RE: Hillary Probed

RE: Hillary Probed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 9:20:52 AM)
So you are back to you dismiss anything you don't like as a nutsucker blog. Lie number 6 stacked up for you, you are a chronic liar. Truth to you is what you want to believe. Facts to you is what you want to believe. Nope, thats your bad breath blowing back in your face. I was a Linguist, No you wasn't, you wasn't even eligable. an intellegence analyst, Intelligence. Q.E.D. and a computer programer programmer. Q.E.D. DECLARE (I,J) FIXED BIN(15); DECLARE S BIT(1); DECLARE Y FIXED BIN(15); DO I = N-1 BY -1 TO 1; S = '1'B; DO J = 1 TO I; IF X(J)>X(J+1) THEN DO; S = '0'B; Y = X(J); X(J) = X(J+1); X(J+1) = Y; END; END; Tell me what language this is, and what this snippet does. all far above your grunt status. Yeah....maybe, maybe not. A single term of duty isn't exactly a stirling success now is it. Can you cook? If so you must never order pizza.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 9:23:25 AM)
And now back to our original pants shitting nutsuckerism hallucinations: What are the nutsucker blogs slobbering now? Are we gonna get around the corner? Are the 147 FBI agents going to almost quit? Will the AG flunkie be fired for illegal (and unrealistic) disclosures to his asshole buddies?

BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 9:25:31 AM)
No you wasn't, you wasn't even eligable. You mean weren't eligable. And yes I was prove otherwise.

BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 9:27:33 AM)
Intelligence. Q.E. D. Typo so you admit I had the job.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 9:27:37 AM)
You mean weren't eligable. eligible. Q.E.D. And yes I was prove otherwise. You was prove otherwise, was you? How very absorbing that must have been for you. Still no facts though. Just lies and deflections.

BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 9:31:36 AM)
and a computer programer programmer. Q.E.D. DECLARE (I,J) FIXED BIN(15); DECLARE S BIT(1); DECLARE Y FIXED BIN(15); DO I = N-1 BY -1 TO 1; S = '1'B; DO J = 1 TO I; IF X(J)>X(J+1) THEN DO; S = '0'B; Y = X(J); X(J) = X(J+1); X(J+1) = Y; END; END; Tell me what language this is, and what this snippet does. Another typo, nbd Looks like Fortran, which I haven't even looked at since 80.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 9:32:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Intelligence. Q.E. D. Typo so you admit I had the job. I admit you haven't any.

BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 9:32:52 AM)
all far above your grunt status. Yeah....maybe, maybe not. Yep sure thing.

BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 9:34:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Intelligence. Q.E. D. Typo so you admit I had the job. I admit you haven't any. That would be because I am r e t i r e d.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 9:54:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD and a computer programer programmer. Q.E.D. DECLARE (I,J) FIXED BIN(15); DECLARE S BIT(1); DECLARE Y FIXED BIN(15); DO I = N-1 BY -1 TO 1; S = '1'B; DO J = 1 TO I; IF X(J)>X(J+1) THEN DO; S = '0'B; Y = X(J); X(J) = X(J+1); X(J+1) = Y; END; END; Tell me what language this is, and what this snippet does. Another typo, nbd Looks like Fortran, which I haven't even looked at since 80. Nope, not even close. PROGRAM MAIN INTEGER N, X EXTERNAL SUB1 COMMON /GLOBALS/ N X = 0 PRINT , 'Enter number of repeats' READ (,) N CALL SUB1(X,SUB1) END SUBROUTINE SUB1(X,DUMSUB) INTEGER N, X EXTERNAL DUMSUB COMMON /GLOBALS/ N IF(X .LT. N)THEN X = X + 1 PRINT , 'x = ', X CALL DUMSUB(X,DUMSUB) END IF END That is fortran. So what language did you program?

BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 10:02:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD and a computer programer programmer. Q.E.D. DECLARE (I,J) FIXED BIN(15); DECLARE S BIT(1); DECLARE Y FIXED BIN(15); DO I = N-1 BY -1 TO 1; S = '1'B; DO J = 1 TO I; IF X(J)>X(J+1) THEN DO; S = '0'B; Y = X(J); X(J) = X(J+1); X(J+1) = Y; END; END; Tell me what language this is, and what this snippet does. Another typo, nbd Looks like Fortran, which I haven't even looked at since 80. Nope, not even close. PROGRAM MAIN INTEGER N, X EXTERNAL SUB1 COMMON /GLOBALS/ N X = 0 PRINT , 'Enter number of repeats' READ (,) N CALL SUB1(X,SUB1) END SUBROUTINE SUB1(X,DUMSUB) INTEGER N, X EXTERNAL DUMSUB COMMON /GLOBALS/ N IF(X .LT. N)THEN X = X + 1 PRINT , 'x = ', X CALL DUMSUB(X,DUMSUB) END IF END That is fortran. So what language did you program? Afolds Cobol Doesn't make any difference. At least I didn't jump ship after on tour of duty. Did you ever remember a left wing source that doesn't spread the gospel or a right wing source that isn't full of crap? Didn't think so.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 11:45:59 AM)
You turn out to be the liar in all the cases, you are stacked up to about a dozen now. staffers passed around national secrets on unsecured blackberries. Your words, lies.

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 12:40:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You still cant prove one nutsucker slobber blog containing fact. Quit the derail, show us facts. Not slobberblogging and nutsuckerism. To paraphrase a dear freind of yours I see no need to post cites when I can just sit here and watch you make a fool of yourself. over the 800+ posts in this thread, many dozens of facts have been shared, as well as bunches of legal opinion, updates on the process, conservative and libertarian thought on the matter, insider information and a handful of other aspects of the scandal. that vile critter parts continues to assert "factless" is rather evidence of an inability to discern, to learn, or something even worse. so heres the thing bama, given what I just said above, as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter what gets posted because he is clearly impervious to the truth. subsequently his "show me the facts" challenge lacks the necessary depth to take it seriously. on the off chance that he actually does read, as opposed to merely babble vulgarities, here's a good summary for his edification: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b

BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 1:40:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You still cant prove one nutsucker slobber blog containing fact. Quit the derail, show us facts. Not slobberblogging and nutsuckerism. To paraphrase a dear freind of yours I see no need to post cites when I can just sit here and watch you make a fool of yourself. over the 800+ posts in this thread, many dozens of facts have been shared, as well as bunches of legal opinion, updates on the process, conservative and libertarian thought on the matter, insider information and a handful of other aspects of the scandal. that vile critter parts continues to assert "factless" is rather evidence of an inability to discern, to learn, or something even worse. so heres the thing bama, given what I just said above, as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter what gets posted because he is clearly impervious to the truth. subsequently his "show me the facts" challenge lacks the necessary depth to take it seriously. on the off chance that he actually does read, as opposed to merely babble vulgarities, here's a good summary for his edification: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b Yep. You notice that he can't come up with a single left wing site that engages (in his mind) in spin or distortion. He also counts lies as anything he doesn't like while claiming to know what I did in the service.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 2:10:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You still cant prove one nutsucker slobber blog containing fact. Quit the derail, show us facts. Not slobberblogging and nutsuckerism. To paraphrase a dear freind of yours I see no need to post cites when I can just sit here and watch you make a fool of yourself. over the 800+ posts in this thread, many dozens of facts have been shared, as well as bunches of legal opinion, updates on the process, conservative and libertarian thought on the matter, insider information and a handful of other aspects of the scandal. that vile critter parts continues to assert "factless" is rather evidence of an inability to discern, to learn, or something even worse. so heres the thing bama, given what I just said above, as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter what gets posted because he is clearly impervious to the truth. subsequently his "show me the facts" challenge lacks the necessary depth to take it seriously. on the off chance that he actually does read, as opposed to merely babble vulgarities, here's a good summary for his edification: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b Yep. You notice that he can't come up with a single left wing site that engages (in his mind) in spin or distortion. He also counts lies as anything he doesn't like while claiming to know what I did in the service. yet you still havent come up with the claims that you mentioned about the blackberries. You have obfuscated, derailed, hijacked and twisted. But you cannot come up with the cite. oh Im sorry, you will NOT cite it, why??? Never happened, or has been found to me more ignorant "maybes, "probably", "what ifs", etc. Until you come up with it, you are the one pushing "non" facts

BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 2:20:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You still cant prove one nutsucker slobber blog containing fact. Quit the derail, show us facts. Not slobberblogging and nutsuckerism. To paraphrase a dear freind of yours I see no need to post cites when I can just sit here and watch you make a fool of yourself. over the 800+ posts in this thread, many dozens of facts have been shared, as well as bunches of legal opinion, updates on the process, conservative and libertarian thought on the matter, insider information and a handful of other aspects of the scandal. that vile critter parts continues to assert "factless" is rather evidence of an inability to discern, to learn, or something even worse. so heres the thing bama, given what I just said above, as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter what gets posted because he is clearly impervious to the truth. subsequently his "show me the facts" challenge lacks the necessary depth to take it seriously. on the off chance that he actually does read, as opposed to merely babble vulgarities, here's a good summary for his edification: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b Yep. You notice that he can't come up with a single left wing site that engages (in his mind) in spin or distortion. He also counts lies as anything he doesn't like while claiming to know what I did in the service. yet you still havent come up with the claims that you mentioned about the blackberries. You have obfuscated, derailed, hijacked and twisted. But you cannot come up with the cite. oh Im sorry, you will NOT cite it, why??? Never happened, or has been found to me more ignorant "maybes, "probably", "what ifs", etc. Until you come up with it, you are the one pushing "non" facts I don't need to cite when I can just watch the absurd foolish twists and turns he takes, sound familiar? It was good enough for you, it must be good enough for me. You expect me to have memorized the site of every news story I have read in the last year. I noticed that neither you or dear Ron denied that Obama said that she didn't mean to share classified information she just didn't protect it like she should have. Although Mnottertail tried to make the claim that not properly protecting classified information isn't a crime, you going to make that claim? Distracting, wouldn't you admit that Mnottertail trying once again to denegrate my military service is a level of derailment that dwarfs anything I do? Or are you so enamored of him that he can do no wrong?

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 2:26:00 PM)
I noticed that after several instances you have not denied you are a dick wiggler. According to you, that is proof positve, and all else follows from that. If thats good enough for you, its good enough for me, and yes you do sound familiar. You trying to detract my outstanding military service with tales of your substandard military service (as a cook) and subsequent scam to get on the dole. Yes you are dwarfing all nutsuckerisms you've spewn at this point.

BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 2:48:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I noticed that after several instances you have not denied you are a dick wiggler. According to you, that is proof positve, and all else follows from that. If thats good enough for you, its good enough for me, and yes you do sound familiar. You trying to detract my outstanding military service with tales of your substandard military service (as a cook) and subsequent scam to get on the dole. Yes you are dwarfing all nutsuckerisms you've spewn at this point. I have denied all of your personal attacks. I have only pointed out that you only served one tour of duty. And no way I was a cook, my scores were too high for me to have gotten that job even if I wanted it. I wanted to be an LE or range master, but my scores were far to high for them. Somehow you think that attacking my service at NSA and he Air Force Data Systems Design Center ( which has changed names many times since I got there) somehow makes you a better man. Your totally unfounded and slanderous claim that I conducted some kind of scam to get on welfare (which I have never taken) further proves that your only tactic is personal attack. This removes any need for me to provide cites, facts, or proof to refute your absurd arguments or to defend my claims that you don't like. You are at least aware are you not that the FBI has discovered over 100 clasified emails on Hillary's serve. What am I saying, that would require that you pay attention to anything that even brings your world view into question.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 2:51:00 PM)
quote: I don't need to cite when I can just watch the absurd foolish twists and turns he takes, sound familiar? It was good enough for you, it must be good enough for me. You expect me to have memorized the site of every news story I have read in the last year. I noticed that neither you or dear Ron denied that Obama said that she didn't mean to share classified information she just didn't protect it like she should have. Although Mnottertail tried to make the claim that not properly protecting classified information isn't a crime, you going to make that claim? Distracting, wouldn't you admit that Mnottertail trying once again to denegrate my military service is a level of derailment that dwarfs anything I do? Or are you so enamored of him that he can do no wrong?. So more wriggling, you made the claim, back it I dont need to deny what obama said, but the way it was described by "posters" was opinion , not fact. But you DID make a lousy claim about the blackberries. Instead of saying you were wrong, the whole page is you trying to say other people are to blame for your posts lack of intellectual honesty, when that is merely down to you. I dont speak for ron, I only speak for myself, so why would I deny something I didnt say. You cant admit when you are wrong, why would someone like Butch apologise for you? Im expecting you to be honest. Im not apologizing for ron. Once again after crying about being bullied, and wanting to shut down your attackers, you are back to making personal attacks on rons "drinking" mental capacity, his" brain damage", you even suggest that Im enamoured of ron. I dont agree with Rons terminology a lot of the time, however I DO agree with him when he uses facts. Should there come a time you use facts in an argument,(outside of gun threads) I will agree with you too.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (4/26/2016 3:04:40 PM)
Audie Murphy and I got it done in one tour, we did it the first time. You couldnt get it right in 18. You said you got a disability discharge at 18 years as an E5. Sorry pal, thats a RIF. Dole. Welfare. You spew lying propaganda out here. I am aware that the FBI has never mentioned the number of emails or anything else in this ongoing investigation of any substance, other than that they are investigating the handling of confidential information on the server. And the FBI themselves damn sure have not given a number. Everything was classified after the fact. But another lie, and still no credible citations of your other numerous lies.

Page: << < prev 40 41 [42] 43 44 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.298828E-02