Republican Debate, 2-6-2016

[9aces]

I grant you I am seldom civil with liberals. That's because they are totally amoral despicable reptiles. I treat them with the respect they deserve. However, I include plenty of substance in my posts. Anyone who supports Hillary is in no position to be attacking Cruz or Rubi for using talking points. They are also in no position to be calling anyone a liar.

If you see them as inhuman the correct response would be not to communicate with them at all save for correcting any data or statements you find incorrect or misleading.

I find your posts in general to have some of the lowest value of any poster on this forum....I honestly put more stock into reading Rabbi's post than yours. It's usually just eye sores of vulgarity and cruel statements. I've come to skipping over most of the posts where I see your avatar, which is what you can expect when having such immature behavior pretty much anywhere in the world, even online.

What really bothers you is that I give no quarter to liberals and I always tear them a new one. Is that "cruel?" Why should I care? I'm not here to make friends or have stimulating conversations. I'm here to defeat liberalism.

If you don't like it, then tough shit. I couldn't care less.

So you're a nun or a church lady of somekind?

You friend Sarah G seems to be afraid to confront me directly, even though I didn't ridicule her or call her names. I simply pointed out that the claims she was making were total horseshit.

I'm not afraid of you, britpat. I told you already that you were lying about Hillary not knowing the difference between classified and unclassified and that you should go look it up. I'm not here to educate you on the truth, I will call out the lies though whenever I see them. I have a lot to do today, unlike you obviously. I don't have time to run and fetch facts for you. If you're going to talk about it, get informed.

Let me help to alleviate some of your ignorance on this subject. SecState is a classifying member of secure information protocols. They know in viewing a document whether it should bear a security classification, or not.

SAP information in particular is very sensitive, and protocols just to view it should preclude it EVER being available for access outside it's controlled systems. If any of the information on her server is SAP level, and it's been reported it is, then someone committed a serious felony to get it onto Hillary's server.

So your only defenses are.

Someone, possibly several people were criminally incompetent
They were intentionally criminal acts.

Those are the only options.

 

[hangover]

Either Crispie is so incompetent he had no idea of what was going on in his office. Which should make him ineligible for being president. OR, he gave the order, which would also make him ineligible for being president.

So that would also bar Hillary from office, wouldn't it? She keeps saying she didn't know the laws on handling classified material and she didn't know she was sending and receiving classified materials.

She didn't say that.

If she knew the laws, then why was she storing classified materials on her personal server?

First, the materiel wasn't classified when she received it. But you knew that. It's been in the news.

Second, she was only doing with George Bush did in the White House and Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice did before her. And you knew that too.

Third, the law mandating the SOC use a government server wasn't passed and signed until two years after she left office. But you also knew that.

This reminds me of Republicans cutting funding for protection of US Embassies and then blaming Hillary Clinton and then secretly and without fanfare, restoring the cuts.

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats

“When House Republicans protect budget-busting tax breaks for millionaires first, and slash embassy security, they reveal that their tough talk on national security is really just hollow words,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]gop restores funding cuts for embassy protection - Google Search

[/FONT]

Apparently since you can't do your own thinking, I'll help you out.

SAP intelligence is born classified. The "it wasn't when I saw it" excuse does not fly, the protocols just to view take more than a wink and a smile.

If Powell or Rice compromised national security as Hillary did, line up the FBI to explore that as soon as Clinton faces the music.

No, Powell and Rice did it first. First come first serve.

 

[9aces]

So that would also bar Hillary from office, wouldn't it? She keeps saying she didn't know the laws on handling classified material and she didn't know she was sending and receiving classified materials.

She didn't say that.

If she knew the laws, then why was she storing classified materials on her personal server?

First, the materiel wasn't classified when she received it. But you knew that. It's been in the news.

Second, she was only doing with George Bush did in the White House and Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice did before her. And you knew that too.

Third, the law mandating the SOC use a government server wasn't passed and signed until two years after she left office. But you also knew that.

This reminds me of Republicans cutting funding for protection of US Embassies and then blaming Hillary Clinton and then secretly and without fanfare, restoring the cuts.

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats

“When House Republicans protect budget-busting tax breaks for millionaires first, and slash embassy security, they reveal that their tough talk on national security is really just hollow words,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]gop restores funding cuts for embassy protection - Google Search

[/FONT]

Apparently since you can't do your own thinking, I'll help you out.

SAP intelligence is born classified. The "it wasn't when I saw it" excuse does not fly, the protocols just to view take more than a wink and a smile.

If Powell or Rice compromised national security as Hillary did, line up the FBI to explore that as soon as Clinton faces the music.

No, Powell and Rice did it first. First come first serve.

If there wasn't an ongoing criminal investigation, I'd agree with you. Finish the one started, then start on the next. By then the team should have some experience and be able to process the next more efficiently.

 

[Sarah G]

If you see them as inhuman the correct response would be not to communicate with them at all save for correcting any data or statements you find incorrect or misleading.

I find your posts in general to have some of the lowest value of any poster on this forum....I honestly put more stock into reading Rabbi's post than yours. It's usually just eye sores of vulgarity and cruel statements. I've come to skipping over most of the posts where I see your avatar, which is what you can expect when having such immature behavior pretty much anywhere in the world, even online.

What really bothers you is that I give no quarter to liberals and I always tear them a new one. Is that "cruel?" Why should I care? I'm not here to make friends or have stimulating conversations. I'm here to defeat liberalism.

If you don't like it, then tough shit. I couldn't care less.

So you're a nun or a church lady of somekind?

You friend Sarah G seems to be afraid to confront me directly, even though I didn't ridicule her or call her names. I simply pointed out that the claims she was making were total horseshit.

I'm not afraid of you, britpat. I told you already that you were lying about Hillary not knowing the difference between classified and unclassified and that you should go look it up. I'm not here to educate you on the truth, I will call out the lies though whenever I see them. I have a lot to do today, unlike you obviously. I don't have time to run and fetch facts for you. If you're going to talk about it, get informed.

Let me help to alleviate some of your ignorance on this subject. SecState is a classifying member of secure information protocols. They know in viewing a document whether it should bear a security classification, or not.

SAP information in particular is very sensitive, and protocols just to view it should preclude it EVER being available for access outside it's controlled systems. If any of the information on her server is SAP level, and it's been reported it is, then someone committed a serious felony to get it onto Hillary's server.

So your only defenses are.

Someone, possibly several people were criminally incompetent
They were intentionally criminal acts.

Those are the only options.

Well, some folks are ignorant enough to lie about what she had to say. She never said she didn't know the difference between classified or unclassified emails, of course she knew. She said certain emails had not been marked as classified until later. She has criticized the intelligence community for the first time recently about that but she has cooperated fully.

You all just love to distort any issue that may hurt the Democrats in this election because you know you'll never get your dudball candidates past either Hillary or Bernie. Go try to get your panties untwisted, loser and let britpat get out of her own messy postings.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Good gracious! I wondered when you were golng to say something completely irrelevant and classy. I can breathe now!

Either Crispie is so incompetent he had no idea of what was going on in his office. Which should make him ineligible for being president. OR, he gave the order, which would also make him ineligible for being president.

So that would also bar Hillary from office, wouldn't it? She keeps saying she didn't know the laws on handling classified material and she didn't know she was sending and receiving classified materials.

She didn't say that.

If she knew the laws, then why was she storing classified materials on her personal server?

First, the materiel wasn't classified when she received it. But you knew that. It's been in the news.

Second, she was only doing with George Bush did in the White House and Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice did before her. And you knew that too.

Third, the law mandating the SOC use a government server wasn't passed and signed until two years after she left office. But you also knew that.

This reminds me of Republicans cutting funding for protection of US Embassies and then blaming Hillary Clinton and then secretly and without fanfare, restoring the cuts.

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats

“When House Republicans protect budget-busting tax breaks for millionaires first, and slash embassy security, they reveal that their tough talk on national security is really just hollow words,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

gop restores funding cuts for embassy protection - Google Search

Spot on! Sadly, facts won't convince the biddable that their beliefs are built on a foundation of lies.

 

[BULLDOG]

Wrong again

Britpat is one of the biggest liars here and that's because she is nothing but talking points. She's like Cruz and Rubio. All memorized chatter, no substance.

Calling her a liar is actually too kind....90% of what she post on here is just vulgar profanity and personal insults. The amount of substantial debate or civil discussion from Britpat's entire time on this forum probably wouldn't even cover 1 page on my 14" laptop screen, and that's even including false statements.

I grant you I am seldom civil with liberals. That's because they are totally amoral despicable reptiles. I treat them with the respect they deserve. However, I include plenty of substance in my posts. Anyone who supports Hillary is in no position to be attacking Cruz or Rubi for using talking points. They are also in no position to be calling anyone a liar.

If you see them as inhuman the correct response would be not to communicate with them at all save for correcting any data or statements you find incorrect or misleading.

I find your posts in general to have some of the lowest value of any poster on this forum....I honestly put more stock into reading Rabbi's post than yours. It's usually just eye sores of vulgarity and cruel statements. I've come to skipping over most of the posts where I see your avatar, which is what you can expect when having such immature behavior pretty much anywhere in the world, even online.

What really bothers you is that I give no quarter to liberals and I always tear them a new one. Is that "cruel?" Why should I care? I'm not here to make friends or have stimulating conversations. I'm here to defeat liberalism.

If you don't like it, then tough shit. I couldn't care less.

It's good for you that you don't care. If credibility mattered to you, you would really have a problem. You aren't defeating liberalism. You're displaying the right wing's lack of integrity.

 

[JimH52]

As much as some of them like to bash Obama rather than tout their own accomplishments would leave one to believe that Obama is running for reelection. Obama has kept their arrogant asses safe for the past 7 years in spite of their hateful obstruction.

You're joking, right? The guy who wants to import 100,000 refugees infiltrated with ISIS fighters into this country is keeping us safe?

Have you ever thought of trying to post something that is the truth. You sure like to post lies. Maybe you need some truth therapy?

 

[bripat9643]

Britpat is one of the biggest liars here and that's because she is nothing but talking points. She's like Cruz and Rubio. All memorized chatter, no substance.

Calling her a liar is actually too kind....90% of what she post on here is just vulgar profanity and personal insults. The amount of substantial debate or civil discussion from Britpat's entire time on this forum probably wouldn't even cover 1 page on my 14" laptop screen, and that's even including false statements.

I grant you I am seldom civil with liberals. That's because they are totally amoral despicable reptiles. I treat them with the respect they deserve. However, I include plenty of substance in my posts. Anyone who supports Hillary is in no position to be attacking Cruz or Rubi for using talking points. They are also in no position to be calling anyone a liar.

If you see them as inhuman the correct response would be not to communicate with them at all save for correcting any data or statements you find incorrect or misleading.

I find your posts in general to have some of the lowest value of any poster on this forum....I honestly put more stock into reading Rabbi's post than yours. It's usually just eye sores of vulgarity and cruel statements. I've come to skipping over most of the posts where I see your avatar, which is what you can expect when having such immature behavior pretty much anywhere in the world, even online.

What really bothers you is that I give no quarter to liberals and I always tear them a new one. Is that "cruel?" Why should I care? I'm not here to make friends or have stimulating conversations. I'm here to defeat liberalism.

If you don't like it, then tough shit. I couldn't care less.

It's good for you that you don't care. If credibility mattered to you, you would really have a problem. You aren't defeating liberalism. You're displaying the right wing's lack of integrity.

If the facts were on your side you would be talking about them rather than making personal attacks on me. You're just another sleazy ling left-wing piece of shit, like all the others in this forum.

 

[bripat9643]

As much as some of them like to bash Obama rather than tout their own accomplishments would leave one to believe that Obama is running for reelection. Obama has kept their arrogant asses safe for the past 7 years in spite of their hateful obstruction.

You're joking, right? The guy who wants to import 100,000 refugees infiltrated with ISIS fighters into this country is keeping us safe?

Have you ever thought of trying to post something that is the truth. You sure like to post lies. Maybe you need some truth therapy?

You and your sleazy Komrades are the ones posting lies to defend a liar and a crook.

 

[BULLDOG]

Calling her a liar is actually too kind....90% of what she post on here is just vulgar profanity and personal insults. The amount of substantial debate or civil discussion from Britpat's entire time on this forum probably wouldn't even cover 1 page on my 14" laptop screen, and that's even including false statements.

I grant you I am seldom civil with liberals. That's because they are totally amoral despicable reptiles. I treat them with the respect they deserve. However, I include plenty of substance in my posts. Anyone who supports Hillary is in no position to be attacking Cruz or Rubi for using talking points. They are also in no position to be calling anyone a liar.

If you see them as inhuman the correct response would be not to communicate with them at all save for correcting any data or statements you find incorrect or misleading.

I find your posts in general to have some of the lowest value of any poster on this forum....I honestly put more stock into reading Rabbi's post than yours. It's usually just eye sores of vulgarity and cruel statements. I've come to skipping over most of the posts where I see your avatar, which is what you can expect when having such immature behavior pretty much anywhere in the world, even online.

What really bothers you is that I give no quarter to liberals and I always tear them a new one. Is that "cruel?" Why should I care? I'm not here to make friends or have stimulating conversations. I'm here to defeat liberalism.

If you don't like it, then tough shit. I couldn't care less.

It's good for you that you don't care. If credibility mattered to you, you would really have a problem. You aren't defeating liberalism. You're displaying the right wing's lack of integrity.

If the facts were on your side you would be talking about them rather than making personal attacks on me. You're just another sleazy ling left-wing piece of shit, like all the others in this forum.

That's nice. I'm glad someone like you feels like that about me.

 

[JimH52]

Calling her a liar is actually too kind....90% of what she post on here is just vulgar profanity and personal insults. The amount of substantial debate or civil discussion from Britpat's entire time on this forum probably wouldn't even cover 1 page on my 14" laptop screen, and that's even including false statements.

I grant you I am seldom civil with liberals. That's because they are totally amoral despicable reptiles. I treat them with the respect they deserve. However, I include plenty of substance in my posts. Anyone who supports Hillary is in no position to be attacking Cruz or Rubi for using talking points. They are also in no position to be calling anyone a liar.

If you see them as inhuman the correct response would be not to communicate with them at all save for correcting any data or statements you find incorrect or misleading.

I find your posts in general to have some of the lowest value of any poster on this forum....I honestly put more stock into reading Rabbi's post than yours. It's usually just eye sores of vulgarity and cruel statements. I've come to skipping over most of the posts where I see your avatar, which is what you can expect when having such immature behavior pretty much anywhere in the world, even online.

What really bothers you is that I give no quarter to liberals and I always tear them a new one. Is that "cruel?" Why should I care? I'm not here to make friends or have stimulating conversations. I'm here to defeat liberalism.

If you don't like it, then tough shit. I couldn't care less.

It's good for you that you don't care. If credibility mattered to you, you would really have a problem. You aren't defeating liberalism. You're displaying the right wing's lack of integrity.

If the facts were on your side you would be talking about them rather than making personal attacks on me. You're just another sleazy ling left-wing piece of shit, like all the others in this forum.

I don't think after the years of posting fabrications that you would know a "fact" if it smacked you in the face. Really...stop listening the Rush and watching FOX 24/7. You need to get out and find other news sources.

 

[leftwinger]

If Powell or Rice compromised national security as Hillary did, line up the FBI to explore that as soon as Clinton faces the music.

From what I have heard, Powell had some document on xxx.gov classified later (he says wrongly). Rice aides had similar on xxx.gov

neither of them had 6 years 100% email on private server. None of them had SAP on home disk. Neither had lawyers known to have copies. Neither had civilain IT dept keeping Govt documents. None of them went thru and deleted "as they see fit" before give up to FOIA....on and on.

 

[JimH52]

As much as some of them like to bash Obama rather than tout their own accomplishments would leave one to believe that Obama is running for reelection. Obama has kept their arrogant asses safe for the past 7 years in spite of their hateful obstruction.

You're joking, right? The guy who wants to import 100,000 refugees infiltrated with ISIS fighters into this country is keeping us safe?

Have you ever thought of trying to post something that is the truth. You sure like to post lies. Maybe you need some truth therapy?

You and your sleazy Komrades are the ones posting lies to defend a liar and a crook.

You need to provide a link to your "100,000 refugees" or you need to admit you lied. We can wait...

 

[bripat9643]

I grant you I am seldom civil with liberals. That's because they are totally amoral despicable reptiles. I treat them with the respect they deserve. However, I include plenty of substance in my posts. Anyone who supports Hillary is in no position to be attacking Cruz or Rubi for using talking points. They are also in no position to be calling anyone a liar.

If you see them as inhuman the correct response would be not to communicate with them at all save for correcting any data or statements you find incorrect or misleading.

I find your posts in general to have some of the lowest value of any poster on this forum....I honestly put more stock into reading Rabbi's post than yours. It's usually just eye sores of vulgarity and cruel statements. I've come to skipping over most of the posts where I see your avatar, which is what you can expect when having such immature behavior pretty much anywhere in the world, even online.

What really bothers you is that I give no quarter to liberals and I always tear them a new one. Is that "cruel?" Why should I care? I'm not here to make friends or have stimulating conversations. I'm here to defeat liberalism.

If you don't like it, then tough shit. I couldn't care less.

It's good for you that you don't care. If credibility mattered to you, you would really have a problem. You aren't defeating liberalism. You're displaying the right wing's lack of integrity.

If the facts were on your side you would be talking about them rather than making personal attacks on me. You're just another sleazy ling left-wing piece of shit, like all the others in this forum.

That's nice. I'm glad someone like you feels like that about me.

I'm certain there are plenty of people who feel that way about you.

 

[bripat9643]

As much as some of them like to bash Obama rather than tout their own accomplishments would leave one to believe that Obama is running for reelection. Obama has kept their arrogant asses safe for the past 7 years in spite of their hateful obstruction.

You're joking, right? The guy who wants to import 100,000 refugees infiltrated with ISIS fighters into this country is keeping us safe?

Have you ever thought of trying to post something that is the truth. You sure like to post lies. Maybe you need some truth therapy?

You and your sleazy Komrades are the ones posting lies to defend a liar and a crook.

You need to provide a link to your "100,000 refugees" or you need to admit you lied. We can wait...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/w...fugees-to-100000-in-2017-kerry-says.html?_r=0​

BERLIN — The Obama administration will increase the number of worldwide refugees the United States accepts each year to 100,000 by 2017, a significant increase over the current annual cap of 70,000, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday.
​

There you go, sleazebag.

 

[BULLDOG]

If you see them as inhuman the correct response would be not to communicate with them at all save for correcting any data or statements you find incorrect or misleading.

I find your posts in general to have some of the lowest value of any poster on this forum....I honestly put more stock into reading Rabbi's post than yours. It's usually just eye sores of vulgarity and cruel statements. I've come to skipping over most of the posts where I see your avatar, which is what you can expect when having such immature behavior pretty much anywhere in the world, even online.

What really bothers you is that I give no quarter to liberals and I always tear them a new one. Is that "cruel?" Why should I care? I'm not here to make friends or have stimulating conversations. I'm here to defeat liberalism.

If you don't like it, then tough shit. I couldn't care less.

It's good for you that you don't care. If credibility mattered to you, you would really have a problem. You aren't defeating liberalism. You're displaying the right wing's lack of integrity.

If the facts were on your side you would be talking about them rather than making personal attacks on me. You're just another sleazy ling left-wing piece of shit, like all the others in this forum.

That's nice. I'm glad someone like you feels like that about me.

I'm certain there are plenty of people who feel that way about you.

I have no doubt about that. There are plenty of RWNJs just like you right here.

 

[bripat9643]

I grant you I am seldom civil with liberals. That's because they are totally amoral despicable reptiles. I treat them with the respect they deserve. However, I include plenty of substance in my posts. Anyone who supports Hillary is in no position to be attacking Cruz or Rubi for using talking points. They are also in no position to be calling anyone a liar.

If you see them as inhuman the correct response would be not to communicate with them at all save for correcting any data or statements you find incorrect or misleading.

I find your posts in general to have some of the lowest value of any poster on this forum....I honestly put more stock into reading Rabbi's post than yours. It's usually just eye sores of vulgarity and cruel statements. I've come to skipping over most of the posts where I see your avatar, which is what you can expect when having such immature behavior pretty much anywhere in the world, even online.

What really bothers you is that I give no quarter to liberals and I always tear them a new one. Is that "cruel?" Why should I care? I'm not here to make friends or have stimulating conversations. I'm here to defeat liberalism.

If you don't like it, then tough shit. I couldn't care less.

It's good for you that you don't care. If credibility mattered to you, you would really have a problem. You aren't defeating liberalism. You're displaying the right wing's lack of integrity.

If the facts were on your side you would be talking about them rather than making personal attacks on me. You're just another sleazy ling left-wing piece of shit, like all the others in this forum.

I don't think after the years of posting fabrications that you would know a "fact" if it smacked you in the face. Really...stop listening the Rush and watching FOX 24/7. You need to get out and find other news sources.

More sleaze from a leftwing hosebag.

<YAWN!>

 

[Wry Catcher]

Either Crispie is so incompetent he had no idea of what was going on in his office. Which should make him ineligible for being president. OR, he gave the order, which would also make him ineligible for being president.

So that would also bar Hillary from office, wouldn't it? She keeps saying she didn't know the laws on handling classified material and she didn't know she was sending and receiving classified materials.

She didn't say that.

If she knew the laws, then why was she storing classified materials on her personal server?

First, the materiel wasn't classified when she received it. But you knew that. It's been in the news.

Second, she was only doing with George Bush did in the White House and Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice did before her. And you knew that too.

Third, the law mandating the SOC use a government server wasn't passed and signed until two years after she left office. But you also knew that.

This reminds me of Republicans cutting funding for protection of US Embassies and then blaming Hillary Clinton and then secretly and without fanfare, restoring the cuts.

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats

“When House Republicans protect budget-busting tax breaks for millionaires first, and slash embassy security, they reveal that their tough talk on national security is really just hollow words,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]gop restores funding cuts for embassy protection - Google Search

[/FONT]

Apparently since you can't do your own thinking, I'll help you out.

SAP intelligence is born classified. The "it wasn't when I saw it" excuse does not fly, the protocols just to view take more than a wink and a smile.

If Powell or Rice compromised national security as Hillary did, line up the FBI to explore that as soon as Clinton faces the music.

No harm, no foul.

Had the Right Wing not spent the last 15 years assassinating the Character of Kerry, Clinton (both), Obama and the First Lady, Democrats, liberals, progressives, minorities of all solids and stripes, women, the poor, labor unions, gays and lesbians, immigrants and settled law, they, in general, might have some minor amount of credibility.

The Right Wing thrives on lies, half-truths, innuendos, rumors, and logical fallacies. The Right offers nothing new, and in fact seems to seek a return to the days before Civil Rights and the Right of labor to organize.

 

[Desperado]

Seems that most of the GOP candidates favor having girls register for the draft.

 

[bripat9643]

So that would also bar Hillary from office, wouldn't it? She keeps saying she didn't know the laws on handling classified material and she didn't know she was sending and receiving classified materials.

She didn't say that.

If she knew the laws, then why was she storing classified materials on her personal server?

First, the materiel wasn't classified when she received it. But you knew that. It's been in the news.

Second, she was only doing with George Bush did in the White House and Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice did before her. And you knew that too.

Third, the law mandating the SOC use a government server wasn't passed and signed until two years after she left office. But you also knew that.

This reminds me of Republicans cutting funding for protection of US Embassies and then blaming Hillary Clinton and then secretly and without fanfare, restoring the cuts.

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats

“When House Republicans protect budget-busting tax breaks for millionaires first, and slash embassy security, they reveal that their tough talk on national security is really just hollow words,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]gop restores funding cuts for embassy protection - Google Search

[/FONT]

Apparently since you can't do your own thinking, I'll help you out.

SAP intelligence is born classified. The "it wasn't when I saw it" excuse does not fly, the protocols just to view take more than a wink and a smile.

If Powell or Rice compromised national security as Hillary did, line up the FBI to explore that as soon as Clinton faces the music.

No harm, no foul.

Had the Right Wing not spent the last 15 years assassinating the Character of Kerry, Clinton (both), Obama and the First Lady, Democrats, liberals, progressives, minorities of all solids and stripes, women, the poor, labor unions, gays and lesbians, immigrants and settled law, they, in general, might have some minor amount of credibility.

The Right Wing thrives on lies, half-truths, innuendos, rumors, and logical fallacies. The Right offers nothing new, and in fact seems to seek a return to the days before Civil Rights and the Right of labor to organize.

Aside from being total bullshit, your post didn't address the facts presented in the previous post. That's known as a "weasel."