Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Here's the Clinton Email Smoking Gun!!!! More

Here's the Clinton Email Smoking Gun!!!!

Comments Filter:

  • Hillary Clinton hopes you are busy. [wsj.com] Hillary Clinton hopes you are confused. Hillary Clinton hopes the endless stories about her private email server--and her endless, fabulist explanations--will make your head hurt, make your eyes cross, make you give up trying to figure it out.
    All you really need to know at this point is this: Pretty much every claim Mrs. Clinton made at her initial March news conference, and since then, is false. In the spirit of keeping it simple, here’s the Complete Busy Person’s Guide to the Clinton Email Scandal. Stick it on the fridge.
    Why she kept a private server...
    Why she finally gave her emails to the State Department...
    What she turned over...
    What is in State Department records...
    Classified information...
    Security...
    Transparency.
    Clinton (on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sept. 27): "I think I have done all that I can . . . to be as transparent as possible."
    Truth: Give her marks for this one. Mrs. Clinton is undoubtedly being as transparent as Mrs. Clinton can possibly be.

    As with Obama, it's unclear when Her Majesty has ever told the truth. Should the country prove stupid enough to empower Her Majesty, I'm totally blaming the victim.

    • You have already decided for yourself The Only True Answer to those questions, and you will accept no other answer. You are convinced that there is something terrible hidden in there, possibly connecting Benghazi to Monica Lewinksi to Whitewater to Obamacare and wrapping up with some NWO stuff as well. I'd have an easier time convincing the Pope that their might not be a god than I have had trying to convince you that your conspiracies on this matter might be stretched a bit thin.
      • Given the behavior to date, your moans of

        "You have already decided for yourself The Only True Answer to those questions. . ."

        are the height of speciousness. Your first million: go on a comedy tour while pretending and protesting Her Majesty's innocence. Your laughs, fame, and burial under a vegetable medley are assured.
        Her Majesty is a law unto Herself. That is "The Only True Answer". And our little peasant butts had better genuflect! Some of us, remembering liberty, will muster less enthusiasm.

        • At 4:19pm Friday October 2 you said:

          pretending and protesting Her Majesty's innocence

          Yet slightly less than a full 24 hours earlier, at 4:30pm Thursday October 1st you claimed:

          Saying that I've called for assassinations, disregard of due process

          I figured you could at least make it 24 hours without contradicting yourself, but apparently you cannot.

          • Can't begin to fathom what you're talking about. Are you saying my vowels contradict my consonants, or are you being more subtle than that? Also, are you quoting too generously? Shouldn't you whittle it down to:

            Her

            and

            I've

            so that you can show an inarguable shift from third- to first-person?
            Restated: since it sure seems as though your arguments are utter crap, why not just go for Peak Crap from the get-go?

            • Don't be daft. In less than 24 hours you went from claiming to support the rule of law to being certain that she's guilty with no need for law. Your support for the law flipped more quickly than any house on cable.
              • Why don't you look at what I actually said: "She's a law unto herself." And

                A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the "letter and spirit of the rules."

                So Her Majesty must be guiltless by the simple tautology that whatever she does is automatically kosher, right?
                The little Stompyfoot McPointyfinger

                Your support for the law flipped more quickly than any house on cable

                antics are the height of absurd. Workin' hard, tryin' to come up with a suggestion of how you could improve upon the peevish tone. . .

                • Why don't you look at what I actually said: "She's a law unto herself." And

                  Your opinion on Hillary is at best a small part of why you so rapidly twist and turn on your "belief" in the rule of law. Your hatred of Democrats - and how enthusiastically you will shred the constitution to persecute them for being Democrats - is exceptionally well documented here.

                  • It's not the label, it's the fascist behavior pattern, and the resulting wreckage. With which you, as a general impression, seem strangely comfortable.

                    • fascist behavior pattern

                      I'm curious to know who you think you are referring to now. I understand you yearn to redefine communist and a large number of terms that you want to relate to it. But really, are you expecting to get away with redefining fascist as well?

                      Because if you're talking about Hillary, there is plenty wrong with her for sure. But she is not a fascist.

                    • I understand you yearn to redefine communist

                      For "look at the historical wreckage in the wake of self-identifying Communists" values of "redefine".
                      The Communism you espouse, as far as I've been able to glean, is the thumb-sucking hooey of academic charlatans.

                    • As you wander further away from the topic, it is worthwhile to get back to where we were before...

                      I'm curious to know who you think you are referring to now. I understand you yearn to redefine communist and a large number of terms that you want to relate to it. But really, are you expecting to get away with redefining fascist as well?

                      For "look at the historical wreckage in the wake of self-identifying Communists" values of "redefine".

                      What you just said is another fascinating case of you applying vastly different realities to people you don't like than you apply to those who you do. For example, when supporters of Bush claim to be "conservatives", you claim that they are not, because you like conservatives. However, when people you don't like - particularly those who have been dead for decades and left with no way to defend themselves - a

                    • For example, when supporters of Bush claim to be "conservatives", you claim that they are not, because you like conservatives.

                      And yet you cheerfully claim Obama is a conservative, too (?).
                      If you want to punt on the labels, rate the figures in question based upon where they fall on the question of the individual vs. the state.

                    • For example, when supporters of Bush claim to be "conservatives", you claim that they are not, because you like conservatives.

                      And yet you cheerfully claim Obama is a conservative, too (?).

                      And in support of my previous argument, you claim that he is not, because you don't like him but you like conservatives. What happened to the "big tent party" and all that?

                    • Your weak attempt at changing the subject is duly noted and tee-heed. (Tee hee.)

                    • changing the subject

                      That is certainly an area you have expertise in. If you wanted to surprise me, you could instead try going back to the subject.

                    • Slashdot is the eternal subjective walkabout, no?
                    • With some people, yes. I have seen other slashdot users who actually stay on topic.
                    • And are you proffering yourself as some paragon of virtue, here? Wait, let me get some booty-reattachment glue before you do.

                    • And are you proffering yourself as some paragon of virtue

                      Staying on topic is not really something I consider to be any kind of high virtue, though I do not hold in high esteem arguments that are based on shifting the topic away from its starting point ASAP.

                    • Oh, tish-tosh. Your leaky-diaper arguments about staying "on topic" are merely a sign of overflow. You have shown exactly ZERO hesitation to troll, hijack, tear, spindle and mutilate a thread when it suits.
                    • I don't see you making any effort to go back to the topic, here. Your disconnection from reality is again noted. Just keep on blaming the victim and we'll see how far you get.

        • Some of us, remembering liberty...

          When did you have more liberty than you do now?

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Close