with a small number of low-level classified information on an ad hoc basis. The rules and laws pertaining to the US government's data security must be followed. By everyone. But Clinton mishandled hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails, which held state secrets at the highest classification levels. In fact, just this week, the State Department deemed another seven Clinton emails too sensitive to release in any form, even with redactions, bringing that total to 29. Intelligence officials who've seen some of the documents in question say they betray operational intelligence, the leakage of which puts covert missions and lives at risk. A former NSA official has intelligence community sources who say Clinton's emails included the true identities of CIA operatives and assets, including foreign nationals working for the agency.

...unlike Powell and Rice, Hillary has consistently lied about this scandal. Her smug assertion that the (twice expanded) FBI investigation won't go anywhere amounts to waving a red flag in front of career investigators and intelligence officials, who are reportedly fuming over her irresponsible, and likely criminal, conduct. Remember, the probe reportedly entails more than just her email misconduct, Gen. David Petraeus was charged for classified intelligence spillage that was far more limited and contained, and a former US Attorney General says there's already sufficient evidence to justify an indictment. Clinton seems confident that her political power and privilege will shield her from accountability in the end, sending a less-than-subtle message to the Justice Department, which has already been influenced by two public White House statements.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/02/01/hillary-emails-latest-n2112080

and theres so much more on top of that...




PeonForHer -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 5:16:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67

Shut the fuck up.
You are not a man.
You are a bitch. Plain and simple.


[:D] Hilarious! Go to bed, pipsqueak.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 5:29:09 PM)

quote:

Ron is not my sock and I'm not his, TDC.

I didn't say that, once again, go back and read what you are replying to carefully




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: DWS - claimed to be gleeful at the chance of running against trump (3/12/2016 5:31:48 PM)

quote:

can't recall her jumping on Ron for his 'nutsuckers', etc,

That is because, once again, you weren't paying attention.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4889871




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875