Jump to content

The Clinton Slush Fund


dirtyhairy
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

Mdrake, are you saying this photo of hillary has been doctored? How so? Ah ha, Dinesh d Souza posted this picture and it's dubious inregards to the flag. Ok. I retract it. I will then replace that image with this:  Hillary Clinton Confederate flag (Screenshot / rocnydeals / eBay)and this one: Screen-Shot-2015-06-22-at-11.28.04-PM.pn

FYI, these were made by someone to make money off of collectors who thought they came from an actual campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, mdrake34 said:

No candidate has any control over whether racist groups or individuals support them.  For example, Trump is a favorite among white supremacist groups in this country. 

Remember when Obama was a socialist because some socialist groups supported his bid for the Presidency?

I guess the guilt by association fallacy only works one way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mdrake34 said:

No candidate has any control over whether racist groups or individuals support them.  For example, Trump is a favorite among white supremacist groups in this country. 

White supremacy groups? Who in the heck are they? The whole notion that there is cabal of white supremacy groups of any number is a myth.  My greater point is Hillary's and the democrat party using scare tactics such as the flag to rile voters. The confederate flag doesn't kill anyone and frankly it is a symbol of history. It's been demonized to frighten illiterate voters into voting democrat for years. The KKK was a democrat started group.

Lets get away from the vitriol of race and symbolism as rhetoric. The democrat party has further enslavened the welfare class and that has to change or America dissolves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dirtyhairy said:

White supremacy groups? Who in the heck are they? The whole notion that there is cabal of white supremacy groups of any number is a myth.  My greater point is Hillary's and the democrat party using scare tactics such as the flag to rile voters. The confederate flag doesn't kill anyone and frankly it is a symbol of history. It's been demonized to frighten illiterate voters into voting democrat for years. The KKK was a democrat started group.

Lets get away from the vitriol of race and symbolism as rhetoric. The democrat party has further enslavened the welfare class and that has to change or America dissolves.

Congratulations, this is one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen you post. 

Also, kudos on wanting to switch the conversation from race after it was pointed out that the photo of Hillary with a confederate flag was photoshopped. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you find so offensive. The continued myth that there is some white supremacy cabal is just that. A myth. It's as much a part of long gone history as slavery itself. The Democrat party started the KKK in the late 1800's as a result of the freeing of the slaves. The KKK hasn't had any teeth in it's ranks since the 60's. That makes them a 50 year old non starter. As for welfare, which the liberal agenda hands out like candy canes, it's the offering to the lower class as some sort of appeasement. The low end class continues sitting on welfare as a result of "just warm enough, just enought to eat, just enough hand outs, and most are on welfare for decades.

The republican side offers an economy for all to participate. The conservative value system encourages people to go out and compete, be your best, make better decisions, less government intrusion, solid religious base. The democrats promote abortion, higher tax's, the dirty rich, all the while they are the party now of the rich. I will concede that the republican establishment is in bed now with the left's idealogy. The fat cats want to remain in control of the mass's and are doing so through our tax system and their bundling of power in DC and Wallstreet.

This is the reason an outsider is going to win the presidency. We are all sick and tired of the politicians being bought and the power flowing through DC to us little people. They work for us, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

White supremacy groups? Who in the heck are they? The whole notion that there is cabal of white supremacy groups of any number is a myth.  My greater point is Hillary's and the democrat party using scare tactics such as the flag to rile voters. The confederate flag doesn't kill anyone and frankly it is a symbol of history. It's been demonized to frighten illiterate voters into voting democrat for years. The KKK was a democrat started group.

Lets get away from the vitriol of race and symbolism as rhetoric. The democrat party has further enslavened the welfare class and that has to change or America dissolves.

Interesting. The usual argument against people who receive welfare is that they're dumb and lazy and here you're saying that black people only vote for Democrats because they're all on welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Not sure what you find so offensive. The continued myth that there is some white supremacy cabal is just that. A myth. It's as much a part of long gone history as slavery itself. The Democrat party started the KKK in the late 1800's as a result of the freeing of the slaves. The KKK hasn't had any teeth in it's ranks since the 60's. That makes them a 50 year old non starter. As for welfare, which the liberal agenda hands out like candy canes, it's the offering to the lower class as some sort of appeasement. The low end class continues sitting on welfare as a result of "just warm enough, just enought to eat, just enough hand outs, and most are on welfare for decades.

The republican side offers an economy for all to participate. The conservative value system encourages people to go out and compete, be your best, make better decisions, less government intrusion, solid religious base. The democrats promote abortion, higher tax's, the dirty rich, all the while they are the party now of the rich. I will concede that the republican establishment is in bed now with the left's idealogy. The fat cats want to remain in control of the mass's and are doing so through our tax system and their bundling of power in DC and Wallstreet.

This is the reason an outsider is going to win the presidency. We are all sick and tired of the politicians being bought and the power flowing through DC to us little people. They work for us, not the other way around.

"White Supremacy is a myth."

- dirtyhairy, February 3, 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, falconsd56 said:

Out of all the ignorant things that have been posted here...and lord knows that list is very distinguished and extensive..... Claiming white supremacy groups are a myth ranks up there in the top 2........a very close second to people claiming the only way to eat a steak is well done.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Not sure what you find so offensive. The continued myth that there is some white supremacy cabal is just that. A myth. It's as much a part of long gone history as slavery itself. The Democrat party started the KKK in the late 1800's as a result of the freeing of the slaves. The KKK hasn't had any teeth in it's ranks since the 60's. That makes them a 50 year old non starter. As for welfare, which the liberal agenda hands out like candy canes, it's the offering to the lower class as some sort of appeasement. The low end class continues sitting on welfare as a result of "just warm enough, just enought to eat, just enough hand outs, and most are on welfare for decades.

The republican side offers an economy for all to participate. The conservative value system encourages people to go out and compete, be your best, make better decisions, less government intrusion, solid religious base. The democrats promote abortion, higher tax's, the dirty rich, all the while they are the party now of the rich. I will concede that the republican establishment is in bed now with the left's idealogy. The fat cats want to remain in control of the mass's and are doing so through our tax system and their bundling of power in DC and Wallstreet.

This is the reason an outsider is going to win the presidency. We are all sick and tired of the politicians being bought and the power flowing through DC to us little people. They work for us, not the other way around.

For the dense on this site. White supremacy groups are far past their prime, no longer around in any numbers and certainly have lost their power in politics and the establishment. The myth is that they are still prevalent, just as it's a myth that the KKK is still prevalent. They are in the history books in America just as slavery is.

Now, slavery still exists. Look at many parts of Africa and the middle east for proof. White supremacy groups still exist in some numbers in Europe, Germany as an age gone long by in the Nazi party. But to continue the thought that we are still fighting the White Power structure is the myth that liberal democrat want alive as to spread fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Interesting. The usual argument against people who receive welfare is that they're dumb and lazy and here you're saying that black people only vote for Democrats because they're all on welfare.

Please show me where I said black people only vote for democrats because they are all on welfare? There are more white people on welfare then black. People to often vote with their wallets in mind and we now have the democrat party offering more and more welfare, free stuff and people who aren't well off like it, vote for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Please show me where I said black people only vote for democrats because they are all on welfare? There are more white people on welfare then black. People to often vote with their wallets in mind and we now have the democrat party offering more and more welfare, free stuff and people who aren't well off like it, vote for it. 

I hope to be well off some day so I can vote for Republicans . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2016 at 3:50 PM, mdrake34 said:

BS stuff?

Like calling Mexican immigrants rapists and murders?

You keep repeating this in this same "aghast at the allegation" way, but he drew attention to a very real problem. 80% of migrant women and girls are being assaulted while crossing the border. So who's doing the raping?

The Huffington Post or apparently just another member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report.

 

Like retweeting bogus crime statistics posted by a white supremacist twitter account?

Agree a stupid mistake, but being fooled by an internet meme disqualifies him?

Like insinuating that Fox News' Megyn Kelly was on on her period when she questioned him?

It was stupid, but pretty funny at the same time. Unpresidential by most people's estimation.

Like mocking a disabled reporter? Like saying he wants to create a registry for all Muslims?

Very poor taste, but who cares. A grown man insulted another grown man for a perceived wrong. I don't believe him when he says he did not know about the guy's disability, but with that said it was not as big a deal to me as many tried to make it out to be.

Like saying he wants to ban Muslims from entering this country?

Mischaracterizing his argument does not strengthen your own. He said he wants a pause. I still don't agree with the blanket intent of this, but it is different than what you are portraying it as.

Like telling the Republican Jewish group he's in a room full of negotiators?

You don't get the man's humor. That's fine,  it can be crass without a doubt, but unless those guys were looking to be offended, I doubt this did so. Pretty lightweight.

Like approving of a crowd in Birmingham, AL assualting a BLM protestor?

This should happen more often. Throw in hangers on of OW and Code Pink for the "ladies" who support Trump as well.

Like saying the poll numbers show he could shoot at people and not lose voters?

This is pure desperation. There are enough reasons to dislike Trump to not resort to this type twisting of words and intent. Ridiculous to include this in your list.

Any other "BS stuff" he's been attacked on?

These are your reasons for dismissing him as a candidate? There are much better reasons to not like Trump as a republican candidate, a couple are legitimate, but by and large this is a hodgepodge of politically correct garbage. "BS Stuff" indeed, with some actual misinformation thrown in for good measure.

I do not like Trump, and the more I've heard him talk, the less I like him. Of those left standing with a modicum of a chance to win, I prefer, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie, Kasich, Trump, Bush, Biden, Sanders, the last crap any one of these people took, Hillary. In that order, and would vote for any one of them over her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2016 at 4:29 PM, GEORGIAfan said:

It has been confirmed by the Obama admin that 22 emails are not going to be released. HRC spokesperson has demanded they be released and states this is over classification. Also the SAP emails we were discussing before snake locked the thread was about an NY times article on drone strikes. Also it seems like 18 of the emails are being withheld because they were between Obama and Hillary. 

 

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

As I have said before, 3, 4, 5 are speculative at best at this point. FBI is not going to recommend indictment unless they have rock solid proof on all three accounts. And considering that Obama just save HRC a ringing endorsement, I do not believe he feels that she is in any danger. If she was, then he would have continued to distance himself from the situation. And Biden would be running, since he has already stated that he wants to run for president. 

It's not as cut and dry as you make it out. As I've said, I doubt she will be indicted, but I lay that at the feet of Washington corruption, not at a lack of evidence against her. I'm also fairly certain she will be the next president, but then I have complete faith in the majority of the electorate's apathy about the moral judgement of who we vote for and interest in how the real world works, especially economically speaking. 

FREE S**T FOR EVERYBODY. Best campaign slogan eva.

Ken Cuccinelli, the former attorney general of Virginia, knows the laws regarding classified information firsthand. In his private practice, Cuccinelli defended a Marine lieutenant colonel court martialed on charges of possessing such information outside a secure facility. He says Clinton’s actions in the e-mail scandal clearly satisfy all five requirements necessary to sustain charges of mishandling classified material, and constitute a breach perhaps even more glaring than the one for which General David Petraeus was convicted.

  Like Petraeus, Clinton was clearly “an employee of the United States government.” Like Petraeus, Clinton obtained and created “documents and materials containing classified information” through her work at the State Department. In response to a Congressional inquiry earlier this month, I. Charles McCullough, III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, declared that an intelligence official examined “several dozen e-mails containing classified information determined . . . to be . . . CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP information” residing on Clinton’s server. (SAP is an acronym for ‘special access programs,’ a level of classification above top secret.) Like Petraeus, Clinton “knowingly removed such documents or materials.” Cuccinelli points out that she actually committed this crime on a significant scale three separate times: First, by setting up her e-mail system to route messages to and through her unsecured server, then by moving the server to Platte River Networks, a private company, in June of 2013, and then by transferring the server’s contents to her private lawyers in 2014.

Like Petraeus, Clinton did not have the authority to remove classified information from secure locations. “Simply being secretary of state does not allow Hillary Clinton to ‘authorize herself’ to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials, and information,” Cuccinelli says. “There is no known evidence, and Clinton has not asserted, that her arrangement to use the private e-mail server in her home was undertaken with proper authority as it relates to classified documents, materials, or information.” And like Petraeus, Clinton demonstrated the “intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.” A private residence can be an “authorized” location, and non-government servers and networks can be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, but there are specific and stringent requirements for such authorization, and there is no indication that Clinton undertook the steps necessary to obtain it for her house, her private server, Platte River Networks, or her lawyers. “If she had, she would not have offered the ‘my house is guarded by the Secret Service’ excuse,” Cuccinelli says.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430343/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-fbi-director-james-comey-resign-protest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mdrake34 said:

No candidate has any control over whether racist groups or individuals support them.  For example, Trump is a favorite among white supremacist groups in this country. 

So you find these two buttons racist?

8 hours ago, dirtyhairy said:

Mdrake, are you saying this photo of hillary has been doctored? How so? Ah ha, Dinesh d Souza posted this picture and it's dubious inregards to the flag. Ok. I retract it. I will then replace that image with this:  Hillary Clinton Confederate flag (Screenshot / rocnydeals / eBay)and this one: Screen-Shot-2015-06-22-at-11.28.04-PM.pn

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? nationalReview?

Like Petraeus, Clinton obtained and created “documents and materials containing classified information” through her work at the State Department

Proof? None of the emails at the time were classified when went and none of them have been deemed to be originate from her.

Like Petraeus, Clinton did not have the authority to remove classified information from secure locations. “Simply being secretary of state does not allow Hillary Clinton to ‘authorize herself’ to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials, and information

Proof that she removed classified information from secure locations? 

And like Petraeus, Clinton demonstrated the “intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

Proof? Where has this intent been proven.

 

This whole article is some random former AG making claims that she broke these rules without an actual proof that she did. And it is from the nationalreview. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Really? nationalReview?

Like Petraeus, Clinton obtained and created “documents and materials containing classified information” through her work at the State Department

Proof? None of the emails at the time were classified when went and none of them have been deemed to be originate from her.

Your first "Gotcha" here is the most ridiculous. Your only defense of her is that she was a complete ******* idiot that did not know that classified information was in fact classified. While I won't argue that she is in fact the ******* idiot that you argue she is, it does not excuse what she has done. I know you'll likely answer this with another "Really? Paul Ryan?" but he sums up the ruse that she is trying to play nicely, complete with her trail of lies along the way.

We already know they’ve shifted their story.  First, Clinton claimed in March that “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”

Conveniently, after it was discovered that her email did, in fact, include classified information she claimed that “I did not receive anything that was marked as classified.”

We know this “marked as classified” trick is a complete and total ruse, having debunked it before.

But on Wednesday, Clinton’s spokesman repeated this deception, saying again: “No information in her emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.”

But as Clinton well knows, whether the information was marked or not matters little.  Because writing classified intelligence information into an unclassified email does not make the information unclassified.  And it doesn’t excuse the fact that the classified information itself is still included in your emails in the first place.  Those who have security clearances are responsible, and liable, for following proper procedures and the law.

Ron Fournier points out in his National Journal column entitled “Parsing Clinton: Deflection, Deception, and Untruths.”

“What Clinton doesn’t want you to know: Federal rules put the onus on government officials like the Secretary of State to protect classified material, even when it’s not marked as such.  Government officials have been convicted of mishandling unmarked classified material.  Any chain of events or excuses that led to the disclosure of these documents begins with Clinton’s decision to go rogue with government email.”

- See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/general/secretary-clinton-s-marked-classified-email-deception#sthash.6yhSqONP.dpuf

There is also ReutersThe Daily Beast, and a very good write up about how classification is assigned The Washington Post

Like Petraeus, Clinton did not have the authority to remove classified information from secure locations. “Simply being secretary of state does not allow Hillary Clinton to ‘authorize herself’ to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials, and information

Proof that she removed classified information from secure locations?

Excellent point, the bathroom that her server was kept in was completely secure.

NY Post

  bathroom-server.jpg

And like Petraeus, Clinton demonstrated the “intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

Proof? Where has this intent been proven.

She kept the server after leaving. In fairness she did lie about this point, so maybe that was her version of securing it, denying its existence, but she did in fact keep the server and the emails contained within. I guess also to her credit she did try to destroy the emails to further secure them, doing so after the investigation began was totally a coincidence

This whole article is some random former AG making claims that she broke these rules without an actual proof that she did. And it is from the nationalreview. 

From reading your ongoing unconditional declarations of support for a thief, liar, and borderline traitor you should probably be reading more National Review, not huffing at it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...