. — Page 84

"It is dishonest to say that the Clinton Campaign, and I am not blaming her personally but her campaign, has been on an anti-religious agenda. This is not just one email. This is Washington Post saying this...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/12/wikileaks-emails-show-clinton-spokeswoman-joking-about-catholics-and-evangelicals"

Do you even read the things you link to? Or do you just look at headlines and think, "Oh! I like that!" That Washington Post piece you've linked to is about the same single email conversation from 2011 that we've been discussing all along.

Your other two examples use language like "appears to suggest" and "appeared to show." And do you know why? Because those are suppositions, not verified facts. The "Catholic Spring" one requires deep reading (which you clearly haven't done, or you would realize that it's fabricated), and the Sanders accusation is against the DNC from a time long before Clinton was the candidate, meaning her team was not even involved. (You really don't read the articles, do you?)

Clearly, you are going to continue to believe what you want to believe, without doing any actual reading or research to discover what's real and what's imaginary. You'll find yourself very comfortable at Hillary Haters Anonymous meetings.

Updated On: 10/13/16 at 10:28 AM

I do not understand why we can not have a discussion without insults and saying this person is that person. so childish. Maybe it is because Carlos Albert is Carlos Danger?

Petralicious said: "I do not understand why we can not have a discussion without insults and saying this person is that person. so childish. Maybe it is because Carlos Albert is Carlos Danger?



Nice try b!tch, maybe it's because you're just a fucking MORON who lacks reading comprehension and basic writing skills.

Updated On: 10/13/16 at 01:54 PM

Petralicious/SueStorm--you know perfectly well that Julian Assange is an agent of the Putin government, and that all emails "released" by Putin's Wikileaks have been either edited, rewritten, or created at the behest of Vladimir Putin.

But since you yourself are an agent of the Putin government that raped the Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea, after ethnically cleansing it and replacing its citizenry with Putin-loving Ruskie bloodsuckers, I'm sure these fictionalized Wikileaked emails are reality to you.

Calling yourself names dear?

DKG is taking a break from the circus...I mean "election" this week. What a "HugE" surprise seeing Doris Kearns Goodwin pop up in AHS Roanoke. In addition to her wealth of Presidential knowledge she must have a very good sense of humor. Just watching her alone made that bloodbath much more fun. Also Evan Peters (yes, pun intended), is also a hooo-t with his man-on-man action! And if you ever told me that Doris Kearns Goodwin would be showing up in the same show/script as "your purple c*ckhead" I would have said you are certifiable!

Now, back to our regular $hit$how!

btw, Does Elton John know that Trump is using "Funeral For A Friend" at his rallies?? That would really suck!

Just like these two girls...

http://www.towleroad.com/2016/10/gay-couple-trump/

stupid, deplorable and sad

Updated On: 10/14/16 at 07:50 PM

Hey PJ, Thanks for that succinct and totally correct description of that "consort from Hell" ...oops I meant

J ASSange. I knew these leaks were coming and they will continue. That false alarm last week was just that effer's way of "drip, drip, drip...goes the water"...Why can't someone drone bomb his ass?

I'm not saying the Dems feel confident, but they're sending FLOTUS to campaign in Arizona.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-campaign-arizona-strategy-229884

Matt Drudge tweeted this on saturday. Nothing happened yet:

WIth tweets like that, it's always the thousands of "likes" that are most sickening.

Steve C. said: "Why can't someone drone bomb his ass?"

Are you advocating that the United States military attack the Embassy of Ecuador in London? (I realize that you're likely being hyperbolic, but personally I don't find the US campaign of drone assassinations to be any kind of laughing matter.)

What has Assange done to deserve that, anyhow? Assuming the documents are not fabricated, I think the more information we have, the better. The only complaint I have is that we haven't gotten a similar peak into the inner workings of the Trump campaign.

Frankly, one of the most noxious things about the Obama administration has been its desire to keep so many secrets, and especially its penchant for destroying the lives of anyone who dares expose them. I do fear that this will continue under the Clinton administration, though the alternative is far worse.

(Regarding Assange, he probably should be made to answer for the crimes he's accused of in Sweden. But that's a separate issue, and it still doesn't call for execution by unmanned aircraft.)

kdogg36 said: "Steve C. said: "Why can't someone drone bomb his ass?"

Are you advocating that the United States military attack the Embassy of Ecuador in London? (I realize that you're likely being hyperbolic, but personally I don't find the US campaign of drone assassinations to be any kind of laughing matter.)

What has Assange done to deserve that, anyhow? Assuming the documents are not fabricated, I think the more information we have, the better. The only complaint I have is that we haven't gotten a similar peak into the inner workings of the Trump campaign.

Frankly, one of the most noxious things about the Obama administration has been its desire to keep so many secrets, and especially its penchant for destroying the lives of anyone who dares expose them. I do fear that this will continue under the Clinton administration, though the alternative is far worse.

(Regarding Assange, he probably should be made to answer for the crimes he's accused of in Sweden. But that's a separate issue, and it still doesn't call for execution by unmanned aircraft.)





He's breaking the law, for starters.

"Assuming the documents are not fabricated, I think the more information we have, the better."

Starting right there, that's an enormous assumption for which there's absolutely zero proof. Anyone can make a fake pdf of a fake email. (I always advise using a great helping of skepticism with anything one sees online or in the paper, even if it's relatively interesting and jibes with one's point of view.)