That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Like Reagan wanting to use Born in the USA for his campaign, without actually listening to or understanding the lyrics.Isgrimnur wrote:What is her position on Fortunate Son? Scathing takedown of American society, or patriotic anthem worthy of a Wrangler commercial?
None of those people have the ear of the American people. How do you get millions of Americans to agree to free money for everyone when a single Sunday night radio broadcast by a random pot stirrer looking for ratings (I just picked Limbaugh because he was easy) would bring the entire thing to rubble before it even got started?ImLawBoy wrote:I'm totally missing your point. Could you spell it out for me?GreenGoo wrote:Until I see Rush's name in there, I think you're missing the point.
Wranglers the jeans, or Wranglers the jeeps? Because if we're talking pants, then it could be both at the same time.Isgrimnur wrote:What is her position on Fortunate Son? Scathing takedown of American society, or patriotic anthem worthy of a Wrangler commercial?
"We want to give you $15,000 with no strings attached" has a certain panache. Well, except with people who don't need $15,000.GreenGoo wrote:
More important even than how you are going to sell it to the American people, who are you going to get to do the selling?
If I can call something "socialism" and kill it when it's most certainly not socialism, what do you think the likelihood of killing something that is actually socialism (yes, I'm usually the popular and not precise definition) might be?Kraken wrote:"We want to give you $15,000 with no strings attached" has a certain panache. Well, except with people who don't need $15,000.GreenGoo wrote:
More important even than how you are going to sell it to the American people, who are you going to get to do the selling?
JeansMax Peck wrote:Wranglers the jeans, or Wranglers the jeeps? Because if we're talking pants, then it could be both at the same time.Isgrimnur wrote:What is her position on Fortunate Son? Scathing takedown of American society, or patriotic anthem worthy of a Wrangler commercial?
That there's some good irony.Isgrimnur wrote:JeansMax Peck wrote:Wranglers the jeans, or Wranglers the jeeps? Because if we're talking pants, then it could be both at the same time.Isgrimnur wrote:What is her position on Fortunate Son? Scathing takedown of American society, or patriotic anthem worthy of a Wrangler commercial?
After all the previous Clinton investigations that turned up nothing, I'm sure that one more try will provide the big breakthrough. Or will at least provide a modest distraction from what's going in at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Oh, there's nothing to find with emails and BENGHAZI!!!!! But given the shenanigans that have gone on with the Clinton Global Fund it's entirely possible there is corruption there that should be exposed. I couldn't care less if someone is left or right, we should expose and shame them publically.Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 8:16 pmAfter all the previous Clinton investigations that turned up nothing, I'm sure that one more try will provide the big breakthrough. Or will at least provide a modest distraction from what's going in at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
AKA the coverup.Rip wrote:Still have the IG investigation on the FISA warrant on Page to look forward to as well.
Wait. What about LOCK HER UP?Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 4:04 am The IG investigation isn't so much about the Clinton e-mail scandal itself but the investigation of it.
I would think the people being accused of crimes here are Obama's minions more than Clinton's.
Still have the IG investigation on the FISA warrant on Page to look forward to as well.
If it's shown the investigation was "flawed", then they can re-investigate with a "fair" investigation and lock her up. Logic.Unagi wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 9:48 amWait. What about LOCK HER UP?Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 4:04 am The IG investigation isn't so much about the Clinton e-mail scandal itself but the investigation of it.
I would think the people being accused of crimes here are Obama's minions more than Clinton's.
Still have the IG investigation on the FISA warrant on Page to look forward to as well.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... s-ass-off/In one exchange in February 2016, the FBI agent, identified only as “Agent 1,” talked to another FBI employee about interviewing Hillary Clinton’s personal IT staffer. The FBI employee asked how the interview went.
Agent 1 replied: “Awesome. Lied his ass off.”
He continued: “Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at [Clinton’s residence], to looked in when it was being constructed, to remove the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic,”
Lying to investigators is a federal crime, one that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is being charged with, as well as former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. However, the FBI employee joked it “would be funny” if the guy was charged.
The FBI employee replied: “would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this deal.”
Agent 1 responded that even though he lied, “aint noone gonna do s–t.”
He wrote: “I know. For 1001. Even if he said the truth and didnt have a clearance when handling the secure fax — aint noone gonna do s–t”
Again, if he lied and did something wrong, prosecute him. I'm all for it. You seriously seem to think this is all tribal. If Obama had made sweetheart deals with a hostile foreign power to enrich himself and his daughter, I'd call for his impeachment. If Obama had shit on our allies and cozied up with dictators, I'd denounce him too. If Obama couldn't speak without 10 blatant lies spilling out I'd call him on it. You just don't get that some of these things are so beyond the pale that it just doesn't matter who it is - any decent person should see it's wrong.
Sweetheart deals? Are you talking about China? The China we just slapped a shitload of tariffs on. You guys need to pick a direction on China. You complain when he does things they like, you complain when he does things they don't.....gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:44 amAgain, if he lied and did something wrong, prosecute him. I'm all for it. You seriously seem to think this is all tribal. If Obama had made sweetheart deals with a hostile foreign power to enrich himself and his daughter, I'd call for his impeachment. If Obama had shit on our allies and cozied up with dictators, I'd denounce him too. If Obama couldn't speak without 10 blatant lies spilling out I'd call him on it. You just don't get that some of these things are so beyond the pale that it just doesn't matter who it is - any decent person should see it's wrong.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:22 am That's what I was trying to explain to a Trump supporter I know. I'm not critical of Trump because he's a Republican. I'm critical of Trump because he's a horrible human being who is a pathological liar, and his policies are hurting the country.
He could not wrap his head around it. To those guys, it's Dem vs Rep, black and white, and there's no other way of thought.
It's frightening, because now there's no filter. As long as you have an (R) by your name, you're the guy. Doesn't matter if you're a pedophile, a racist, a homophobe, whatever. The (R) is all that matters.
Please don't be willfully obtuse.Rip wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:09 am
Sweetheart deals? Are you talking about China? The China we just slapped a shitload of tariffs on. You guys need to pick a direction on China. You complain when he does things they like, you complain when he does things they don't.....
I'm all for prosecuting the lying IT guy but as the FBI agent noted and was well aware they nor the justice department wasn't about to indict anyone and make the incoming president..HRC look bad. Hell when they needed to they would just give them immunity before even talking to them to make sure.
You mean the ZTE deal that is on the verge of falling apart? Such a weak dictator.gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:15 pmPlease don't be willfully obtuse.Rip wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:09 am
Sweetheart deals? Are you talking about China? The China we just slapped a shitload of tariffs on. You guys need to pick a direction on China. You complain when he does things they like, you complain when he does things they don't.....
I'm all for prosecuting the lying IT guy but as the FBI agent noted and was well aware they nor the justice department wasn't about to indict anyone and make the incoming president..HRC look bad. Hell when they needed to they would just give them immunity before even talking to them to make sure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/busi ... marks.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/worl ... nesia.html
There's the grift that enriches Trump, then there's the red meat for the base.
Also, I believe Republicans control all three branches of government? HRC isn't in the White House. Go indict him if you have evidence.
He includes some seemingly outrageous examples found among text messages written by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his reported then-lover, FBI attorney Lisa Page. One of them reads, "Currently fighting with Stu for this FISA," where "Stu for this FISA" was redacted in a version turned over to Congress.
Other redactions included: "Went well, best we could have expected. Other than L.C.'s quote, 'the White house is running this'” (the initials “L.C.” had been redacted); and "Jesus. More BO leaks in the NYT" ("BO" had been redacted).
An additional redaction included this entire section: "Clinton, Mills, and Abedin all said they felt the server was permitted and did not receive information that it was not. To the extent there was objection down the line in IRM, we did not pursue that as State OIG did, because it was not a key question behind our investigation. There are going to be many avenues we might have pursued if we had unlimited time and resources, but this is one of those categories of wouldn't have changed our fundamental understanding of the gravamen of the case."
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/392 ... gressionalAccording to Johnson, “None of the above redactions are clearly justified” under criteria outlined in Justice Department communications. “The FBI and the Justice Department have not explained the basis for redactions to these text messages, or any other document produced to date.”
I agree. Her baggage should have disqualified her from running, even though at least she is very competant. I still really, really wish Biden had run.Fitzy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:20 am Lost in the nonsense about classified information and should she be locked up or given a medal, is that she did intentionally violate the requirements to keep the emails for the public record. I am pretty certain this is an administrative violation as opposed to a criminal one, which is probably why the Republicans ignored it, but I still think it shows Hillary Clinton's priorities in regards to her own importance.
Had she been running against anyone except Donald Trump, her choice to ignore the right of the public to have access to that information should have disqualified her. Or, at a minimum, been an important factor in the voters decision.
However, she was running against Donald Trump and the whole thing should have been tossed out the window in order to keep Trump from becoming president. Or, I suppose, the Democrats could have chosen a less controversial candidate.