Liberal Forum

larryc12 » 04 Aug 2017 10:22 am » wrote: No, I didn't miss any point... (and other and sundry aberrations, ramifications, fixations, lamentations, prevarications, hallucinations, and incantations)

Yes, you did miss the point. The posting was in response to what OlFuk wrote about Misty.

O.E. » 04 Aug 2017 3:43 am » wrote:They didn't get everything they wanted, as they still miss the times when women knew their place, and they could chase ****** off the sidewalk. Also, they have yet to exact their revenge for years and years of fear from this powerful woman. They'll not be satisfied until she burns at the stake. Not to forget: The politically more astute among them (I know, I know) have by now probably realized that, out of sheer spite, they've elected what is best dubbed "a ludicrous catastrophe" at every level you care to name.

All told, the little piddlers have ample reason to be angry, and they know no better than to inflict it on those in a position to tell them, "I told you so!"

Good points.

Misty » 04 Aug 2017 10:53 am » wrote: Good points.

How appropriate this idiocy is in the humor thread.


Great, great work!


Say, how's your party doing, moonbat? Didn't yet another Democrat governor switch parties?

Misty » 04 Aug 2017 10:53 am » wrote: Any McGrath for Congress

Hey psycho, you've bleated for years that you're a Republican.

I don't once recall that you've admitted to being a Democrat.

Why are you promoting a Democrat for Congress?

You haven't been lying to us all that time, have you?

Naaaah!

indago » 04 Aug 2017 6:16 am » wrote: From The Washington Post 12 October 2016:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He just came strolling right in. There was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless. Others girls were naked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
article

"Well, I'll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it. You know, I'm inspecting, I want to make sure that everything is good.

You know, the dresses. ‘Is everyone okay?’ You know, they're standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that."

Looks pretty damning to me...

I gave that moron a **** load of more than reasonable facts for my dislike of Sir Tweets-A-Lot, but he just keeps repeating that crap.
He's as crazy as a loon.

indago » 04 Aug 2017 10:29 am » wrote:
Yes, you did miss the point. The posting was in response to what OlFuk wrote about Misty.

Oh, whatever indy. I responded to what you said, regardless of what you were responding to. Now, being the "good leftwinger" you are, you edited my post. Be proud, be very proud.

larryc12 » 04 Aug 2017 10:22 am » wrote:Is it not evident to you that the special counsel on Trump and the election without the same for Hillary and her unlawful handling of classified information is subversion of the rule of law in this country? I didn't vote for Trump, but I don't know what he could have done that measures up to exposing Top Secret information to the world, yet he is the one being investigated while Hillary walks away unscathed. That's not a but...but....it's about our Constitution and the rule of law it provides. You ought to be just as concerned about that as I.

So then you must have been very concerned when The Terror Of Twitter discussed highly classified intelligence that was provided to us by Israel with a couple of Russians, right?

When it comes to their Circus Peanut Messiah they whine, "Where's the evidence?"
But when it comes to Obama or Clinton they don't need no stinkin' proof before declaring them guilty of all sorts of crimes.

Misty » 04 Aug 2017 11:16 am » wrote: So then you must have been very concerned when The Terror Of Twitter discussed highly classified intelligence that was provided to us by Israel with a couple of Russians, right?

When it comes to their Circus Peanut Messiah they whine, "Where's the evidence?"
But when it comes to Obama or Clinton they don't need no stinkin' proof before declaring them guilty of all sorts of crimes.

That's the hypocrisy in a nutshell.

You should call me tonight.

Misty » 04 Aug 2017 11:16 am » wrote: So then you must have been very concerned when The Terror Of Twitter discussed highly classified intelligence that was provided to us by Israel with a couple of Russians, right?

The President of the United States has the right to discuss classified information with whomever he wishes. Hillary never had any such right to handle classified information the way she did. You know that. You just have the double standard working for you. It's great to be a democrat.

When it comes to their Circus Peanut Messiah they whine, "Where's the evidence?"
But when it comes to Obama or Clinton they don't need no stinkin' proof before declaring them guilty of all sorts of crimes.

Hillary Clinton has been proven to have willfully and unlawfully handled Top Secret information. She walked away unscathed, but we have Mueller out there organizing grand juries searching for something to hang on Trump or associates. If he or they have committed crimes, then indict them, but Hillary is already known to have committed crime after crime and to this point, nothing is done about it. Do you believe in the rule of law or not? Or is it just the "if and when" scenario for you?

Annoyed Liberall » 04 Aug 2017 11:18 am » wrote:That's the hypocrisy in a nutshell.

You should call me tonight.

Okay, or you can call me, since I will probably forget this like I forget everything else.

Misty » 04 Aug 2017 11:16 am » wrote: So then you must have been very concerned when The Terror Of Twitter discussed highly classified intelligence that was provided to us by Israel with a couple of Russians, right?

When it comes to their Circus Peanut Messiah they whine, "Where's the evidence?"
But when it comes to Obama or Clinton they don't need no stinkin' proof before declaring them guilty of all sorts of crimes.

RESIST!! (posting non humorous posts or responding to those that do in kind)

THINK OF THE FUNNY!

and yet, she persisted.

larryc12 » 04 Aug 2017 11:34 am » wrote:The President of the United States has the right to discuss classified information with whomever he wishes. Hillary never had any such right to handle classified information the way she did. You know that. You just have the double standard working for you.
Hillary Clinton has been proven to have willfully and unlawfully handled Top Secret information. She walked away unscathed, but we have Mueller out there organizing grand juries searching for something to hang on Trump or associates. If he or they have committed crimes, then indict them, but Hillary is already known to have committed crime after crime and to this point, nothing is done about it. Do you believe in the rule of law or not? Or is it just the "if and when" scenario for you?

Trump probably harmed our intelligence sharing relationship with Israel, not to mention putting their security in jeopardy.

Any country that shares intelligence with us is now having to think twice about doing that.
They don't know if they can trust this president not to share it with a country that our allies see as an adversary, but he seems to see as a friend.

Their reluctance to share intelligence with us only makes us less safe.

larryc12 » 04 Aug 2017 11:34 am » wrote:It's great to be a democrat.

Wouldn't know.
I've never been a registered Dem.
Liberal yes.
Democrat no.

NeoConvict » 04 Aug 2017 12:13 pm » wrote: RESIST!! (posting non humorous posts or responding to those that do in kind)

THINK OF THE FUNNY!

and yet, she persisted.

I try my best to keep this thread about the funny, but it's a losing battle.

When people like Larry, who have no sense of humor show up, I should send their **** to the Peanut Gallery, but then they start whining that I am censoring them.

Back to the funny.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilvers ... l-bid/amp/

larryc12 » 04 Aug 2017 11:34 am » wrote:The President of the United States has the right to discuss classified information with whomever he wishes. Hillary never had any such right to handle classified information the way she did. You know that. You just have the double standard working for you. It's great to be a democrat.

Hillary Clinton has been proven to have willfully and unlawfully handled Top Secret information. She walked away unscathed, but we have Mueller out there organizing grand juries searching for something to hang on Trump or associates. If he or they have committed crimes, then indict them, but Hillary is already known to have committed crime after crime and to this point, nothing is done about it. Do you believe in the rule of law or not? Or is it just the "if and when" scenario for you?

Say, Larry, how long have you been running with that putrid collection of myths? All do it, Dems do worse, but get away Scot free, while Special Prosecutors only go after the GOP?

The Trumpy actually transferred information, classified at the highest level, to a hostile nation, undermining or even destroying the international intelligence cooperation upon which we depend for our security. There is no evidence that any of the information Hillary had on her private server ever leaked out, and you can bet your arse, if it had, we'd have heard about it by now. The Trumpy gets a pass from you, Hillary doesn't.

Oh yeah, then there's the little fact that Hillary did just as Powell did before her, and several dozen White House officials doing official business, amounting to tens of millions of emails, over a - private! - RNC server. So yes, there's precedent for the way in which Hillary proceeded, upon Powell's advice. Powell gets a pass from you, so do several dozen Bush White House officials, Hillary doesn't.

Moreover, remember Starr? Need I say more? Ah yes, in your view it is the height of injustice that Mueller goes after the Trumpy every which way a competent prosecutor would, installed by, wait for it, a Republican-appointed assistant AG. This assistant AG had no other way to proceed after the Trumpy admitted he fired the formerly investigating FBI chief (the same who investigated Hillary) because Comey wouldn't let the Russia investigation go. So, the Trumpy in his very finite wisdom, brought this prosecutor upon himself. Cue your whining about it. That Hillary had been investigated by the very man the Trumpy fired doesn't show up in your account.

But hey, Hillary is known to have "committed crime after crime", crimes you don't bother to name, so-called "crimes" the FBI boss, whom the Trumpy fired, didn't think warranted charges (neither did anyone else in the U.S. justice system who had a say on the matter, including one Mr. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions), but the Trumpy does get a pass from you, whereas Hillary doesn't.

You know what is funny about that? I'll tell you: All of it. Most of all that you would even so much as try to dress up with an equitable flair. Really, Larry, do realize you yourself are the punch line of a joke you forgot to tell.

Misty » 04 Aug 2017 12:30 pm » wrote:Lazy boy

What does a psychopath call someone with a stunningly high work load who's doing everything he can to keep most of his campaign promises?

"Lazy."

Misty » 04 Aug 2017 12:21 pm » wrote:Trump probably harmed our intelligence sharing relationship with Israel, not to mention putting their security in jeopardy.

Any country that shares intelligence with us is now having to think twice about doing that.
They don't know if they can trust this president not to share it with a country that our allies see as an adversary, but he seems to see as a friend.

Their reluctance to share intelligence with us only makes us less safe.

Absolutely stunning coming from someone who didn't care one bit about Hillary's illegally negligent server.

Trump's officials said he didn't reveal anything significant, and at worst it was a minor incident.

Your claims as usual are 99% ****.

Termin8tor » 04 Aug 2017 12:35 pm » wrote: What does a psychopath call someone with a stunningly high work load who's doing everything he can to keep most of his campaign promises?

"Lazy."

His workload is no worse than any other President's.
Now he is going golfing for 2 weeks.
Funny how that works......