First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply DNC emails reveals what we knew all along
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/15/16
10 years of accuracy and being hailed as a champion by the left when they were revealing things about the bush administration but suddenly when wikileaks starts putting out stuff for Hillary Clinton easily one of the most corrupt politicians of all time, suddenly certain leftists start saying they have doubts about them lol. Your timing is both predictable and impeccable.

DNC was point, they literally show you the corruption of your "people's champion" and her election fraud with no uncertainty and suddenly certain leftists don't like the way wikileaks sticks their nose in politics. Doesn't matter that your champion is a crook, he should keep his nose out lol.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/15/16 , edited 10/15/16

sundin13 wrote:

Is this considered damning, because it doesn't read that way to me. It sounds like people collaborating with experts to figure out who the other experts are.


An email where two people state they are going "all in" and reference "wet works" (a very common term for assassination) just before a prominent political adversaries death does not seem damning to you? Sure it isn't proof they were involved with Scalia but the fact that two authorities of a political party are talking about going "all in" on "wetworks" doesn't raise some serious flags with you?
13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/15/16

Punk_Mela wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Is this considered damning, because it doesn't read that way to me. It sounds like people collaborating with experts to figure out who the other experts are.


An email where two people state they are going "all in" and reference "wet works" (a very common term for assassination) just before a prominent political adversaries death does not seem damning to you? Sure it isn't proof they were involved with Scalia but the fact that two authorities of a political party are talking about going "all in" on "wetworks" doesn't raise some serious flags with you?


I was talking about the emails from the OP, but no, one word does not an assassination conspiracy make. The only flags that get raised are serious "loon" flags from the people pushing this garbage.
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/16 , edited 10/15/16

Punk_Mela wrote:
An email where two people state they are going "all in" and reference "wet works" (a very common term for assassination)


That you just found on Wikipedia? -.-

They're referring to using an angle of attack on Sanders:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/chelsea-clinton-bernie-sanders/424623/


Conservative websites gleefully denounced Chelsea the “attack dog.” Democrats, meanwhile, wrung their hands over why she of all people would be dispatched to do this kind of wet work.


24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/15/16 , edited 10/15/16
According to some the emails also prove another thing.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/15/16 , edited 10/15/16

runec wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:
An email where two people state they are going "all in" and reference "wet works" (a very common term for assassination)


That you just found on Wikipedia? -.-

They're referring to using an angle of attack on Sanders:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/chelsea-clinton-bernie-sanders/424623/


Conservative websites gleefully denounced Chelsea the “attack dog.” Democrats, meanwhile, wrung their hands over why she of all people would be dispatched to do this kind of wet work.




I don't know how many times I have to ask you to stop messaging me, you may have noticed I had stopped messaging you. But I can't imagine taking someone who quotes the atlantic, wired, and thinks destroying subpoenaed evidence is good for the US seriously. And you can't imagine anything your parents or CNN didn't tell you to imagine so we really don't have any reason to continue a conversation. Adios amigo.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/15/16

sundin13 wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Is this considered damning, because it doesn't read that way to me. It sounds like people collaborating with experts to figure out who the other experts are.


An email where two people state they are going "all in" and reference "wet works" (a very common term for assassination) just before a prominent political adversaries death does not seem damning to you? Sure it isn't proof they were involved with Scalia but the fact that two authorities of a political party are talking about going "all in" on "wetworks" doesn't raise some serious flags with you?


I was talking about the emails from the OP, but no, one word does not an assassination conspiracy make. The only flags that get raised are serious "loon" flags from the people pushing this garbage.


Yes because the notion that high profile political figures may be involved in the deaths of other high profile political figures is loony and not something that has happened since the beginning of government.

If nothing else it doesn't strike you as an unusual coincidence that may merit further investigation that they used a common term for assassination, said it would be a rough night but they were all in, the night a prominent political figure of opposing ideology died?
13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/15/16 , edited 10/15/16

Punk_Mela wrote:

Yes because the notion that high profile political figures may be involved in the deaths of other high profile political figures is loony and not something that has happened since the beginning of government.

If nothing else it doesn't strike you as an unusual coincidence that may merit further investigation that they used a common term for assassination, said it would be a rough night but they were all in, the night a prominent political figure of opposing ideology died?


The notion that one word which has other uses (as others have already pointed out) is enough to start a conspiracy theory based around the death of an old man with a history of medical issues, who is thought to have died from natural causes, is a bit loony.

PS: It wasn't the night of Scalia's death, it was several nights before. However, the email was the same day that some information on Sanders was released (aka wet work) and on the same day as the NH primaries which Clinton lost (aka rough night). You're reaching.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/15/16

sundin13 wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

Yes because the notion that high profile political figures may be involved in the deaths of other high profile political figures is loony and not something that has happened since the beginning of government.

If nothing else it doesn't strike you as an unusual coincidence that may merit further investigation that they used a common term for assassination, said it would be a rough night but they were all in, the night a prominent political figure of opposing ideology died?


The notion that one word which has other uses (as others have already pointed out) is enough to start a conspiracy theory based around the death of an old man with a history of medical issues, who is thought to have died from natural causes, is a bit loony.

PS: It wasn't the night of Scalia's death, it was several nights before. However, the email was the same day that some information on Sanders was released (aka wet work) and on the same day as the NH primaries which Clinton lost (aka rough night). You're reaching.


No one is starting a conspiracy or reaching, I even said it in an earlier post that there is no way this signifies anything resembling credible evidence that they were involved in the death of Scalia. But scrutinizing private comments that reference assassination (whether they mean it in that sense or not) is an obvious thing to do. Especially when we have seen they are not above things like rigging the DNC against Sanders.
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/16

Punk_Mela wrote:
I don't know how many times I have to ask you to stop messaging me, you may have noticed I had stopped messaging you.


A) Zero times.
B) It's a forum. Not your inbox.
C) If you're going to put forth statements that can be easily debunked with 5 seconds of research I will feel compelled to generously do it for you.
D) I find your attempts to flounce away while attributing a variety of imagined traits on me bemusing.

-.-


18686 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 10/15/16

MysticGon wrote:

According to some the emails also prove another thing.


looks like putin is the one with small hands there
Posted 10/15/16

runec wrote:


RaisedInACult wrote:
you're uneasy about wikileaks having a ton of bad crap about the clintons and the establishment, and think they are being biased because there isnt the similar massive fields of fodder upon which to draw?


See, but what I said is backed up by the US intelligent community. What you said is a conspiracy theory.




RaisedInACult wrote:
and here's a link for you www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com - it'll help when trying to debate people and present a logically sound argument.

you can start with the ad hominem section


When you present something other than a stream of conspiracy theories you can talk about "logically sound argument"s. I did try to debate you at first until you started wandering off into jet fuel steel beam territory. There's no point in debating tin foil hat arguments.


lol wth? are you trying to use the comey whitewash or something? hahaha

they are all linked, if you knew much of anything about what I was talking about then you mighta pieced that together!

please, tell me more about how the top 20 floors of a building can crush the bottom 90 hahahaha
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/15/16

runec wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:
I don't know how many times I have to ask you to stop messaging me, you may have noticed I had stopped messaging you.


A) Zero times.
B) It's a forum. Not your inbox.
C) If you're going to put forth statements that can be easily debunked with 5 seconds of research I will feel compelled to generously do it for you.
D) I find your attempts to flounce away while attributing a variety of imagined traits on me bemusing.

-.-




A) That's actually the amount of times you have read my comments in their entirety not how many times I have told you to stop quoting me.
B) It is a forum, with lots of users go back to you and your buddies echoing opinions and stop quoting me.
C) You haven't ever actually debunked a statement of mine and whenever I debunk yours you come up with grade A excuses like "destroying subpoenaed evidence with a hammer is actually a more effective way of disposing of classified material, she should have done it more!" Still, cracks me up to be honest.
D) No one has flounced away, there was a time when I naively tried to talk about political ideologies with you in an actual conversation, you put an end to that real fast. I will admit I have some solid image traits of you that I also find amusing, I am hoping one day you will post some pics of yourself and your lifestyle so I can see how close I got.

For real now, adios amigo.
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/16 , edited 10/15/16

Punk_Mela wrote:
A) That's actually the amount of times you have read my comments in their entirety not how many times I have told you to stop quoting me.
B) It is a forum, with lots of users go back to you and your buddies echoing opinions and stop quoting me.
C) You haven't ever actually debunked a statement of mine and whenever I debunk yours you come up with grade A excuses like "destroying subpoenaed evidence with a hammer is actually a more effective way of disposing of classified material, she should have done it more!" Still, cracks me up to be honest.
D) No one has flounced away, there was a time when I naively tried to talk about political ideologies with you in an actual conversation, you put an end to that real fast. I will admit I have some solid image traits of you that I also find amusing, I am hoping one day you will post some pics of yourself and your lifestyle so I can see how close I got.

For real now, adios amigo.


You have not said A "many times", for B its a public forum, for C I never said that ( in fact I said the opposite of that but you continued on with your misunderstanding regardless. Unaware the entire time that I had actually agreed with you.. ) and for D no, you did not. Your "actual conversation" with me involved telling me I was delusional, asking if I was 12 and wondering if I found it sad that my back was so broken over trying to "twist and turn" to find answers.

You then ended an "actual" conversation where you "tried to talk" with and I quote:

"I'm done responding though, you are clearly beyond help seeing how you neither read the other users posts nor respond to the points they make. You simply veer off into irrelevant digressions that keep you in your safe little bubble and that is boring and a waste of time for everyone else."

And off you flounced.

But by all means, continue to act the wounded martyr stricken down from his moral high ground. ;p



27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 10/15/16

Punk_Mela wrote:

10 years of accuracy and being hailed as a champion by the left when they were revealing things about the bush administration but suddenly when wikileaks starts putting out stuff for Hillary Clinton easily one of the most corrupt politicians of all time, suddenly certain leftists start saying they have doubts about them lol. Your timing is both predictable and impeccable.

DNC was point, they literally show you the corruption of your "people's champion" and her election fraud with no uncertainty and suddenly certain leftists don't like the way wikileaks sticks their nose in politics. Doesn't matter that your champion is a crook, he should keep his nose out lol.


What do you mean, "my"?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.