The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?
That's not the real story. The insiders have always leaked to the press. Have you never heard of Deep Throat? This is how we keep tabs on our elected leaders. God bless the whistle blowers.
A whistleblower courageously comes forward to the public. It puts a face to the accusation which is far more powerful compared to unsubstantiated leaks. It doesn't mean the leaks are not accurate but this is not the same.
so you want to see them found in a dumpster with a bullet hole in the back of their head?
The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?
That's not the real story. The insiders have always leaked to the press. Have you never heard of Deep Throat? This is how we keep tabs on our elected leaders. God bless the whistle blowers.
A whistleblower courageously comes forward to the public. It puts a face to the accusation which is far more powerful compared to unsubstantiated leaks. It doesn't mean the leaks are not accurate but this is not the same.
so you want to see them found in a dumpster with a bullet hole in the back of their head?
Sort of like Vince Foster?
Now we're digging deep into the kooky equivalencies and it's not even noon.
Why kooky? Maybe, I didn't track the entire conversation, so what I thought I was responding to was instead of allowing whistleblowers (which I am personally fine with), would you (sarcastically) prefer the were shot?
So, I (sarcastically) threw out a perfect analogy.
Now, if I misread that particular exchange, or the reference bothered you, then good. That was my intention.
Are you vying to be the new troll? We have plenty on both sides already. We could use some real conversation instead.
Love the troll reference. It's a fucking message board. You guys are achieving nothing. Don't take yourself so seriously. Enjoy the banter and don't think everyone is one way or the other.
Real conversation. Ha, ha, ha. Sarcasm and poking fun at the topic has no place in our extremely important, ultra productive on-line dialog, so I'll call you an internet name. Too funny.
The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?
That's not the real story. The insiders have always leaked to the press. Have you never heard of Deep Throat? This is how we keep tabs on our elected leaders. God bless the whistle blowers.
A whistleblower courageously comes forward to the public. It puts a face to the accusation which is far more powerful compared to unsubstantiated leaks. It doesn't mean the leaks are not accurate but this is not the same.
so you want to see them found in a dumpster with a bullet hole in the back of their head?
The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?
That's not the real story. The insiders have always leaked to the press. Have you never heard of Deep Throat? This is how we keep tabs on our elected leaders. God bless the whistle blowers.
A whistleblower courageously comes forward to the public. It puts a face to the accusation which is far more powerful compared to unsubstantiated leaks. It doesn't mean the leaks are not accurate but this is not the same.
so you want to see them found in a dumpster with a bullet hole in the back of their head?
Sort of like Vince Foster?
Now we're digging deep into the kooky equivalencies and it's not even noon.
Why kooky? Maybe, I didn't track the entire conversation, so what I thought I was responding to was instead of allowing whistleblowers (which I am personally fine with), would you (sarcastically) prefer the were shot?
So, I (sarcastically) threw out a perfect analogy.
Now, if I misread that particular exchange, or the reference bothered you, then good. That was my intention.
Are you vying to be the new troll? We have plenty on both sides already. We could use some real conversation instead.
Love the troll reference. It's a fucking message board. You guys are achieving nothing. Don't take yourself so seriously. Enjoy the banter and don't think everyone is one way or the other.
Real conversation. Ha, ha, ha. Sarcasm and poking fun at the topic has no place in our extremely important, ultra productive on-line dialog, so I'll call you an internet name. Too funny.
Not a troll, a status quo joe. Some people are trying to digest trump with false analogies about being the same as Clinton, Obama, etc. I know you've been away for awhile, but your kind is welcome here, too.
Thanks. What is my kind?
And for the record, Trump is nothing like Clinton who is nothing like Obama who is nothing like Trump who are all absolutely, positively nothing like Teddy Roosevelt.
And wtf is a false analogy. Is that like strenuously objecting? It's either an analogy or not an analogy. It can be a poor analogy, but it can't be a false analogy. No analogy is true or false. They just are or are not. Are you letting me down easy? Just glad my kind are still welcome here. Whew.
Fun questions! If you wanna split words, okay. Let's go with bad analogy but don't forget false equivalency. Or is that no good? And I'm generalizing you kind as people who refer to the past to ease the pain of trump and his sideshow.
What am I easing the pain of? I'm not quite sure where you got that I'm a Trump supporter, but that's neither here nor there. We'll disagree, as I think it's a perfect analogy especially considering I think his original response that I was responding to was a somewhat (proper) glib response. So, when in the theater of the absurd, you should just go with it.
I guess I must have struck a nerve on the Vince Foster. Do you know something you're not sharing?
Maybe I do. But I'd rather not be shanked by Ms. Clinton personally. She's a killa, ya know?
Sort of like Monica Lewinsky?
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
I think optimism is speaking in this thread recently.
I'm not so sure Trump has one foot out the door, folks.
I hope he stays all 4 years because he is obviously a disaster and this is the best thing to ever happen to the progressive movement in North America...
The best part of this fiasco is that it is destroying their credibility and agenda...
But honestly... I want this orange bully to be proven to be a traitor in bed with the Russians and do the perp walk out of the White House.
it's all fun and games until a nuke goes off
I'm of the same thinking. I want his 4 years of nonsense to destroy the republican far right, but at the same time, how much damage is he going to do if he's in office that long.
People thought his candidacy alone would destroy the republican party and yet they are more republicans in government then ever. The Flynn resignation certainly doesn't look good but there is no evidence that Trump is doing "damage". The policies he has put in place are still in line with what his voters wanted and I don't see that changing regardless how messy it appears. His campaign was messy...he had three different campaign managers until he found success. People will be hired and fired based on results and it's quite possible the removal of Flynn will be a blessing in disguise as there has always been tension between him and the intelligence agencies. Nothing that has happened so far has made the electoral terrain any better for the Dems in 2018. The question is when/if the messiness becomes electorally significant?
lol we're not even 2months into his presidency and your already claiming nothing will come of the mess that's hounding him !
no, he's not. he's saying no one knows yet, which is true.
lol like I said there is no way president Bafoon did not know all this way back before election , you might not believe it but I bet a lot of the established people in the know totally know how deep this Bafoon is in it !!
Adam Schiff (ranking Dem on House Intelligence committee) told other Dems today that plenty more will be coming out in the next few days. Should be interesting. Saw the official name of this crisis too.. "Flynnghazi".
Why would anyone want to remind everybody about another NSA lying?
Que? I don't understand.
Well Flynnghazi comes from Benghazi which is what I think you find so cool. Don't forget that scandal begins with Susan Rice's appearance on all Sunday shows with a lie about the video.
I guess the only difference is that she lied with the Obama administration's knowledge while Flynn lied without it. At this point what difference does it make?
That was a fluid situation occurring in a different country. Rice was acting as spokesperson. Flynn lied about a conversation that he took part in personally. It's a little different. And I wasn't referring to Rice at all.. it's just more relevant today than Flynngate. Pretty soon we will have a straight up Russia-gate with Trump in the center.
Rice was given her talking points and executed them. I don't blame her for the lie even though she is the one who told it. Time will tell whether there is an actual Russia gate. So far nobody is actually declaring that Flynn or anyone else broke the law. In fact current reporting says the FBI cleared Flynn so other then the lie to Pence I am not actually sure what "gate" is coming. This is from January 23:
Have these details changed? Until anybody hears the tape of the phone call (which we never will) how can we know? Is the FBI now going to launch a Logan Act prosecution which I believe has only happened once or twice in the history of the country? It might but the current reporting isn't suggesting that.
There are transcripts. Supposedly the select intelligence committees will have them soon. I believe the situation has changed since that article.
You believe it has but current reporting doesn't confirm this. From my understanding the FBI already had this information. Therefore all we have now is the deep state spying on an American citizen and selectively releasing information that is normally shielded to the press.
Flynn was not being spied on. He was dumb enough to call a Russian ambassador, who are routinely under surveillance. This is all on Flynn. After 30 years in service and in intelligence, it is truly a boneheaded move to not think his conversation would be recorded. When the ambassadors conversations were reviewed and it turned out it was Flynn on the other end who made comments about sanctions...the gig was up. It's all on Flynn at this point but it could go much higher very easily.
Yes it was the ambassador who was under surveillance but the law states that any American ensnared in one of those conversations must have their identity shielded as they themselves are not the target of the spying. This is what many demanded during the Bush years. Flynn was not the target (as you say) and according to the FBI (so far) committed no crime so the actual disclosure of this is a violation of the law unless a FISA court ruled that this information was of national security importance. Was there a FISA court ruling? This we don't know. So what we have is people within the intelligence community selectively leaking information that as a point of law should not be public. Whether Flynn was aware he was being recorded or not this information should have been protected "unless" a court determined he committed a criminal act. Flynn knows the rules and may have wrongly assumed that his conversation would be kept private as the law requires. None of this however absolves him of not being truthful with the Vice President.
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Post edited by Kat on
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a blow job from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Why the fuck are you talking about Clinton so much? Who gives a shot about her? This thread is for the President...that isn't Secretary Clinton. There's a thread on her if you want to dig it up. If you can't defend Trump in any other way than bringing up 20+ year old scandals...then maybe you're trying to defend what's indefensible.
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a blow job from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Why the fuck are you talking about Clinton so much? Who gives a shot about her? This thread is for the President...that isn't Secretary Clinton. There's a thread on her if you want to dig it up. If you can't defend Trump in any other way than bringing up 20+ year old scandals...then maybe you're trying to defend what's indefensible.
He's a conservative trying to needle us libs. He has low content, but high zippy factor.
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
No doubt even here on this forum you have posters that are still trying to justify his presidency lol they voted for a total bafoon and can't come to terms with it !!
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?
You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.
So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?
You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.
So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?
Like I said they still can't come to terms that they voted for a moron uhmm is this better than Bafoon !
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?
You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.
So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?
Like I said they still can't come to terms that they voted for a moron uhmm is this better than Bafoon !
I live in NY outside NYC. My vote doesn't matter.
But, for the record, I voted for Teddy Roosevelt.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?
You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.
So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?
Well, now you know Trump's plan. Get Russia to point nuclear warheads at us from close range, and the libs will only remember that he "stopped" them.
Post edited by EdsonNascimento on
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?
You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.
So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?
Well, now you know Trump's plan. Get Russia to point nuclear warheads at us from close range, and the libs will only remember that he "stopped" them.
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.
How can the fact of the leaker be anything but Trump's fault or the fault of his staff? If the leaker is an Obama holdover, guess what...that wouldn't have been the case had this administration been on the ball and staffed their White House during the transition. It's mind blowing.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
I for one don't care if the government wants to record my phone calls. I don't have anything worth hiding, but maybe that changes when you are a CEO or government official because you're speaking out of your ass and mouth at the same time. We're already being monitored most of our day outside our homes by GPS in every device we own and video cameras everywhere we work, eat and drive. I take it as a given that I'm being recorded all the time. Anyone in government should already know all of what they do can easily be tracked. Flynn was an easy target if he's caught so simply.
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
it's not as simple as him being a private citizen at the time of the conversation.
focusing on the "leaker" is the same as going to court and blaming the witness for your crime.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
I for one don't care if the government wants to record my phone calls. I don't have anything worth hiding, but maybe that changes when you are a CEO or government official because you're speaking out of your ass and mouth at the same time. We're already being monitored most of our day outside our homes by GPS in every device we own and video cameras everywhere we work, eat and drive. I take it as a given that I'm being recorded all the time. Anyone in government should already know all of what they do can easily be tracked. Flynn was an easy target if he's caught so simply.
I don't disagree with you but we should remember that it was a mix of both the left and the more libertarian right that was outrage by the recording of US citizens during the Bush years who were not the target of a FISA approved probe. It appears that rule was broken in this case.
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.
utterly laughable.
Did you guys miss the point of that last statement? Too funny. I'll try to talk slower next time.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.
utterly laughable.
Did you guys miss the point of that last statement? Too funny. I'll try to talk slower next time.
You can type as slow as you want. That won't make you cogent.
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.
utterly laughable.
Did you guys miss the point of that last statement? Too funny. I'll try to talk slower next time.
please, do tell. because to this guy who apparently reads too quickly, it makes very little sense.
Don't be corrupt, and you don't have to worry about leaks saying you're corrupt The source of the leaks didn't matter if the content of the leaks was true They are not leaks, it is called transparency
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.
utterly laughable.
Did you guys miss the point of that last statement? Too funny. I'll try to talk slower next time.
Comments
lol what a joke
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Deflect
Distract
Deflect
Distract
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
But, for the record, I voted for Teddy Roosevelt.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
www.headstonesband.com
focusing on the "leaker" is the same as going to court and blaming the witness for your crime.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
The source of the leaks didn't matter if the content of the leaks was true
They are not leaks, it is called transparency
www.headstonesband.com