Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
How can anyone believe what you say?
You only wish that was the end of the story. Offer real proof of your statements and I will gladly admit I am wrong!
I have no problem to "man-up" if I am wrong; How about you ?
Did you ever notice, posters who say or try to imply "they won" or the other person "lost" without providing any real proof in some fashion
Never really did "win" the argument
Funny how that works
-------------------------------
"Anyone who follows through all discussion/responses in the thread that's indicated above knows Neo's a child who just can't accept being wrong. End of story."
For your sake, you should hope that no one has followed it through for it would show that statement as false as well.
But don't worry. I have condensed the thread quite well below, with LINKS, so that our fellow readers can quickly comprehend the situation.
Strange, but for some reason you edited these parts out of your reply.
I believe the format of having your false statements along with your "proof" works really well to show the truth.
No need to thank me
Too bad for you your link, offered as proof does NOT support your statement.
Do you even read the links you provide or do you just hope no one notices that you are full of it and that no one will read them?
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Friend
You exact statements are there, with LINKS and your Link offered as proof.
But you still lied or pulled facts out of your arse IS the truth
You said, your exact words (verbatim) in response to my statement that all politicians should have criminal background checks made public
while running for office.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YOUR STATEMENTS:
YOUR PROOF:
Security Clearance Process for State and Local Law Enforcement
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________It is the policy of the FBI to share with law enforcement personnel pertinent information regarding terrorism. In the past, the primary mechanism for such information sharing was the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). In response to the terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001, the FBI established the State and Local Law Enforcement Executives and Elected Officials Security Clearance Initiative. This program was initiated to brief officials with an established "need-to-know" on classified information that would or could affect their area of jurisdiction.Most information needed by state or local law enforcement can be shared at an unclassified level. In those instances where it is necessary to share classified information, it can usually be accomplished at the Secret level. This brochure describes when security clearances are necessary and the notable differences between clearance levels. It also describes the process involved in applying and being considered for a clearance.
State and local officials who require access to classified material must apply for a security clearance through their local FBI Field Office. The candidate should obtain from their local FBI Field Office a Standard Form 86 (SF 86), Questionnaire for National Security Positions; and two FD-258 (FBI applicant fingerprint cards). One of two levels of security clearance, Secret or Top Secret, may be appropriate.
See, combining your statements and your proof next to each other, works quite well. Does it not?
From your link offered as proof of your statement; It has NOTHING to do with your statement. You were probably hoping no one would read your linked "proof".
Which explains why you only linked to it and did not actually quote it and why you selectively edited out the relevant parts Pretty lame and pathetic on your part. pal.
Sorry, friend. Your link provides NO support to your statement. In fact, we never spoke on law enforcement personnel or specifically state politicians.
(You do know that the President and congressmen are Federal, not State and not local law enforcement as well? )
To proof your point, you would need to provide proof to your statement where ALL presidential candidates and ALL members of both Houses of the US Congress are
REQUIRED to get security clearances to take office
Good luck with that......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on, you had what a whole 5 days here? You still can not find any support to your statement
hmm, why would that be?
Admit the truth, it will set you free
Learn from the Left's new hero Weiner. He finally told the truth and he must feel better.
Don't they teach you at "leftist" school that bad news should always be owned up to , quickly?
Eventually, one, like you, will not be able to run from the truth and will end up only looking silly
Weiner should have followed that lesson.
I mean, it won't be like you are the first Leftist who doesn't know what they are talking about
Of course, you are providing a good example of how Weiner went wrong in handling the original release of information.
Who knows? Maybe they do teach you do that in "leftist" school. They assume with the MSM leftist bias, a Democrat would
be able to lie his way out of it while the MSM tries to ignore it.
They tried with Weiner; but, they did not count on him being so prolific in his tweets and pics. So the amount of
evidence was just too much for them and him to cover up for this time.
I've highlighted the part that our intellectually stunted Neo just refuses to see (neocon myopia is a terrible affliction). Evidently, Neo doesn't understand that Congressmen and Senators are state & local officials who will need a security clearance regarding Home Land Security information, etc., etc.
Neo doesn't have a damned thing to say about the neocon hypocrisy regarding Weiner, Vitter and Ensign....so he just follows me like a noisy lap dog looking for attention.
Say Good night, Gracie!
Good god even Weiner a radical leftist knew when to call it quits
My friend,, you are living proof of ignorance is bliss
For slow readers on the left, again
YOUR STATEMENTS:
"The FBI does a background check on all Presidential candidates."
and you said
"ANY Congressman or Senator is vetted by various federal security before confirmation."
There are no qualifiers in your statement. They are inclusive of all
You can not support your statements
I hate to break it you; but your "support" has NOTHING to do with US officials
nor does it support your statement
Your the question at hand is your statement which is false
You can try to spin all you want but sorry they are false
Now you either lied or pulled them out of your arse
Spin (poorly) but now everyone knows what you are
One can only hope, you know how badly you are trying to spin this one
It is a sad statement indeed, if you actually believe your argument
Of course you did mostly likely vote for Papa Obama, so your ignorance is understandable.
Last edited:
Made me laugh~ You're too good at this!
