|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 30, 2017 10:05:11 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 10:37:03 GMT -5
Heh, heh, heh ... now the whacko wingnuts are running to wikileaks for their talking points.
I'm old enough to remember when those same whacko wingnuts believed that wikileaks committed espionage against our country and was a threat to our national security.
It's amazing how a few days immersed in the Trump world of 'alternative facts' can warp one's views.
Of course there's a reason they're called 'wingnuts':
wingnut: noun - A threaded nut with protruding 'wings' which allows it to be easily manipulated.
Of course no one should be surprised that those same racist wingnuts also believe that our enemies can be identified based solely on religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 10:49:19 GMT -5
Funny how the travel restriction doesn't include any ME countries where Trumpo-the-Dumbo has a business interest ... or any of the countries of origin of the terrorists who carried out 9/11.
Yeah ... I feel much safer ... what say you, Spanky?
|
|
|
|
Post by theremedy on Jan 30, 2017 10:49:38 GMT -5
Right....some conservatives at some point said something negative about wikileaks so therefore no conservative can ever post something from wikileaks. Apparently some conservatives speak for ALL conservatives....who knew....
|
|
|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 30, 2017 10:52:21 GMT -5
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Especially considering that all of the countries on the list were placed there by the Obama admin. Were they in league with Trump? Maybe. Inquiring minds want to know!
|
|
|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 30, 2017 11:02:09 GMT -5
Right....some conservatives at some point said something negative about wikileaks so therefore no conservative can ever post something from wikileaks. Apparently some conservatives speak for ALL conservatives....who knew.... I love wikieaks. They've proven themselves to be non-partisan to me. And when they dump on Trump I'll be right there still supporting them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 11:03:00 GMT -5
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Especially considering that all of the countries on the list were placed there by the Obama admin. Were they in league with Trump? Maybe. Inquiring minds want to know! I'm sure you have evidence ... other than wingnut talking points ... that proves the Obama admin created this list to ban Muslims ... because otherwise it's just more of that 'fake news' you keep caterwauling about. Yeah, yeah ... I know ... it's not 'fake news' if it tickles your confirmation bias button ... And why is Saudi Arabia ... the home of 14 of the 9/11 hijackers who actually did travel to this country and attack us ... not on the list? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 11:08:34 GMT -5
Right....some conservatives at some point said something negative about wikileaks so therefore no conservative can ever post something from wikileaks. Apparently some conservatives speak for ALL conservatives....who knew.... I love wikieaks. They've proven themselves to be non-partisan to me. And when they dump on Trump I'll be right there still supporting them. So you 'love' the organization that published our military secrets and details about our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan putting American lives in danger? Okey dokey ... That must be the new and improved Trumpo-the-Dumbo version of what being a "True Blue Murican Patriot" is all about ... the hell with the safety of our military ... you want to score political points. Sad ... sad and pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by theremedy on Jan 30, 2017 11:14:26 GMT -5
I love wikieaks. They've proven themselves to be non-partisan to me. And when they dump on Trump I'll be right there still supporting them. So you 'love' the organization that published our military secrets and details about our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan putting American lives in danger? Okey dokey ... That must be the new and improved Trumpo-the-Dumbo version of what being a "True Blue Murican Patriot" is all about ... the hell with the safety of our military ... you want to score political points. Sad ... sad and pathetic. Or...it could just simply be Stalking's opinion. I realize you have this compulsion to make sweeping generalizations... Sad...sad and pathetic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 11:15:07 GMT -5
Right....some conservatives at some point said something negative about wikileaks so therefore no conservative can ever post something from wikileaks. Apparently some conservatives speak for ALL conservatives....who knew.... The wingnuts didn't just say 'something negative' about wikileaks ... they wanted the US gov't to label it a terrorist organization and be put on the terror watch list. But hey ... no big deal ... just another spineless wingnut flip/flop. Republican wants WikiLeaks labeled as terrorist group
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should review whether WikiLeaks can be declared a terrorist organization, according to a senior Republican.
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, called for U.S. officials to get aggressive against WikiLeaks after the website published highly sensitive, classified diplomatic cables that reveal frank assessments of foreign leaders and the war on terror.
"I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute WikiLeaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I'm also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare WikiLeaks a foreign terrorist organization," King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening.
WikiLeaks has released thousands of cables that reveal embarrassing comments about foreign leaders and U.S. operations abroad.
thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130863-top-republican-designate-wikileaks-as-a-terrorist-org |
|
|
|
Post by theremedy on Jan 30, 2017 11:17:03 GMT -5
Right....some conservatives at some point said something negative about wikileaks so therefore no conservative can ever post something from wikileaks. Apparently some conservatives speak for ALL conservatives....who knew.... The wingnuts didn't just say 'something negative' about wikileaks ... they wanted the US gov't to label it a terrorist organization and be put on the terror watch list. But hey ... no big deal ... just another spineless wingnut flip/flop. Republican wants WikiLeaks labeled as terrorist group
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should review whether WikiLeaks can be declared a terrorist organization, according to a senior Republican.
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, called for U.S. officials to get aggressive against WikiLeaks after the website published highly sensitive, classified diplomatic cables that reveal frank assessments of foreign leaders and the war on terror.
thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130863-top-republican-designate-wikileaks-as-a-terrorist-org Therefore Stalking can't like wikileaks? Got it....weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 11:22:50 GMT -5
The wingnuts didn't just say 'something negative' about wikileaks ... they wanted the US gov't to label it a terrorist organization and be put on the terror watch list. But hey ... no big deal ... just another spineless wingnut flip/flop. Republican wants WikiLeaks labeled as terrorist group
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should review whether WikiLeaks can be declared a terrorist organization, according to a senior Republican.
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, called for U.S. officials to get aggressive against WikiLeaks after the website published highly sensitive, classified diplomatic cables that reveal frank assessments of foreign leaders and the war on terror.
thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130863-top-republican-designate-wikileaks-as-a-terrorist-org Therefore Stalking can't like wikileaks? Got it....weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Seriously? It's okay to 'like' an organization that has actively worked to undermine the interests of the US and divulged details about our military operations around the globe putting American lives at risk. The wingnuts used to call such an association 'treasonous' and 'terrorists'... now you pathetic poltroons are defending it. Heh, heh, heh ... yeah, sure thing, spanky. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee ... indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by theremedy on Jan 30, 2017 11:28:50 GMT -5
Therefore Stalking can't like wikileaks? Got it....weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Seriously? It's okay to 'like' an organization that has actively worked to undermine the interests of the US and divulged details about our military operations around the globe putting American lives at risk. The wingnuts used to call such an association 'treasonous' ... now you pathetic poltroons are defending it. Heh, heh, heh ... yeah, sure thing, spanky. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee indeed. Oh...look who's moving the goal posts....color me surprised...weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 11:30:59 GMT -5
Heh, heh, heh ... yeah ... sure thing spanky.
Right to the ankle-biting ... going all Touretts with metaphors that make no sense ... have fun with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by theremedy on Jan 30, 2017 11:31:48 GMT -5
Seriously? It's okay to 'like' an organization that has actively worked to undermine the interests of the US and divulged details about our military operations around the globe putting American lives at risk. The wingnuts used to call such an association 'treasonous' ... now you pathetic poltroons are defending it. Heh, heh, heh ... yeah, sure thing, spanky. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee indeed. Oh...look who's moving the goal posts....color me surprised...weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Again...just because other conservatives denounced wikileaks doesn't mean Stalking has to. You are such a hypocrite. You are always accusing conservatives of all thinking the same way, but yet when one thinks for themselves you complain about that too. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't |
|
|
|
Post by theremedy on Jan 30, 2017 11:32:49 GMT -5
Heh, heh, heh ... yeah ... sure thing spanky. Right to the ankle-biting ... have fun with that. Perfect. When you resort to that tired and ridiculous line it means you've got nothing else. Heh, heh, heh |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 11:39:06 GMT -5
Oh...look who's moving the goal posts....color me surprised...weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Again...just because other conservatives denounced wikileaks doesn't mean Stalking has to. You are such a hypocrite. You are always accusing conservatives of all thinking the same way, but yet when one thinks for themselves you complain about that too. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't WTF? It's a freaking FACT that wikileaks published stolen US information that undermined our interests and made details about our military operations available to our enemies. That is why the wingnuts wanted it labeled a terrorist organization ... because it was actively working to subvert our national interests and putting American lives at risk ... but apparently SB could care less because he's more interested in trying to score politics points over than nat'l security or protecting our soldiers. You really are a moron sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by theremedy on Jan 30, 2017 12:05:45 GMT -5
WTF? It's a freaking FACT that wikileaks published stolen US information that undermined our interests and made information about our military operations available to our enemies. That is why the wingnuts wanted it labeled a terrorist organization ... because it was actively working to subvert our national interests and putting American lives at risk ... but apparently SB could care less because he's more interested in trying to score politics points rather than securing our nat'l secrets or protecting our soldiers. You really are a moron sometimes. Which again doesn't mean Stalking HAS to follow what other conservatives said. What don't you understand about that? Why are you struggling with this concept? I thought you were supposed to be smart? Stalking has his own mind and therefore own thoughts and opinions. Just like you do...or maybe you don't. Here's a simple question for ya...do other liberals/dems speak for you on every issue? Or do you speak for yourself? Yes or no? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 12:27:38 GMT -5
WTF? It's a freaking FACT that wikileaks published stolen US information that undermined our interests and made information about our military operations available to our enemies. That is why the wingnuts wanted it labeled a terrorist organization ... because it was actively working to subvert our national interests and putting American lives at risk ... but apparently SB could care less because he's more interested in trying to score politics points rather than securing our nat'l secrets or protecting our soldiers. You really are a moron sometimes. Which again doesn't mean Stalking HAS to follow what other conservatives said. What don't you understand about that? Why are you struggling with this concept? I thought you were supposed to be smart? Stalking has his own mind and therefore own thoughts and opinions. Just like you do...or maybe you don't. Here's a simple question for ya...do other liberals/dems speak for you on every issue? Or do you speak for yourself? Yes or no? Oh my freaking word ... you can't be this dense ... seriously, you're embarrassing yourself. It doesn't matter what the wingnuts said ... what matters is the reason they said it ... because wikileaks has been proven to be actively colluding with our enemies and undermining our nat'l security by posting stolen information about our foreign policy and military operations around the world which puts American lives at risk. The fact that SB would 'like' an organization which has committed espionage against the US, only to try and score political points belies a contempt for US nat'l security and a craven disregard for the safety of American military personnel around the globe. Heck ... the wingnuts excoriated Obama over the mere rhetoric of a pastor and yet here SB is supporting people who have actually damaged our nat'l interests and the security of our military personnel. He's ' paling around with terrorists'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 12:46:59 GMT -5
First they came for the Socialists Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist Muslim
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
MARTIN NIEMÖLLER - Protestant pastor
|
|
|
|
Post by theremedy on Jan 30, 2017 13:01:04 GMT -5
Which again doesn't mean Stalking HAS to follow what other conservatives said. What don't you understand about that? Why are you struggling with this concept? I thought you were supposed to be smart? Stalking has his own mind and therefore own thoughts and opinions. Just like you do...or maybe you don't. Here's a simple question for ya...do other liberals/dems speak for you on every issue? Or do you speak for yourself? Yes or no? Oh my freaking word ... you can't be this dense ... seriously, you're embarrassing yourself. It doesn't matter what the wingnuts said ... what matters is the reason they said it ... because wikileaks has been proven to be actively colluding with our enemies and undermining our nat'l security by posting stolen information about our foreign policy and military operations around the world which puts American lives at risk. The fact that SB would 'like' an organization which has committed espionage against the US, only to try and score political points belies a contempt for US nat'l security and a craven disregard for the safety of American military personnel around the globe. Heck ... the wingnuts excoriated Obama over the mere rhetoric of a pastor and yet here SB is supporting people who have actually damaged our nat'l interests and the security of our military personnel. He's ' paling around with terrorists'. Anyone else surprised 12angry couldn't man up and answer a simple straight-forward question? That of course is a rhetorical question as it should be NO surprise to anyone. Heh, heh, heh |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 13:08:01 GMT -5
Oh my freaking word ... you can't be this dense ... seriously, you're embarrassing yourself. It doesn't matter what the wingnuts said ... what matters is the reason they said it ... because wikileaks has been proven to be actively colluding with our enemies and undermining our nat'l security by posting stolen information about our foreign policy and military operations around the world which puts American lives at risk. The fact that SB would 'like' an organization which has committed espionage against the US, only to try and score political points belies a contempt for US nat'l security and a craven disregard for the safety of American military personnel around the globe. Heck ... the wingnuts excoriated Obama over the mere rhetoric of a pastor and yet here SB is supporting people who have actually damaged our nat'l interests and the security of our military personnel. He's ' paling around with terrorists'. Anyone else surprised 12angry couldn't man up and answer a simple straight-forward question? That of course is a rhetorical question as it should be NO surprise to anyone. Heh, heh, heh Anyone else surprised that the resident anklebiter keeps asking irrelevant and idiotic questions that have nothing to do with the thread? Yeah ... didn't think so ... that is what anklebiters do. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 13:12:17 GMT -5
I guess 'calls' for a Muslim ban are offensive and unConstitutional ... but actually doing it ... meh, not so much
|
|
|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 30, 2017 13:26:36 GMT -5
First they came for the Socialists Muslims, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist MuslimThen they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.MARTIN NIEMÖLLER - Protestant pastor First they came for the Tea Party but I didn't say anything because at heart I'm really a fascist. |
|
|
|
Post by theremedy on Jan 30, 2017 13:39:28 GMT -5
Anyone else surprised 12angry couldn't man up and answer a simple straight-forward question? That of course is a rhetorical question as it should be NO surprise to anyone. Heh, heh, heh Anyone else surprised that the resident anklebiter keeps asking irrelevant and idiotic questions that have nothing to do with the thread? Yeah ... didn't think so ... that is what anklebiters do. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee It has everything to do with it. Not my fault you refuse to man up. You're the one who has to look yourself in the mirror. If you're ok with that....so be it |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 13:48:00 GMT -5
Anyone else surprised that the resident anklebiter keeps asking irrelevant and idiotic questions that have nothing to do with the thread? Yeah ... didn't think so ... that is what anklebiters do. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee It has everything to do with it. Not my fault you refuse to man up. You're the one who has to look yourself in the mirror. If you're ok with that....so be it Heh, heh, heh ... sure thing spanky ... Other than the fact that I never said anyone 'spoke' for anyone else ... rather I did relate the actual policy the wingnuts have pursued against wikileaks as a terrorist organization... and I did iterate the actual evidence they relied on to formulate that policy ... you're spot on. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
|
|
|
Post by backinblack on Jan 30, 2017 14:04:34 GMT -5
I guess ' calls' for a Muslim ban are offensive and unConstitutional ... but actually doing it ... meh, not so much Did someone say this was a Muslim ban? Are you just making shit up again spanky?
Barack Hussein Obama chose the 7 countries being vetted back in 2011. The House and Senate agreed.
Hysterical idiots, most wearing their va gina on their heads, are acting hysterically (as usual)
|
|
|
|
Post by theremedy on Jan 30, 2017 14:08:54 GMT -5
It has everything to do with it. Not my fault you refuse to man up. You're the one who has to look yourself in the mirror. If you're ok with that....so be it Heh, heh, heh ... sure thing spanky ... Other than the fact that I never said anyone 'spoke' for anyone else ... rather I did relate the actual policy the wingnuts have pursued against wikileaks as a terrorist organization... and I did iterate the actual evidence they relied on to formulate that policy ... you're spot on. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Oh but you did.. I wrote: "Right....some conservatives at some point said something negative about wikileaks so therefore no conservative can ever post something from wikileaks. Apparently some conservatives speak for ALL conservatives....who knew....
"
You wrote: "The wingnuts didn't just say 'something negative' about wikileaks ... they wanted the US gov't to label it a terrorist organization and be put on the terror watch list.
But hey ... no big deal ... just another spineless wingnut flip/flop.
"Stalking never said he wanted the US govt to label it a terrorist organization. So to accuse Stalking of 'flip/flopping' means you are saying that other conservative spoke for Stalking. Surely even you can see that. |
|
|
|
Post by StalkingButler on Jan 30, 2017 14:16:59 GMT -5
It tells you everything that you need to know about them that they *think* it's a ban on Muslims.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 14:17:20 GMT -5
Heh, heh, heh ... sure thing spanky ... Other than the fact that I never said anyone 'spoke' for anyone else ... rather I did relate the actual policy the wingnuts have pursued against wikileaks as a terrorist organization... and I did iterate the actual evidence they relied on to formulate that policy ... you're spot on. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Oh but you did.. I wrote: "Right....some conservatives at some point said something negative about wikileaks so therefore no conservative can ever post something from wikileaks. Apparently some conservatives speak for ALL conservatives....who knew....
"
You wrote: "The wingnuts didn't just say 'something negative' about wikileaks ... they wanted the US gov't to label it a terrorist organization and be put on the terror watch list.
But hey ... no big deal ... just another spineless wingnut flip/flop.
"Stalking never said he wanted the US govt to label it a terrorist organization. So to accuse Stalking of 'flip/flopping' means you are saying that other conservative spoke for Stalking. Surely even you can see that. WTF are you babbling on about now? I never said he did ... I pointed out that the past policies of the wingnuts were that wikileaks should be put on the terror watch list due to it's espionage activities against the US ... and that SB 'likes' that very same group in spite of those very same efforts meant to damage the US and undermine the safety of our military. Take a knee spanky ... you are just spouting nonsense. |
|
