grinreaper

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-cites-report-saying-clinton-mulled-killing-assange-with-drones/article/2603430 WikiLeaks tweeted a story Monday claiming Hillary Clinton asked in 2010 whether it would be possible to kill the group's founder, Julian Assange, using a drone strike. True Pundit reported Sunday that State Department officials revealed that Clinton asked, "Can't we just drone this guy" at a Nov. 23, 2010, meeting with other officials. The report said Clinton's suggestion was met with laughter, but also said Clinton was clearly "fuming" at WikiLeaks' continued leaking of confidential State Department cables that she had signed.

What's Aleppo?

Didn't you say a couple of days ago that you were voting for Trump?

I just wanted to reconcile that statement with your long held belief that you'd never vote for either one of the major party candidates in any election year. Seems to me that he or the third most terrible candidate was going to get your vote anyway.

Can you describe the criteria you used for judging terribleness?

Look what Obama did during the shutdown. He closed down unmanned monuments by placing guards in front of them, shut down businesses on the Blue Ridge Parkway, evicted a couple from their leased home on federal land at Lake Meade and threatened to hold back Social Security payments and military pay.

In his defense, he really knows how to throw a beer summit.

In order to put this issue of Michelle Obama's fitness/attractiveness to bed I Googled her under "Michelle Obama weight gain". I found numerous pictures of her that I attempted to copy so I could paste here. Not only wasn't I able to copy any of them, strange things happened to my laptop. I wonder if anyone else would have that same problem?

What a wonderful description of Obama. A) he literally is a know-nothing B) he's a narcissistic clown C) he is much more liberal than you believe him to be D) you can't trust anything he says E) he's an embarrassment to the country F) I don't trust him with Nukes G) he'd end up being impeached for overreach of power H) he's an authoritarian and would have absolutely no regard for the constitution I) he's a demonizing boob J) he isn't an inclusive person K) he's a racist L) he's a misogynist M) he's a bigot N) he's thin-skinned and would rather talk about himself than the issues at hand

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/07/4-issues-the-media-cant-ignore-even-if-trump-brought-them-up/ Hillary Clinton may have been attempting a joke when she tried to save face during an ill-timed coughing attack by saying she’s allergic to Donald Trump, but it’s no joke that many in the political media have allergic reactions to nearly anything the man says or does. A good portion of Trump’s media coverage woes are his own doing. He is a self-aggrandizing, self-contradicting, cartoonish figure who has steadfastly avoided anything resembling a traditional or disciplined campaign. He communicates well with his sizable base, but not as well with other humans. However, journalists in particular seem unable — thanks to bias, defensiveness, or other issues — to parse what he says or means. They seem unwilling and unable to even try to understand him or cover him with any impartiality. I’m not exaggerating. No less than the New York Times ran a front-page article defending and justifying explicit media bias against Trump on August 8. The situation isn’t markedly better at many other publications. Trump is spending a lot of time complaining about the media being biased against him, which is both true and a good indicator of how unfocused his campaign is. The media are always biased against Republican candidates and Trump supposedly knew how to handle this problem better than other Republican candidates. A better candidate might stay on message for more than 12 minutes a day. But apart from Trump’s non-traditional campaign style, many reporters are not serving the public with their emotional reactions to Trump that eat up all their time and energy. Here are just a few of the many stories the media should cover well even if the candidate they can’t cover dispassionately brought them up. Click on the link above for the four items.

Ah, another thread hijacked by two people who just can't agree on anything.

You truly do make it flow backwards. What are you sticking up your ass for so much schit coming out of your mouth?

I think this thread should be banished to the Shoutbox.

Ha! You've been defriended without even joining.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/25/hillarys-instantaneous-health-morph-unanticipated-pool-reporter-surprises-secretary-clinton/ What a transformation.

This is not only hilarious but it shows how Hillary can be so easily outmaneuvered. Trump has her eating out of his hand. Any criticism of Trump and he can respond that she doesn't think things through and can easily be played by a person like Putin.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-22/who-behind-riots-charlotte-police-says-70-arrested-protesters-had-out-state-ids 70% of arrestees in Charlotte have been from out of state.

Your true colors show.

Hey, take it easy on those global warming people. Some of them actually believe in it.

Hillary's good buddy David Brock: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-20/money-laundering-scheme-exposed-14-pro-clinton-super-pacs-non-profits-implicated http://heatst.com/politics/david-brock-money-laundering/ David Brock is everything normal people hate about politics. He’s a shady, shameless shill for Hillary Clinton who has made a fortune in the “political operative” industry by doing political operative-y things that contribute nothing of value to society. He’s also (allegedly) a paranoid coke fiend who travels with an armed security detail because he’s afraid snipers are going to get him. Brock is probably going to want to lawyer up following the publication of a month-long investigation into his network of pro-Clinton political organizations. The Citizens Audit presents a compelling case that Brock is laundering money through the various PACs and non-profit groups he oversees. One of them is Media Matters, one of the most aggressively pro-Clinton operations in existence. The report presents evidence that, for years, Brock has been shifting money around between his various political organizations, while paying a 12.5 percent commission on each transaction to the Bonner Group, which serves as his (unregistered) solicitor — unregistered because that way the group is not legally required to disclose its contracts. The Bonner Group is run by Mary Pat Bonner, a rich Democratic donor with whom Brock shares a rental property in the Hamptons. Here’s a summary of how the scheme allegedly works: Say, for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America. This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014: 1. Media Matters would receive your $1,062,857 donation ◦The Bonner Group would earn a $132,857 commission ◦Media Matters would retain $930,000 2.Next, Media Matters would give what’s left of your entire donation, $930,000, to the Franklin Education Forum ◦The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $116,250 commission ◦The Franklin Education Forum would retain $813,750 3.The Franklin Education Forum would then forward the remaining $813,750 to The Franklin Forum ◦The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $101,718 commission ◦The Franklin Forum would retain $712,031 In the end, Brock’s solicitor would have pocketed $350,825, almost a third of your initial donation! That’s a far cry from the advertised 12.5% commission

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRHUcVSCIAEkTXk.jpg:large

Did he actually announce it or are you going by the Politico report that Kathleen Kennedy said it?

Says a guy who has ninety percent of his intelligence dried out of him.

Hey, toll booth guys know.

HAHA, you posted an Olbermann rant. Indicative of your intelligence. lyrbob, you've always been an idiot, but while we're at it, just what is your expertise in the real estate and mortgage industries?