| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Oooops ....
Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that
famous Clintonesque way. This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent any classified emails period. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to being compromised. She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified". When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest. Trustworthy? What a joke. I wonder if people serving in high government positions are subject to the FBI background checks that us mere mortals are required to undergo for security clearances. I held security clearances both in the military and later as a civilian because one of the DOD programs I was involved with in business required access to classified information. In both cases, a background check was done by the FBI which included friends and relatives being interviewed and asked questions about my past and current activities. I remember the civilian one well because issuance of the clearance was held up temporarily because the FBI needed more information as to why I traveled to the PRC back in 1986. Both the military and the DOD have specific regulations as to how classified information and/or documents are handled and stored. Inspections are conducted to ensure compliance. I know a guy (he was the president of another company involved in the program) who was indited and sentenced to a two year house arrest (wearing an ankle bracelet) for failure to properly maintain classified data at his company. |
Oooops ....
Richard it'll be interesting to see Harry's rebuttal and possibly a personal attack. Let's see- "you're a racist" - "you hate women" - "she's more honest than (pick a republican opponent).....
|
Oooops ....
On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. Trustworthy? What a joke. Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the GOP nomination. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/15 7:20 AM, Tim wrote:
Richard it'll be interesting to see Harry's rebuttal and possibly a personal attack. Let's see- "you're a racist" - "you hate women" - "she's more honest than (pick a republican opponent)..... Richard is entitled to dislike Hillary, and I wouldn't believe any accusations that he is a racist or a woman hater. Hillary is, however, more honest than *any* of the mooks seriously seeking the GOP nomination. Hey, it's a new week...and I can't wait to see what stupid remarks Jeb makes this week, and whether EvangelHuckabee doubles down on his odious comparisons to the Holocaust. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 7:20 AM, Tim wrote:
Richard it'll be interesting to see Harry's rebuttal and possibly a personal attack. Let's see- "you're a racist" - "you hate women" - "she's more honest than (pick a republican opponent)..... LOL. He chose option 3. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/15 7:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 7:20 AM, Tim wrote: Richard it'll be interesting to see Harry's rebuttal and possibly a personal attack. Let's see- "you're a racist" - "you hate women" - "she's more honest than (pick a republican opponent)..... LOL. He chose option 3. Why not? It's true. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 7:29 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. Trustworthy? What a joke. Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the GOP nomination. No question that some of the GOP candidates are making some very stupid statements that most, including me, would never agree with. But we are discussing "trustworthiness". I can't think of a single thing Hillary has ever said or done that would give me a feeling that she is a truthful, honest and trustworthy person. The polls on the subject appear to back up my opinion. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent any classified emails period. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to being compromised. She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified". When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest. Trustworthy? What a joke. I wonder if people serving in high government positions are subject to the FBI background checks that us mere mortals are required to undergo for security clearances. I held security clearances both in the military and later as a civilian because one of the DOD programs I was involved with in business required access to classified information. In both cases, a background check was done by the FBI which included friends and relatives being interviewed and asked questions about my past and current activities. I remember the civilian one well because issuance of the clearance was held up temporarily because the FBI needed more information as to why I traveled to the PRC back in 1986. Both the military and the DOD have specific regulations as to how classified information and/or documents are handled and stored. Inspections are conducted to ensure compliance. I know a guy (he was the president of another company involved in the program) who was indited and sentenced to a two year house arrest (wearing an ankle bracelet) for failure to properly maintain classified data at his company. So she's bending her statements to be more truthful once she's caught lying. Purgered statements roll off the Clinton's tongues like honey. A little vacation at Graybar Hotel might do them some good. Liberals seem to think that lying is an entitlement for them. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 7:32 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:20 AM, Tim wrote: Richard it'll be interesting to see Harry's rebuttal and possibly a personal attack. Let's see- "you're a racist" - "you hate women" - "she's more honest than (pick a republican opponent)..... Richard is entitled to dislike Hillary, and I wouldn't believe any accusations that he is a racist or a woman hater. Hillary is, however, more honest than *any* of the mooks seriously seeking the GOP nomination. Hey, it's a new week...and I can't wait to see what stupid remarks Jeb makes this week, and whether EvangelHuckabee doubles down on his odious comparisons to the Holocaust. Time out for an announcement: ****Tim, You nailed it**** Carry on with your mook patrol Harry. You are such a schmuck. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/15 7:45 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 7:29 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. Trustworthy? What a joke. Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the GOP nomination. No question that some of the GOP candidates are making some very stupid statements that most, including me, would never agree with. But we are discussing "trustworthiness". I can't think of a single thing Hillary has ever said or done that would give me a feeling that she is a truthful, honest and trustworthy person. The polls on the subject appear to back up my opinion. As I said, whatever your opinion of her, she is more trustworthy than the GOP mooks hoping to run against her. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 7:45 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 7:29 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. Trustworthy? What a joke. Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the GOP nomination. No question that some of the GOP candidates are making some very stupid statements that most, including me, would never agree with. But we are discussing "trustworthiness". I can't think of a single thing Hillary has ever said or done that would give me a feeling that she is a truthful, honest and trustworthy person. The polls on the subject appear to back up my opinion. She is so smarmy. It's surprising that anyone falls for it. Nevertheless, she bears the traits that Harry admires in a woman. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 7:50 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:45 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/27/2015 7:29 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. Trustworthy? What a joke. Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the GOP nomination. No question that some of the GOP candidates are making some very stupid statements that most, including me, would never agree with. But we are discussing "trustworthiness". I can't think of a single thing Hillary has ever said or done that would give me a feeling that she is a truthful, honest and trustworthy person. The polls on the subject appear to back up my opinion. As I said, whatever your opinion of her, she is more trustworthy than the GOP mooks hoping to run against her. I can't agree with that because I don't know enough about all the GOP'ers, their backgrounds and history. Hillary's background and history is readily apparent for anyone to see if they have the interest. Some people who live in the public view, enjoying the perks of being somewhat of a celebrity lose sight of reality ... and even of right and wrong. They feel "entitled". I don't know anything about Hillary's basic moral character but I think life's opportunities and experiences has warped her sense of truthfulness. What has she accomplished on her own? She was a mediocre attorney with some questionable activities then became "first lady" of Arkansas when her husband was elected governor. Then, eight years as first lady in the White House where her only obvious activity was a failed attempt to revamp health care. Then, on to the Senate, riding primarily on her husband's coat tails and name. She had to adopt a new "favorite" baseball team to endear her to New Yorkers, but heck, that's just politics. Then a failed attempt at the Democratic nomination for POTUS. Her lies and made up stories of her "war" experiences certainly didn't help there. A so-so stint as Secretary of State that still is causing government investigations into her judgement. Yup, there's a fine candidate for POTUS. |
Oooops ....
|
Oooops ....
On 7/27/15 8:11 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent any classified emails period. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to being compromised. She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified". When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest. Trustworthy? What a joke. She killed Vince Foster too. Got away with it. While she was running drugs from South America. There's no limit to her evil doings. I think the never-ending criticism of Mrs. Clinton is little more than desperation on the part of Republicans. That party has an incredible collection of loudmouths, losers, racists, morons, religious nutcases, ethnic haters, woman haters, civil rights haters, and whoever gets that party's nomination is going to be carrying more baggage than AMTRAK. Individually, none of them has been getting the attention so richly deserved. |
Oooops ....
In article , says...
On 7/27/15 8:11 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent any classified emails period. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to being compromised. She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified". When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest. Trustworthy? What a joke. She killed Vince Foster too. Got away with it. While she was running drugs from South America. There's no limit to her evil doings. I think the never-ending criticism of Mrs. Clinton is little more than desperation on the part of Republicans. That party has an incredible collection of loudmouths, losers, racists, morons, religious nutcases, ethnic haters, woman haters, civil rights haters, and whoever gets that party's nomination is going to be carrying more baggage than AMTRAK. Individually, none of them has been getting the attention so richly deserved. Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On 7/27/15 8:11 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent any classified emails period. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to being compromised. She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified". When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest. Trustworthy? What a joke. She killed Vince Foster too. Got away with it. While she was running drugs from South America. There's no limit to her evil doings. I think the never-ending criticism of Mrs. Clinton is little more than desperation on the part of Republicans. That party has an incredible collection of loudmouths, losers, racists, morons, religious nutcases, ethnic haters, woman haters, civil rights haters, and whoever gets that party's nomination is going to be carrying more baggage than AMTRAK. Individually, none of them has been getting the attention so richly deserved. Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/15 1:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On 7/27/15 8:11 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent any classified emails period. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to being compromised. She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified". When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest. Trustworthy? What a joke. She killed Vince Foster too. Got away with it. While she was running drugs from South America. There's no limit to her evil doings. I think the never-ending criticism of Mrs. Clinton is little more than desperation on the part of Republicans. That party has an incredible collection of loudmouths, losers, racists, morons, religious nutcases, ethnic haters, woman haters, civil rights haters, and whoever gets that party's nomination is going to be carrying more baggage than AMTRAK. Individually, none of them has been getting the attention so richly deserved. Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Is Jeb still lying about Hillary in order to score points with the religious nutcases that underpin the GOP? |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 1:54 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 1:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On 7/27/15 8:11 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent any classified emails period. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to being compromised. She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified". When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest. Trustworthy? What a joke. She killed Vince Foster too. Got away with it. While she was running drugs from South America. There's no limit to her evil doings. I think the never-ending criticism of Mrs. Clinton is little more than desperation on the part of Republicans. That party has an incredible collection of loudmouths, losers, racists, morons, religious nutcases, ethnic haters, woman haters, civil rights haters, and whoever gets that party's nomination is going to be carrying more baggage than AMTRAK. Individually, none of them has been getting the attention so richly deserved. Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Is Jeb still lying about Hillary in order to score points with the religious nutcases that underpin the GOP? Beats me. I don't follow everything they all say. I see what's in the news though. I also don't subscribe or read right-wing or liberal-progressive blogs. I don't listen to shows like "The Young Turks" either. Obviously, you do. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/15 2:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 1:54 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 7/27/15 1:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On 7/27/15 8:11 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent any classified emails period. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to being compromised. She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified". When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest. Trustworthy? What a joke. She killed Vince Foster too. Got away with it. While she was running drugs from South America. There's no limit to her evil doings. I think the never-ending criticism of Mrs. Clinton is little more than desperation on the part of Republicans. That party has an incredible collection of loudmouths, losers, racists, morons, religious nutcases, ethnic haters, woman haters, civil rights haters, and whoever gets that party's nomination is going to be carrying more baggage than AMTRAK. Individually, none of them has been getting the attention so richly deserved. Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Is Jeb still lying about Hillary in order to score points with the religious nutcases that underpin the GOP? Beats me. I don't follow everything they all say. I see what's in the news though. I also don't subscribe or read right-wing or liberal-progressive blogs. I don't listen to shows like "The Young Turks" either. Obviously, you do. Obviously, you are wrong. Once in a while something from the "Turks" shows up on other sites I read. Don't fall into the right-wing trap here of jumping to conclusions about information not in play. |
Oooops ....
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:45:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Yeah, that is an excuse that didn't work for Nixon, Blagojevich, Rostenkowski, Ryan or Menendez. (and the list goes on) How many times did you help elect Rick Scott? -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Oooops ....
|
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:45:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Yeah, that is an excuse that didn't work for Nixon, Blagojevich, Rostenkowski, Ryan or Menendez. (and the list goes on) When they get anything that sticks on HRC, and she's in the slammer, let me know. If you guys are right, that's where she'll be. And if she stays free, you'll still be right. You'll simply say "She got away with it!" Hey, you can't lose. She's not headed for the slammer. I am just very hopeful that she's not headed for the White House. She's not even a good politician. No notable accomplishments to speak of. Bill is. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/15 6:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:45:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Yeah, that is an excuse that didn't work for Nixon, Blagojevich, Rostenkowski, Ryan or Menendez. (and the list goes on) When they get anything that sticks on HRC, and she's in the slammer, let me know. If you guys are right, that's where she'll be. And if she stays free, you'll still be right. You'll simply say "She got away with it!" Hey, you can't lose. She's not headed for the slammer. I am just very hopeful that she's not headed for the White House. She's not even a good politician. No notable accomplishments to speak of. Bill is. Your Republican alternatives are far, far worse. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 6:34 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 6:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/27/2015 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:45:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Yeah, that is an excuse that didn't work for Nixon, Blagojevich, Rostenkowski, Ryan or Menendez. (and the list goes on) When they get anything that sticks on HRC, and she's in the slammer, let me know. If you guys are right, that's where she'll be. And if she stays free, you'll still be right. You'll simply say "She got away with it!" Hey, you can't lose. She's not headed for the slammer. I am just very hopeful that she's not headed for the White House. She's not even a good politician. No notable accomplishments to speak of. Bill is. Your Republican alternatives are far, far worse. "My" Republican alternatives? Shouldn't it be "Our" or "The"? Anyway, Hillary has no executive experience in running anything. When her husband asked her to form a task force and come up with a health care reform plan, she botched it so badly that even the Democrats didn't want to bring it to a vote. It was quickly swept under the rug, if you recall. Since then, what has she done? Nothing really. Lived a pampered life as First Lady, traveled all over the world as SOS accomplishing ... nothing. Heck, as Secretary of State, John Kerry makes her look like a rank amateur ... or worse. You seem to adhere yourself to whomever recites the party line and maintains a (D) after their name. I tend to look more at the person, his/her qualifications, achievements, contributions and experience. Hillary has none of those qualities so she has to make up stories and lie to appear relevant. She also has demonstrated extremely poor judgement on more than one occasion. Not POTUS material. Sorry. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/15 7:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 6:34 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 7/27/15 6:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/27/2015 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:45:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Yeah, that is an excuse that didn't work for Nixon, Blagojevich, Rostenkowski, Ryan or Menendez. (and the list goes on) When they get anything that sticks on HRC, and she's in the slammer, let me know. If you guys are right, that's where she'll be. And if she stays free, you'll still be right. You'll simply say "She got away with it!" Hey, you can't lose. She's not headed for the slammer. I am just very hopeful that she's not headed for the White House. She's not even a good politician. No notable accomplishments to speak of. Bill is. Your Republican alternatives are far, far worse. "My" Republican alternatives? Shouldn't it be "Our" or "The"? Anyway, Hillary has no executive experience in running anything. When her husband asked her to form a task force and come up with a health care reform plan, she botched it so badly that even the Democrats didn't want to bring it to a vote. It was quickly swept under the rug, if you recall. Since then, what has she done? Nothing really. Lived a pampered life as First Lady, traveled all over the world as SOS accomplishing ... nothing. Heck, as Secretary of State, John Kerry makes her look like a rank amateur ... or worse. You seem to adhere yourself to whomever recites the party line and maintains a (D) after their name. I tend to look more at the person, his/her qualifications, achievements, contributions and experience. Hillary has none of those qualities so she has to make up stories and lie to appear relevant. She also has demonstrated extremely poor judgement on more than one occasion. Not POTUS material. Sorry. I see each and every Republican candidate who has a chance of winning the nomination as someone who will further destroy the middle and lower income groups, restrict womens' right, work against science, weaken pollution laws, weaken banking laws...everyone of them. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 7:05 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/27/2015 6:34 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 7/27/15 6:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/27/2015 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:45:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Yeah, that is an excuse that didn't work for Nixon, Blagojevich, Rostenkowski, Ryan or Menendez. (and the list goes on) When they get anything that sticks on HRC, and she's in the slammer, let me know. If you guys are right, that's where she'll be. And if she stays free, you'll still be right. You'll simply say "She got away with it!" Hey, you can't lose. She's not headed for the slammer. I am just very hopeful that she's not headed for the White House. She's not even a good politician. No notable accomplishments to speak of. Bill is. Your Republican alternatives are far, far worse. "My" Republican alternatives? Shouldn't it be "Our" or "The"? Anyway, Hillary has no executive experience in running anything. When her husband asked her to form a task force and come up with a health care reform plan, she botched it so badly that even the Democrats didn't want to bring it to a vote. It was quickly swept under the rug, if you recall. Since then, what has she done? Nothing really. Lived a pampered life as First Lady, traveled all over the world as SOS accomplishing ... nothing. Heck, as Secretary of State, John Kerry makes her look like a rank amateur ... or worse. You seem to adhere yourself to whomever recites the party line and maintains a (D) after their name. I tend to look more at the person, his/her qualifications, achievements, contributions and experience. Hillary has none of those qualities so she has to make up stories and lie to appear relevant. She also has demonstrated extremely poor judgement on more than one occasion. Not POTUS material. Sorry. I see each and every Republican candidate who has a chance of winning the nomination as someone who will further destroy the middle and lower income groups, restrict womens' right, work against science, weaken pollution laws, weaken banking laws...everyone of them. Oh, please. Let's wait and see what the nomination cycle debates show. I'd like to hear more from Jim Webb. Even Bernie is entertaining in a way. Ha. Imagine a hypothetical. Hillary wins the Democratic nomination. The Donald, for some bizarre reason, wins the Republican. A presidential election debate between the two of them would set records for viewers, mostly looking for the entertainment aspect of it. Neither can control what comes out of their mouths. |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/15 7:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 7:05 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 7/27/15 7:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/27/2015 6:34 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 7/27/15 6:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/27/2015 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:45:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Yeah, that is an excuse that didn't work for Nixon, Blagojevich, Rostenkowski, Ryan or Menendez. (and the list goes on) When they get anything that sticks on HRC, and she's in the slammer, let me know. If you guys are right, that's where she'll be. And if she stays free, you'll still be right. You'll simply say "She got away with it!" Hey, you can't lose. She's not headed for the slammer. I am just very hopeful that she's not headed for the White House. She's not even a good politician. No notable accomplishments to speak of. Bill is. Your Republican alternatives are far, far worse. "My" Republican alternatives? Shouldn't it be "Our" or "The"? Anyway, Hillary has no executive experience in running anything. When her husband asked her to form a task force and come up with a health care reform plan, she botched it so badly that even the Democrats didn't want to bring it to a vote. It was quickly swept under the rug, if you recall. Since then, what has she done? Nothing really. Lived a pampered life as First Lady, traveled all over the world as SOS accomplishing ... nothing. Heck, as Secretary of State, John Kerry makes her look like a rank amateur ... or worse. You seem to adhere yourself to whomever recites the party line and maintains a (D) after their name. I tend to look more at the person, his/her qualifications, achievements, contributions and experience. Hillary has none of those qualities so she has to make up stories and lie to appear relevant. She also has demonstrated extremely poor judgement on more than one occasion. Not POTUS material. Sorry. I see each and every Republican candidate who has a chance of winning the nomination as someone who will further destroy the middle and lower income groups, restrict womens' right, work against science, weaken pollution laws, weaken banking laws...everyone of them. Oh, please. Let's wait and see what the nomination cycle debates show. I'd like to hear more from Jim Webb. Even Bernie is entertaining in a way. Ha. Imagine a hypothetical. Hillary wins the Democratic nomination. The Donald, for some bizarre reason, wins the Republican. A presidential election debate between the two of them would set records for viewers, mostly looking for the entertainment aspect of it. Neither can control what comes out of their mouths. Jim Webb...who? (Yeah, I know who he is. He's a "who is he?" |
Oooops ....
On 7/27/2015 8:34 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:21:40 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:45:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:18 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Sure seems that way. I remember back in the '90's Limbaugh going after her viciously. First time I realized that insanity had gone mainstream. Turned Limbaugh off my radio forever. They'd have to get something solid on her before I'd believe it, because they've told so many outright lies about her she's been immunized in my eyes. I get a kick out of Luddite's "outrage" at her caginess. She's a politician, for crying out loud. They all lie. I get a kick out of you giving Hillary's lies and deceitfulness a pass "because she's a politician". Yeah, that is an excuse that didn't work for Nixon, Blagojevich, Rostenkowski, Ryan or Menendez. (and the list goes on) When they get anything that sticks on HRC, and she's in the slammer, let me know. If you guys are right, that's where she'll be. And if she stays free, you'll still be right. You'll simply say "She got away with it!" Hey, you can't lose. I doubt she will ever be charged with a crime but I also expect her to withdraw to spend more time with her family or for some undisclosed health issue. Or, if trends continue, her recognition that she is about to fail ... again. |
Oooops ....
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. Trustworthy? What a joke. Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the GOP nomination. Tim nailed it! |
Oooops ....
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:45 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/27/2015 7:29 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. Trustworthy? What a joke. Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the GOP nomination. No question that some of the GOP candidates are making some very stupid statements that most, including me, would never agree with. But we are discussing "trustworthiness". I can't think of a single thing Hillary has ever said or done that would give me a feeling that she is a truthful, honest and trustworthy person. The polls on the subject appear to back up my opinion. As I said, whatever your opinion of her, she is more trustworthy than the GOP mooks hoping to run against her. There are no facts to back that up. There are more truths to refute it but you have your blinders on, as always. |
Oooops ....
|
Oooops ....
|
Oooops ....
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 8:11 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that famous Clintonesque way. This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent any classified emails period. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to being compromised. She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified". When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest. Trustworthy? What a joke. She killed Vince Foster too. Got away with it. While she was running drugs from South America. There's no limit to her evil doings. I think the never-ending criticism of Mrs. Clinton is little more than desperation on the part of Republicans. That party has an incredible collection of loudmouths, losers, racists, morons, religious nutcases, ethnic haters, woman haters, civil rights haters, and whoever gets that party's nomination is going to be carrying more baggage than AMTRAK. Individually, none of them has been getting the attention so richly deserved. If her record belonged to any republican candidate you would be all over it. You are so transparent. |
Hillary Clinton, trustworthy, NOT.
|
Oooops ....
|
Oooops ....
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:57:38 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:26:17 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Mrs. Clinton has a lot of charm and appeals to vast numbers of Americans. By the dictionary definition of non-religious charisma, she is charismatic. She reminds me of one of those old Mary Kay reps who is still trying to get her pink Cadillac but never quite made it. That's funny! By the definition above your statement, Hitler was charismatic. Hillary, charm? As charming as a snarling warthog. |
Oooops ....
On 7/28/2015 11:45 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/28/15 11:04 AM, wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:05:15 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: If you are claiming Jim Webb is charismatic, your connection to reality was severed long ago. I am not sure we have actually seen that much of Webb. As for Mrs. Clinton, she has tens of millions of dedicated followers. By definition, she is charismatic. She has a large name recognition factor and coattails from her hubby. If she was still Hillary Roddam, nobody would give her a second glance. Her credentials are as a neocon senator who was for the Iraq war and as a failed SoS who left the US is worse shape than it was when she got there. When the campaign finally gets down to looking at her record, she will be a solid 47% candidate. The only way she can win is if the GOP vote splits and that is what you keep saying here about Trump. Really? I don't see any of the GOPer wannabes beating her in a general election, especially Foot-in-Mouth Jeb. And, hey, if the Trumpster makes an Indy run, more power to him. He'd pull 10% of the vote, at least, and 95% of that would be GOPer voters. Result? Hillary wins in a landslide. Works for me. Why would you want a character like Hillery as your president? -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Oooops ....
On 7/28/2015 11:45 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/28/15 11:04 AM, wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:05:15 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: If you are claiming Jim Webb is charismatic, your connection to reality was severed long ago. I am not sure we have actually seen that much of Webb. As for Mrs. Clinton, she has tens of millions of dedicated followers. By definition, she is charismatic. She has a large name recognition factor and coattails from her hubby. If she was still Hillary Roddam, nobody would give her a second glance. Her credentials are as a neocon senator who was for the Iraq war and as a failed SoS who left the US is worse shape than it was when she got there. When the campaign finally gets down to looking at her record, she will be a solid 47% candidate. The only way she can win is if the GOP vote splits and that is what you keep saying here about Trump. Really? I don't see any of the GOPer wannabes beating her in a general election, especially Foot-in-Mouth Jeb. And, hey, if the Trumpster makes an Indy run, more power to him. He'd pull 10% of the vote, at least, and 95% of that would be GOPer voters. Result? Hillary wins in a landslide. Works for me. You don't see much of anything with that melon head of yours stuck up the donkey's ass. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Oooops ....
On 7/28/2015 10:05 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
As for Mrs. Clinton, she has tens of millions of dedicated followers. So do Lemmings. Jim Webb is not without his flaws although I don't find them particularly negative. He's serious, can exhibit a bit of a temper and doesn't kowtow to anyone. He's a Democrat but has an independent streak in him. He doesn't necessarily follow the "party line" if it's something he doesn't believe in. I like that. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com