quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

the story is actually a little worse than it already appears. I just listened to the account of it from the local reporter (must be a nutsucker) who discovered the meeting. Clinton seems to have waited for lynch to arrive, that is, he delayed his departure. when she landed, he left his plane and went alone into hers and they talked for ~30 minutes.

democratic strategist mark Hannah even agreed (he must be a nutsucker too) that for some democrats (they must be nutsuckers too), the optics are bad.

He was on "her" government paid for (That's pronounced: "OUR" for those of you in Poughkeepsie) plane. I want a transcript of notes from the meeting!



Michael

You know there are no records.
But like Benghazi we can ask them each what was said, we will get 8 different and conflicting stories. And the Koolaide crowd will tell us we should believe all 8 of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Damn near everyone is a Nutsucker now

everyone the otter doesn't like, yep between him and his blood brother that covers almost everyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Damn near everyone is a Nutsucker now

everyone the otter doesn't like, yep between him and his blood brother that covers almost everyone.

Oh................I thought they made a pinky promise

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Damn near everyone is a Nutsucker now

quote:

Democrats, who have been defending Clinton for years about her server, are irritated about Bill Clinton's decision to meet with Lynch in the middle of a criminal investigation. From POLITICO:

Democrats made clear that while the meeting was likely as innocent as Lynch described, it did not give the Justice Department the appearance of independence.

“I do agree with you that it doesn’t send the right signal,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Thursday in response to a question about the meeting from CNN “New Day” host Alisyn Camerota. “She has generally shown excellent judgment and strong leadership of the department, and I’m convinced that she’s an independent attorney general. But I do think that this meeting sends the wrong signal and I don’t think it sends the right signal. I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual social meeting with the former president.”

Lynch, of course, will ultimately make the decision as to whether Clinton will be prosecuted should the FBI issue an indictment surrounding her use of a private email server to store and transfer top secret, classified information. She'll also make the final decision as to whether public corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation, if recommended by the FBI, should be pursued and prosecuted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Damn near everyone is a Nutsucker now

I put some posts to follow-up on something you wrote in the nra thread---and in the process, discovered bill Clinton is a nutsucker too!

quote:

Democrats, who have been defending Clinton for years about her server, are irritated about Bill Clinton's decision to meet with Lynch in the middle of a criminal investigation. From POLITICO:

Democrats made clear that while the meeting was likely as innocent as Lynch described, it did not give the Justice Department the appearance of independence.

“I do agree with you that it doesn’t send the right signal,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Thursday in response to a question about the meeting from CNN “New Day” host Alisyn Camerota. “She has generally shown excellent judgment and strong leadership of the department, and I’m convinced that she’s an independent attorney general. But I do think that this meeting sends the wrong signal and I don’t think it sends the right signal. I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual social meeting with the former president.”

Lynch, of course, will ultimately make the decision as to whether Clinton will be prosecuted should the FBI issue an indictment surrounding her use of a private email server to store and transfer top secret, classified information. She'll also make the final decision as to whether public corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation, if recommended by the FBI, should be pursued and prosecuted.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/30/oh-loretta-lynch-had-a-private-meeting-with-bill-clinton-wednesday-n2185593

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

Have you found how the same insult or swear word repeated and repeated and repeated ad nauseum, very quickly comes to have no meaning whatsoever and causes not a ripple on the surface of the pond of life ? And eventually even the spewers of those insults tend to get ignored because everybody knows what they have to say as soon as their name is seen. It just becomes " Oh yeah, that's Tampons or Mnotaclue...................same old shit, just a different day".

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Damn near everyone is a Nutsucker now

I put some posts to follow-up on something you wrote in the nra thread---and in the process, discovered bill Clinton is a nutsucker too!

quote:

Democrats, who have been defending Clinton for years about her server, are irritated about Bill Clinton's decision to meet with Lynch in the middle of a criminal investigation. From POLITICO:

Democrats made clear that while the meeting was likely as innocent as Lynch described, it did not give the Justice Department the appearance of independence.

“I do agree with you that it doesn’t send the right signal,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Thursday in response to a question about the meeting from CNN “New Day” host Alisyn Camerota. “She has generally shown excellent judgment and strong leadership of the department, and I’m convinced that she’s an independent attorney general. But I do think that this meeting sends the wrong signal and I don’t think it sends the right signal. I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual social meeting with the former president.”

Lynch, of course, will ultimately make the decision as to whether Clinton will be prosecuted should the FBI issue an indictment surrounding her use of a private email server to store and transfer top secret, classified information. She'll also make the final decision as to whether public corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation, if recommended by the FBI, should be pursued and prosecuted.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/30/oh-loretta-lynch-had-a-private-meeting-with-bill-clinton-wednesday-n2185593

I saw that. That was an excellent follow up to vile critter parts felch gobbling. All the stuff you've posted on this thread has been superb research including pointing out where so many democrats and liberal news sources are nutsuckers too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh dear gawd
superb research???---townhall tipsheet section....his favourite go to choice of bilge, that and PJmedia, Newsmax or lifenews.
Has the FBI actually found evidence of wrong doing? can she (loretta lynch) hide the fbi report from the American people.
we have 70 pages of your links to "prooof" hah
I dont think any of you would find her "innocent" if she had video proof, ten thousand witnesses, or supporting DNA evidence.
You are so predictable.
Yet, you refuse to discuss your side of the crazys.
why is that????

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh dear gawd
superb research???---townhall tipsheet section....his favourite go to choice of bilge, that and PJmedia, Newsmax or lifenews.
Has the FBI actually found evidence of wrong doing? can she (loretta lynch) hide the fbi report from the American people.
we have 70 pages of your links to "prooof" hah
I dont think any of you would find her "innocent" if she had video proof, ten thousand witnesses, or supporting DNA evidence.
You are so predictable.
Yet, you refuse to discuss your side of the crazys.
why is that????

Once again attacking the messenger. What is in the content that you have a problem with ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh dear gawd
superb research???---townhall tipsheet section....his favourite go to choice of bilge, that and PJmedia, Newsmax or lifenews.
Has the FBI actually found evidence of wrong doing? can she (loretta lynch) hide the fbi report from the American people.
we have 70 pages of your links to "prooof" hah
I dont think any of you would find her "innocent" if she had video proof, ten thousand witnesses, or supporting DNA evidence.
You are so predictable.
Yet, you refuse to discuss your side of the crazys.
why is that????

Once again attacking the messenger. What is in the content that you have a problem with ?

quote:

not that I think what im about to say will effect the 2-3 comrades complaining about "right wing news, blogs and bullshit" but perhaps for others who are reading...

ive said this before: motherjones, alternet, mediamatters, and other preferred collectivist sites just aren't telling the whole story.

i went through the thread and took a look at all the sources my non-comrade fellow posters and I have used to create it. this isn't exhaustive but its informative.

not counting phydeaux's post #300 in which he used a very large amount of sources for one particular instance, we've used 74 different sources, citing them roughly 154 times. so theres been good variety.

104 of those references came from 23 sources being used multiple times. with, in descending order, breitbart, fox news, town hall, yahoo news, politico, the national review, the hill, and judicial watch, being used most frequently. given that these places are established news and commentary sites, with broad followings, and for the most part whose reporters and writers are judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, educated/trained/experienced journalists, intelligence agents, and other reputable and recognizable figures---they hardly qualify as "blogs" much less "slobber blogs" (sorry comrade vile critter parts, you lose).

nor, since some of them are clearly not "right wing" but are instead libertarian, non-partisan, legal, or even left leaning, does that "right wing" argument hold up. sorry, that whine is spoiled too.

on another hand, to dismiss everything away by attaching tribal monikers to them is to not give a fair hearing to the reality of the situation or to deal effectively with the content. something the comrades try to do frequently. as ive said before---if you did this in the classroom, youd fail. if you did this as a part of your critical thinking job, youd be fired.

other sites used multiple times include CNN, the NYT, CBS news, reuters, AP, USA today, Wikipedia, drudge, and the huffington post. a veritable pantheon of a right wing conspiracy against Hillary!

of the sites used only once, while there are more, they include msnbc, daily kos, daily beast, time, npr, the NIH, speaker.gov, mother jones, the Washington post, forbes, pjmedia, abc news, IBD. another right wing conspiracy hit list! (try not to cherry pick here comrades when you complain)

as for "bullshit"---the only load of that i see is from the lefties here who cannot effectively deal with the material and instead, denigrate the source, perpetuate debunked lies and myths, or distract from the main issue at hand.

the short of it is---the comrades' queen did lots of things wrong, badly, and criminally---and they don't have anything of substance to defend her but will go to their graves doing so anyways because "party" matters more than honesty and their hatred of the other side clouds their ability to think justly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
Once again attacking the messenger. What is in the content that you have a problem with ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
Once again attacking the messenger. What is in the content that you have a problem with ?

cue vile critter parts predictable and frothing response of "factless, slobberblog, pantshitting, circle felching, and nutsucking."