View Full Version : THIS JUST IN FROM HILLARYS EMAILS
Great-Kazoo
02-20-2016, 09:29
"███ ██ █ ████ everything ███ █████ is █████ ████ ████ fine ████ ██ █ ███████ trust █████ ██████ ███ your █████ ████ government ██ and ██ their media."
OldFogey
02-20-2016, 09:37
(Expletive deleted) her! Ooh. Now I have to take a fork and gouge out my minds-eye...
theGinsue
02-20-2016, 10:11
Well played GK. WELL PLAYED!
She's the devil and will get the nomination for the left. She's already greased plenty of wheels.
blacklabel
02-20-2016, 12:35
That made my morning.
Most transparent administration in history.
We should buy stock in Sharpie (or their parent company).
HoneyBadger
02-20-2016, 14:34
I think there is a good thing about Hillary that many people overlook (I'm totally serious here).
While Sanders and Trump are "wild cards" who are unpredictable and have limited accountability, If Hillary gets elected, we can be pretty confident about the type of administration we are going to get. No guesswork or crazy speculation. A Hillary Clinton administration would be mostly like the last 8 years, but with slightly more corruption and slightly more deception and the pulse of freedom would get slightly more faint. With Sanders, we would be taking the looney bus over the cliff at full speed, and with Trump, we'd be jumping on the crazy train with no idea what's around the next bend. At least with Clinton, we know that we'd be getting fucked.
Kraven251
02-20-2016, 17:29
I think there is a good thing about Hillary that many people overlook (I'm totally serious here).
While Sanders and Trump are "wild cards" who are unpredictable and have limited accountability, If Hillary gets elected, we can be pretty confident about the type of administration we are going to get. No guesswork or crazy speculation. A Hillary Clinton administration would be mostly like the last 8 years, but with slightly more corruption and slightly more deception and the pulse of freedom would get slightly more faint. With Sanders, we would be taking the looney bus over the cliff at full speed, and with Trump, we'd be jumping on the crazy train with no idea what's around the next bend. At least with Clinton, we know that we'd be getting fucked.
except there is the unfortunate possibility it could be the last 4 years of the US as it exists, but then again I guess you get that with every Presidential election. This one just seems to be that it is more possible.
Honey Badger282.8
02-20-2016, 17:45
I think there is a good thing about Hillary that many people overlook (I'm totally serious here).
While Sanders and Trump are "wild cards" who are unpredictable and have limited accountability, If Hillary gets elected, we can be pretty confident about the type of administration we are going to get. No guesswork or crazy speculation. A Hillary Clinton administration would be mostly like the last 8 years, but with slightly more corruption and slightly more deception and the pulse of freedom would get slightly more faint. With Sanders, we would be taking the looney bus over the cliff at full speed, and with Trump, we'd be jumping on the crazy train with no idea what's around the next bend. At least with Clinton, we know that we'd be getting fucked.
But Hillary has the support of the DNC at large where Bernie does not. I don't think a Bernie led administration would have enough support to get the proverbial bus moving, even if the Democrats won both chambers. Hillary on the other hand, she'd be doing her best impression of Mario Andretti.
HoneyBadger
02-20-2016, 18:09
except there is the unfortunate possibility it could be the last 4 years of the US as it exists, but then again I guess you get that with every Presidential election. This one just seems to be that it is more possible.
I think that's a little overdramatic. Everyone that is seeking political office has every intention of keeping their office (and stable paychecks) and have the most to lose if the system comes crashing down. Their aim is to keep the system going, while keeping their own pockets, and the pockets of their interests, lined.
except there is the unfortunate possibility it could be the last 4 years of the US as it exists, but then again I guess you get that with every Presidential election. This one just seems to be that it is more possible.
Nope.
Great-Kazoo
02-20-2016, 21:25
Nope.
With 1 possibly 2 or 3 SCOTUS appointments Really? I doubt it would be "end of times" bad. Economically, the shitter would never stop swirling. How long do you believe it would take under another D administration, for the system to implode. FREE, FREE, FREE. The only ones either D are not addressing are ones who work, don't have white guilt and KNOW Islam crossed our doors threshold a few years ago.
I'm not not worried about another round of Dems, but I don't think it will ruin the country any more than I believe that a round of Republicans would actually fix anything.
UrbanWolf
02-20-2016, 21:50
Unfortunately she is going to win.
HoneyBadger
02-20-2016, 22:12
I'm not not worried about another round of Dems, but I don't think it will ruin the country any more than I believe that a round of Republicans would actually fix anything.
Yep.
My wife has been calling it for Bernie Sanders for a few weeks now. She doesn't like Bernie, she just thinks that's who's going to win.
Hillary (and Bill) just seem to take pleasure in sidestepping the law via technicalities and that bugs me. I suppose all politicians do that but they seem to flaunt it.
UrbanWolf
02-20-2016, 23:53
My wife has been calling it for Bernie Sanders for a few weeks now. She doesn't like Bernie, she just thinks that's who's going to win.He just lost a bunch of primaries, he won't make it. General public thinks Hilary is more experienced, she will get it.
I'd rather not see Bernie make it. It scares me that he is even popular.
Great-Kazoo
02-21-2016, 00:34
He just lost a bunch of primaries, he won't make it. General public thinks Hilary is more experienced, she will get it.
You must be reading different papers & web sites than i am.
I just copied the entire article and included the link.
November 2016 Depends on One Man. It Is Not Trump.
James Comey.
Ring a bell?
He is the head of the FBI. We read on the FBI's site (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/executives/comey):
On September 4, 2013, James B. Comey was sworn in as the seventh Director of the FBI.A Yonkers, New York native, James Comey graduated from the College of William & Mary and the University of Chicago Law School. Following law school, Comey served as an assistant United States attorney for both the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia. Comey returned to New York to become the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. In 2003, he became the deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Comey left DOJ in 2005 to serve as general counsel and senior vice president at defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Five years later, he joined Bridgewater Associates, a Connecticut-based investment fund, as its general counsel.
He knows how the Department of Justice works.
If he decides that Hillary Clinton committed acts that endangered the security of the United States, he can submit this evidence to the Attorney General.
This places a very hot potato in Loretta Lynch's lap. She will drop it into President Obama's lap within 24 hours.
If Obama does nothing, Comey waits 30 days. Then he calls a press conference.
Goodbye, Hillary. Hello . . .
This depends on when he does this.
If he does it before the Democrats' convention, Sanders will win the nomination. If he does it after the convention, the Republican will win the election. That probably means Trump.
Comey knows how the political game is played. He knows that, as of today, he holds all the cards. He is not holding aces over eights. He is holding four aces.
All he needs to do is say nothing for 30 days after he hands the file to Lynch -- no threats. Just silence.
If she swears him to secrecy, he can assure her that he will stay silent. Then he breaks his word. After all, it's government.
I assume that he will play ball with Lynch. He sounds like an establishment man to me. Wikipedia reports: "Comey is a registered Republican who donated to U.S. Senator John McCain's campaign in the 2008 presidential election and to Governor Mitt Romney's campaign in 2012 presidential election." He does not sound like a Trump supporter. But what if he thinks she is guilty? What if he faces a cover-up of silence? He is a lawyer. If he thinks Obama is stiffing the FBI for political reasons, he may decide to do what bureaucrats do: defend his agency's turf.
What if he waits until December, after she is elected, but before she takes the oath of office? That would create the greatest foul-up in American political history.
She would have zero legitimacy from that time forward. She would reject all calls for her to testify. She would claim executive privilege.
Does the word "Watergate" ring a bell?
He has leverage on a scale that no bureaucrat ever has. Hoover had leverage, but not on this scale. The issue is public: the security of her emails. Comey risks nothing if he goes public after about a 30-day delay.
After the press conference, if Obama fires him, Hillary is toast. So is Obama's legacy.
If Obama tells Lynch to stall until January 20, Clinton II's presidency is toast. Obama probably escapes intact.
If Comey deep-sixes the findings, the political dance goes on.
Will he deep-six it? I don't know. It depends on his sense of justice.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/14966.cfm
While I strongly believe Hillary belongs in jail for what she did -- she will never be prosecuted.
Great-Kazoo
03-18-2016, 12:20
While I strongly believe Hillary belongs in jail for what she did -- she will never be prosecuted.
Especially once she's in the white house.
OldFogey
03-18-2016, 13:25
If the FBI recommends that Shrillary be indicted it is up to the DOJ to prosecute. Think they would? Of course not.
I hope any and all evidence they find is preserved and documented in enough ways it doesn't "disappear". If Scalia's death was possibly a conspiracy, then Comey could be at risk too if he drops a "hot potato", like you said.. It's a terrifying thought, but what if they are really that corrupt and he won't keep quiet?
DavieD55
03-20-2016, 02:46
http://i65.tinypic.com/20tjj8p.jpg
Great-Kazoo
03-20-2016, 10:06
Joe was right.
+1,000
Yes & no. IMO the way he went about it was wrong. I despise witch hunts. Having solid evidence v. claiming anyone not cooperating was a commie distracted the American populace. It was met with resistance from some who defied him and the committee on principle
I see what he did as it relates to politics today. ANYONE critiquing the president is A RACIST. Never mind the valid points one makes to back their comments.
I'm not supporting Communist, socialist or any other take from give to styles , just my opinion.
SO LONG MOMMY
I'M OFF TO KILL A COMMIE
OldFogey
03-20-2016, 12:58
I agree with Jim. Joe's methodology was very similar to what is being used today.
Yes & no. IMO the way he went about it was wrong. I despise witch hunts. Having solid evidence v. claiming anyone not cooperating was a commie distracted the American populace. It was met with resistance from some who defied him and the committee on principle
I see what he did as it relates to politics today. ANYONE critiquing the president is A RACIST. Never mind the valid points one makes to back their comments.
I'm not supporting Communist, socialist or any other take from give to styles , just my opinion.
SO LONG MOMMY
I'M OFF TO KILL A COMMIE
I understand the perspective.
How else should it have been handled at that time and place?
Johnson's Great Society, less than a decade later was a turning point and confirmed much of what McCarthy alleged.
Putting nails in the coffin of the pantsuit.
"But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics with no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her. Because she's the only person who basically has good ideas, will tell you how she's going to pay for them, can be commander-in-chief, and is a proven change maker with Republicans and Democrats and Independents alike."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/bill-clinton-trashes-obama-awful-legacy-of-the-last-eight-years/article/2001665
Don't think the child-in-chief didn't notice this slam on his "legacy". Obama is an infantile pantywaist who is easily offended.
FBI chief James Comey may very well submit the criminal evidence of Hillary's actions to the AG. Obama can command his AG to ignore or proceed, Slick Willie didn't help his wife with his statement. :)
DavieD55
03-22-2016, 21:23
Joe was right.
+1,000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMQQDQhipYg
[snip]
And if there is any truth to what's in that vid.
And if Communists succeed in murdering millions here as they've claimed is necessary (Bill Ayers put the number at 25M in the 70s).
What is (and was) the appropriate way to deal with this?
A question that goes unanswered. Hop over to the Belgium thread and you see complete clarity on how to handle the matter of Islamic terror.
Muslim terrorists have succeeded in murdering thousands.
What is the estimate on people murdered by Communism it the 20th century? 80 million? 100 million?
And if there is any truth to what's in that vid.
And if Communists succeed in murdering millions here as they've claimed is necessary (Bill Ayers put the number at 25M in the 70s).
What is (and was) the appropriate way to deal with this?
A question that goes unanswered. Hop over to the Belgium thread and you see complete clarity on how to handle the matter of Islamic terror.
Muslim terrorists have succeeded in murdering thousands.
What is the estimate on people murdered by Communism it the 20th century? 80 million? 100 million?
Yesterday KHOW, Ross or Michael, were using a number of 94M - http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century
During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism’s total by only 9 million.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.