RE: Hillary Probed

RE: Hillary Probed (Full Version)

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

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (6/30/2016 5:52:30 PM)
Nope just the same old nutsuckers are nutsuckers.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Hillary Probed (6/30/2016 5:56:33 PM)
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".

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (6/30/2016 5:57:55 PM)
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. You are the koolaid crowd, I think any reasonable person would tell you fucking nutsuckers to suck a wad of cowpiss, Any lawyer representing anyone would also tell the nutsuckers to suck a wad of cowpiss as they are doing with Judicial watch the nutsucker hit shiteaters, of course lawyers use different codewords.

lovmuffin -> RE: Hillary Probed (6/30/2016 6:03:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Damn near everyone is a Nutsucker now [8D] 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 [8D]

BamaD -> RE: Hillary Probed (6/30/2016 6:30:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Damn near everyone is a Nutsucker now [8D] 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 [8D] Yes, I have noticed that not only do they tell the same lie at the same time, but they often use the exact same words, other than their signature obscene insults.

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (6/30/2016 6:33:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Damn near everyone is a Nutsucker now [8D] 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! while im here: 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

lovmuffin -> RE: Hillary Probed (6/30/2016 6:46:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Damn near everyone is a Nutsucker now [8D] 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.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (6/30/2016 7:20:51 PM)
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????

thompsonx -> RE: Hillary Probed (6/30/2016 8:37:02 PM)
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???? Remember when your children were young and you indulged them with stories of santa clause. How can you, a mother, be less indulgent with these children?[;)] They have little else but their dream world and you would crush that??? Don't point an accustory finger at me...I'm a mother fucker not a mother like you....and I am not nearly as polite.[:D]

thompsonx -> RE: Hillary Probed (6/30/2016 9:05:26 PM)
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". How lucky for you that you have me on hide[8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (7/1/2016 2:59:13 AM)
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". ad nauseam, fuckwhistle, it means to nausea it does not mean to nauseu. Nobody gives the glimmer of a good goddamn fuck about you nobodies. But you do point out the pages and pages of circlefelch recycled again and again by nutsuckers on these same two or three topics they start ad nauseam makes them even more ineffectual nutsuckers than they are by dint of their cretinism.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (7/1/2016 3:08:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Damn near everyone is a Nutsucker now [8D] 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. LOLOLOL. The nutsuckers are in massive circlefelch, tongues at the ready. I take little comfort in the fact that you have self identified as a nutsucker, it means your stupidity level is so high, you will not learn from your nutsuckerism. I think you will find that when the FBI clears Hillary (ran by a nutsucker that organization) that Lynch will be in the Clinton Administration. I do agree there has been some excellent research performed here by nutsuckers on why they are such ineffectual, factless, pantshitting felchgobblers, but being the retards that they are they are unaware that is what they are proving is only that they are superb toiletlickers. But I do find it puzzling that anyone would think that Bill would care about the perception of anyone particularly nutsuckers, he knows how ineffectual they are, having been presented a bill of impeachement which he subsequently wiped his ass with. Nutsuckers gotta nutsuck.

lovmuffin -> RE: Hillary Probed (7/1/2016 3:57:09 AM)
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 ?

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (7/1/2016 4:00:54 AM)
The content is factless suppositions and circlefelching, there is no attacking the messenger here, they are just idiotic nutsuckers, the message is, there is no message contained in that drivel. Ronald Reagan had syphilitic dementia for at least 20 years before becoming president. Address the content.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (7/1/2016 4:22:36 AM)
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 ? SO you cant answer the questions, so you attack the messenger, (as you certainly do not add anything but bitching to any thread) ....There is NO FACT in the message that is any different than the last 70 pages of bilge posted that says so much but means NOTHING. Maybes, probably's, possiblys, Ifs, whens or paranoia, is NOT facts. I asked a question directly. Has the FBI actually found evidence of wrong doing? can she (loretta lynch) hide the fbi report from the American people. Are you still kissing trumps ring?? why wont you discuss facts???? much easier to circle jerk with the big bad boys. and deny facts. THe messenger IS the fucking problem in this case, paranoid, delusional sad ol men. your post is a perfect example. how weak are you really?

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (7/1/2016 4:42:11 AM)
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 ? never mind the fact that one day, getting fed up with her dissembling and whining about sources, I went through the entire thread, counted and marked how the sources were tremendously varied and contained a significant amount of leftie and arguably middle of the road sources. here it is again, just in case the comrades are capable of learning: 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. in the meantime, the last ~30 of my posts where content has been referenced includes material from 19 different sources. maybe the comrades can address all those too?

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (7/1/2016 4:52:01 AM)
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." and as far as lucy, that's all she ever has too---dismiss the source out of hand.

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (7/1/2016 4:55:44 AM)
None of which (if they were credible sources) have assigned any guilt to Clinton. They arent varied, the sources are townhall. How many town halls have you counted? (several townhalls were refelches of WND and several Breitbart, by way of example) Where is the list? how many https://www.fbi.gov/news and so on? Hell how about a gross listing count? Nutsucker slobberblog count Leftie count middle of the road count and if its arguable in your factless world, then arguable middle of the road goes with nutsucker slobberblogs. Case in point, Drudge is a nutsucker slobberblog, and shitbreathed in with the NYT in your factless shitbreathing. pretty much downhill from there. go back and count how many townhalls are a refelch of WND articles or another nutsucker slobberblog, and you will be able to factor your nutsuckerslobberblogging into about 2 nutsucker slobberblog citations of no value. #EPICNUTSUCKERFAIL No FBI.GOV/news ?

mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (7/1/2016 4:57:45 AM)
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." que shitlicker44s predictable toiletlickng and slobbering felchgobbling.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (7/1/2016 4:58:20 AM)
you went thru the entire 1516 messages? LMFAO ok, tell you what Im gonna do, Im gonna do the same, and count all the posts And we can dissect the numbers...Ill be back on monday with the results. Nothing I have posted, you can or have been able to argue with, nor debunked, or even found to be wrong. where as YOUR and your moronic drivel has been proven to be "factless" so far. oh a nice edit..well done, Im afraid mine will be a bit more comprehensive than yours, LOL

Page: << < prev 74 75 [76] 77 78 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125