Irish Mike on Donald Trump

[Irish Ranger]

I am a proud Conservative Republican. I voted against Obama twice, donated money to the Republican
Party and worked as a volunteer on Romney’s campaign in 2012. Democrats will, of course, label me a racist but race has nothing to do with it, I’d gladly vote for Condoleezza Rice for President tomorrow.

I despise Obama and Hillary for their dishonesty, incompetence and the
damage they have done to America. Obama’s legacy is $20 trillion national debt, record high welfare and food stamp rolls, lowest labor participation rate in 35 years, declining take home pay and the first President in history to have 8 straight years of two percent GDP growth. He has divided and polarized America more than any time since the 1960s. He facilitated a race war that has resulted in riots all across America and police officers being murdered in cold blood.

Obama’s foreign policy has been an unqualified disaster. The rise of ISIS, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, his “red line” in Syria and his idiotic deal with Iran which gave them $150 billion to fund terrorism an a green light to build a nuclear bomb. Not to mention Ft. Hood, the Boston Marathon bombing, San Bernardino and Orlando.

Given Obama’s miserable record and the fact that Hillary is a corrupt,
dishonest, liar with virtually no accomplishments, except leaving 4 Americans to die in Benghazi, the 2016 Presidential election should have been a slam dunk for Republicans.

But no, Republican stupidity prevailed, and the party went into full self-destruct mode. They totally underestimated the anger of white voters and ran 17 candidates that focused on attacking each other. The worst was Jeb Bush who spent $135 million to attack Cruz and Rubio and ended up with only about 3% of the vote. John Kasich lost every state in the primary except Ohio but stayed in until the end to further split the vote.

So the Republicans are left with Donald Trump who is, by far, the least qualified and least likeable of all the Republican candidates. In fact, he is probably the only Republican in America with negatives higher than Hillary Clinton’s.

Sadly Trump is inarticulate, self-centered, arrogant and not politically astute. In fact, his ignorance and ego are nearly as great as Obama’s. Trump has no real ground-game, no advertising plan and his fund raising effort is pathetic.

Trump seems totally unaware that the insults and tweets he
used against his squabbling Republican opponents in the primary
will not cut it in the general election. He should be spending every minute pulling Republicans and Independents together but he isn’t. Trump should also be taking full advantage of Hillary’s dishonesty, deception and the myriad lies she’s told. Cruz or Rubio would have used this to eviscerate her. But Trump repeatedly squanders these opportunities and is still taking shots at republicans.

2016 is a critical election with the appointment one to three Supreme Court Justices at stake. Hillary’s only plan is her promise to continue Obama’s failed policies. That will add $trillions more to the already crushing national debt, raise taxes on the middle class and continue the low GDP growth of the last 8 years. It will also facilitate the flood of more illegal
Immigrants crossing our unsecured borders, accelerate the massive expansion of the federal government and result in even greater loss of our individual freedom.

If the Republicans had chosen Cruz, Rubio or even Kasich, Hillary wouldn’t have had a chance. But they chose Trump and all I can do now is hold my nose and vote for him. Because the alternative is Hillary Clinton and the continuation of Obama’s failed policies.

Irish Mike

[Adam H. Kerman]

Irish Ranger <ace...@att.net> wrote:

>I am a proud Conservative Republican. . . .

I'm old enough to remember when "conservative" meant something
completely different than it does today, and I remember the Republican
party when it wasn't a national embarassment.

As a Democrat, I guess we lucked out that Trump didn't buy our party.

I'll probably vote for the Libertarian unless I read awful things
from his background. I'm in favor of term limits in the constitution
and don't approve of the end run the Clintons are doing.

[FPP]

On 2016-07-14 04:08:40 +0000, Irish Ranger <ace...@att.net> said:

> I am a proud Conservative Republican. I voted against Obama twice, donated
> money to the Republican
> Party and worked as a volunteer on Romney’s campaign in 2012. Demo
> crats will, of course, label me a racist but race has nothing to do with it
> , I’d gladly vote for Condoleezza Rice for President tomorrow.
>
> I despise Obama and Hillary for their dishonesty, incompetence and the
> damage they have done to America. Obama’s legacy is $20 trillion n
> ational debt, record high welfare and food stamp rolls, lowest labor partic
> ipation rate in 35 years, declining take home pay and the first President i
> n history to have 8 straight years of two percent GDP growth. He has divid
> ed and polarized America more than any time since the 1960s. He facilitate
> d a race war that has resulted in riots all across America and police offic
> ers being murdered in cold blood.
>
> Obama’s foreign policy has been an unqualified disaster. The rise

> of ISIS, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, his “red lineâ
> € in Syria and his idiotic deal with Iran which gave them $150 billion

> If the Republicans had chosen Cruz, Rubio or even Kasich, Hillary wouldnâ
> €™t have had a chance. But they chose Trump and all I can do now is ho

> ld my nose and vote for him. Because the alternative is Hillary Clinton an
> d the continuation of Obama’s failed policies.
>
> Irish Mike

You are so wrong on the facts, that I can't even begin to rebut your post.

If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments, and that
Obama has facilitated a race war, then you are either a complete moron,
or you are mentally ill. Or you're simply trolling us.

No matter which it is, you are not to be taken seriously... and that's
about the worst thing I can say about an individual.
--
Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken. - Oscar Wilde

[W/Q]

What failed policies? The rich are richer than ever before. That's all that matters in America. Obama has succeeded in ensuring that, the DOW alone is at record-breaking levels. All else, whether successful or failures, is irrelevant. You delude yourself into believing that you're somehow important in the equation of the greater scheme of things and that your vote, as throwaway as it'll be, will still mean something to you in terms of some derived benefits from it. You won't get it. It's not about you. It never was under right wing rule. Trump's in it for himself and he'd be more than willing to subtract from you what you already get, or take for granted of having, from the federal government. He's also already shown how he can fracture a nation to violence. I can't wait for the Republican convention and the literal blood in the streets to be shed with all the protesters and their legal open carry guns crossfiring at each other. Best TV this summer it'll be - that'll be what making America great again will be all about.

[American's FIRST!]

1st Debate ... Trump "Hillary, so far what has been your greatest accomplishment ...besides avoiding prosecution for your gross mismanagement of Classified Government Secrets at the State Department? Hillary ..."I helped Obama get re-elected when I lied about Benghazi even to the families of the four U.S. Diplomats that were murdered on my watch ...and blamed it on a video ...even though I knew the truth and when I lied over and over again to the media about it."

Democrats in the audience ... CHEER Loudly!!!

MSM reports Hillary made a fool out of Trump ...with her quick response to a "Gotcha" question ... and won the debate easily.

[Ubiquitous]

ace...@att.net wrote without line breaks:

>I am a proud Conservative Republican. I voted against Obama twice, donated money to the Republican
>Party and worked as a volunteer on Romney’s campaign in 2012. Democrats will, of course, label me a racist but race has nothing to do with it, I’d gladly vote for Condoleezza Rice for President tomorrow.
>
>I despise Obama and Hillary for their dishonesty, incompetence and the
>damage they have done to America. Obama’s legacy is $20 trillion national debt, record high welfare and food stamp rolls, lowest labor participation rate in 35 years, declining take home pay and the first Presiden
>

>Obama’s foreign policy has been an unqualified disaster. The rise of ISIS, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, his “red line” in Syria and his idiotic deal with Iran which gave them $150 billion
>

>Given Obama’s miserable record and the fact that Hillary is a corrupt,
>dishonest, liar with virtually no accomplishments, except leaving 4 Americans to die in Benghazi, the 2016 Presidential election should have been a slam dunk for Republicans.
>
>But no, Republican stupidity prevailed, and the party went into full self-destruct mode. They totally underestimated the anger of white voters and ran 17 candidates that focused on attacking each other. The worst w
>

>So the Republicans are left with Donald Trump who is, by far, the least qualified and least likeable of all the Republican candidates. In fact, he is probably the only Republican in America with negatives higher tha
>

>Sadly Trump is inarticulate, self-centered, arrogant and not politically astute. In fact, his ignorance and ego are nearly as great as Obama’s. Trump has no real ground-game, no advertising plan and his fund rais
>

>Trump seems totally unaware that the insults and tweets he
>used against his squabbling Republican opponents in the primary
>will not cut it in the general election. He should be spending every minute pulling Republicans and Independents together but he isn’t. Trump should also be taking full advantage of Hillary’s dishonesty, dec
>

>2016 is a critical election with the appointment one to three Supreme Court Justices at stake. Hillary’s only plan is her promise to continue Obama’s failed policies. That will add $trillions more to the alrf m

>Immigrants crossing our unsecured borders, accelerate the massive expansion of the federal government and result in even greater loss of our individual freedom.
>
>If the Republicans had chosen Cruz, Rubio or even Kasich, Hillary wouldn’t have had a chance. But they chose Trump and all I can do now is hold my nose and vote for him. Because the alternative is Hillary Clinton

And you posted this off-topic artickle here because?


--
BREAKING NEWS
In other news, somehow Crooked Hillary still isn't in prison...

[Ubiquitous]

ace...@att.net wrote without line breaks:

>I am a proud Conservative Republican. I voted against Obama twice, donated money to the Republican
>Party and worked as a volunteer on Romney’s campaign in 2012. Democrats will, of course, label me a racist but race has nothing to do with it, I’d gladly vote for Condoleezza Rice for President tomorrow.
>
>I despise Obama and Hillary for their dishonesty, incompetence and the
>damage they have done to America. Obama’s legacy is $20 trillion national debt, record high welfare and food stamp rolls, lowest labor participation rate in 35 years, declining take home pay and the first Preside
>

>Obama’s foreign policy has been an unqualified disaster. The rise of ISIS, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, his “red line” in Syria and his idiotic deal with Iran which gave them $150 billion
>

>Given Obama’s miserable record and the fact that Hillary is a corrupt,
>dishonest, liar with virtually no accomplishments, except leaving 4 Americans to die in Benghazi, the 2016 Presidential election should have been a slam dunk for Republicans.
>
>But no, Republican stupidity prevailed, and the party went into full self-destruct mode. They totally underestimated the anger of white voters and ran 17 candidates that focused on attacking each other. The worst
>

>So the Republicans are left with Donald Trump who is, by far, the least qualified and least likeable of all the Republican candidates. In fact, he is probably the only Republican in America with negatives higher th
>

>Sadly Trump is inarticulate, self-centered, arrogant and not politically astute. In fact, his ignorance and ego are nearly as great as Obama’s. Trump has no real ground-game, no advertising plan and his fund rai
>

>Trump seems totally unaware that the insults and tweets he
>used against his squabbling Republican opponents in the primary
>will not cut it in the general election. He should be spending every minute pulling Republicans and Independents together but he isn’t. Trump should also be taking full advantage of Hillary’s dishonesty, dec
>

>2016 is a critical election with the appointment one to three Supreme Court Justices at stake. Hillary’s only plan is her promise to continue Obama’s failed policies. That will add $trillions more to the alrf

>Immigrants crossing our unsecured borders, accelerate the massive expansion of the federal government and result in even greater loss of our individual freedom.
>
>If the Republicans had chosen Cruz, Rubio or even Kasich, Hillary wouldn’t have had a chance. But they chose Trump and all I can do now is hold my nose and vote for him. Because the alternative is Hillary Clinto

[Ubiquitous]

In article <nm75tf$547$1...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:

>You are so wrong on the facts, that I can't even begin to rebut
>your post.

TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
>

[Ubiquitous]

In article <4f8e1d69-74c6-4dd2...@googlegroups.com>,

dfag...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:54:10 PM UTC-7, FPP wrote:

>> If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments, and that
>> Obama has facilitated a race war, then you are either a complete moron,
>> or you are mentally ill. Or you're simply trolling us.
>>
>> No matter which it is, you are not to be taken seriously... and that's
>> about the worst thing I can say about an individual.

Ad hominems noted.

>1st Debate ... Trump "Hillary, so far what has been your greatest
>accomplishment ...besides avoiding prosecution for your gross
>mismanagement of Classified Government Secrets at the State Department?

The premise of your argument is incorrect.

Crooked Hillary will never debate Trump b/c she knows he'd wipe the floor
with her.


--
BREAKING NEWS
In other news, somehow Hillary still isn't in prison...

[Irish Ranger]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Irish Ranger wrote:
>
> >I am a proud Conservative Republican. . . .
>
> I'm old enough to remember when "conservative" meant something
> completely different than it does today

A Conservative Republican means today what it's always meant.
Smaller government, lower taxes and the freedom guaranteed in the
Constitution. The exact opposite of a liberal Democrat.

Irish Mike

[Adam H. Kerman]

Just keep exhibiting that obliviousness. When I was much younger, Arlen
Specter was considered to be conservative, relatively far right in the
political spectrum. He was hounded out of the Republican party by the
Tea Party Movement and attempted to run as a Democrat. He was unsuccessful.

Today's so-called Conservatives try to appease Tea Party types to avoid
losing in their primaries, plus they've been sucking up to the Protestant
Evangelicals since they joined the Republican coalition. Where have
you been since 1980?

Appeasing the Tea Party Movement types instead of defeating them was
cowardly politics. The failure of traditional Republicans to stand up
for themselves is what left the door wide open for co-option by Donald
Trump. Congratulations on causing the collapse of your party. A pathetic
Republican Party is bad, bad, bad for the nation. If Hillary gets elected,
it will be your fault. If Trump gets elected, it will be your fault.

Please just go out of business before you take down America. We can
bring back the northern Whigs.

As far as liberals in the Democratic Party, they're, well, dead, same as
the conservatives in the Republican Party. You're trying to pretend that
the politics of the late 1950s to early 1960s are applicable today and
that those labels continue to have the same meaning.

Republicans who use the word "liberal" as an epithet, as you're doing,
are idiots, Irish.

Because it's fun to piss off idiots like you, I use "liberal" the way the
word was intended to be used, in the McKinley-Roosevelt (Teddy)-Taft sense,
back in the good ol' days when Republicans were the party of individual
liberty and civil rights (you know, when they were still the party of
Abraham Lincoln), and stood up for consumers and the right to organize a
labor union against bad business practices, and believed in conservation
of the natural wilderness.

People like you would never acknowledge the heritage of Abraham Lincoln.
It's pathetic, really.

Hell, people like you would never acknowledge that in the 1970s, the
Republican coaltion included moderates and college-educated women.

[Barb May]

"If somebody hurts you, it's okay to cry a river, just remember to build
a bridge and get over it."
? Taylor Swift

--
Barb

[Adam H. Kerman]

Hahahahahahahaha

Thanking the Tea Party Movement, which trampled over the Republican
Party as so-called conservatives sat on their hands and allowed it to
happen, Donald Trump chooses TPM standard bearer Mike Pence, as
his running mate. "Withot the Tea Party Movement, I never could have
co-opted the Republican Party at such a bargain value."

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Congratulation, Re-Trump-lican Party.

[FPP]

Now everybody KNOWS you are nothing but a troll... and not a terribly
bright or original one.
--
I was going to buy a copy of The Power Of Positive Thinking, and then I
thought: "What the hell good would that do?"

[FPP]

Saint Ronald of Reagan (may all blessings be upon his name) couldn't
have gotten through the first round of Republican primaries today.

He raised taxes, cut & ran in Lebanon, advocated for a gun control
bill, and sold weapons to a terrorist organization in order to funnel
money, illegally, to a right-wing group in South America.

He would have been shit-on-toast in today's Republican party, and
anybody that says differently is a liar. Like you.
--
Originality is the fine art of remembering what you hear but forgetting
where you heard it. -LJ Peter

[Arc Michael]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:08:43 PM UTC-7, Irish Ranger wrote:
> I am a proud Conservative Republican. I voted against Obama twice, donated money to the Republican
> Party and worked as a volunteer on Romney’s campaign in 2012. Democrats

u worked for Romney? ur fucked in the head. he is pro establishment a canukian and fucked over 8-0,000 us jobs. You must be dumb. common grow up.
>
> Irish Mike

[FPP]

On 2016-07-14 20:28:49 +0000, Ronnie Bateman
<OurOwnRon...@earthlinc.net> said:

> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:
>>
>>> In article <4f8e1d69-74c6-4dd2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> dfag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:54:10 PM UTC-7, FPP wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments, and that
>>>>> Obama has facilitated a race war, then you are either a complete moron,
>>>>> or you are mentally ill. Or you're simply trolling us.
>>>>>
>>>>> No matter which it is, you are not to be taken seriously... and that's
>>>>> about the worst thing I can say about an individual.
>>>
>>> Ad hominems noted.
>>>
>>>> 1st Debate ... Trump "Hillary, so far what has been your greatest
>>>> accomplishment ...besides avoiding prosecution for your gross
>>>> mismanagement of Classified Government Secrets at the State Department?
>>>
>>> The premise of your argument is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Crooked Hillary will never debate Trump b/c she knows he'd wipe the floor
>>> with her.
>>
>> Now everybody KNOWS you are nothing but a troll... and not a terribly
>> bright or original one.
>

> Ubiquitous is a terrible, terrible person. I wouldn't say he's not
> bright, but he has no conscience at all. Anyone who relentlessly scolds
> people for posting off-topic articles AND relentlessly tries to start
> off-topic, CROSSPOSTED harangue threads about politics should be viewed
> as the ultimate in hypocritical scum. He never tries to defend these
> tactics because he knows there's no way to do so. And all those vacuous,
> boilerplate chides he uses over and over just to be annoying -- pure
> trolling. He'll robotically recite "Ad hominem noted" to this post too,
> no doubt.

He just stated that Trump, the cheeto-faced shitgibbon, would wipe the
floor with Hillary in a debate... so, no... he's not too bright. In
fact, he's certifiably insane, if he's not lying.
--
Q: How do you know when <NoB...@nowhere.com> is lying? A: Ubiquitous
<web...@polaris.net> fingers are moving.
<NoB...@nowhere.com> reveals himself and Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@null.net> to be sockpuppets of sickpuppy Ubiquitous
<web...@polaris.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=142705573800
http://fc00.deviantart.net/images3/i/2004/181/4/a/The_Lurking_Sock_Puppet.jpg

[Ubiquitous]

In article <nm889i$fg1$2...@news.albasani.net>, a...@chinet.com wrote:
>Irish Ranger <ace...@att.net> wrote:
>>On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>Irish Ranger wrote:

>>>>I am a proud Conservative Republican. . . .
>
>>>I'm old enough to remember when "conservative" meant something
>>>completely different than it does today
>>
>>A Conservative Republican means today what it's always meant.
>>Smaller government, lower taxes and the freedom guaranteed in the
>>Constitution. The exact opposite of a liberal Democrat.
>

>Just keep exhibiting that obliviousness. When I was much younger, Arlen
>Specter was considered to be conservative, relatively far right in the
>political spectrum. He was hounded out of the Republican party by the
>Tea Party Movement and attempted to run as a Democrat. He was unsuccessful.

[Ubiquitous]

In article <nm8od1$qob$1...@news.albasani.net>, a...@chinet.com wrote:

>Hahahahahahahaha
>
>Thanking the Tea Party Movement, which trampled over the Republican
>Party as so-called conservatives sat on their hands and allowed it to
>happen, Donald Trump chooses TPM standard bearer Mike Pence, as
>his running mate. "Withot the Tea Party Movement, I never could have
>co-opted the Republican Party at such a bargain value."

[Ubiquitous]

In article <nm8r7a$s0v$1...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:

>Saint Ronald of Reagan (may all blessings be upon his name) couldn't
>have gotten through the first round of Republican primaries today.
>
>He raised taxes, cut & ran in Lebanon, advocated for a gun control
>bill, and sold weapons to a terrorist organization in order to funnel
>money, illegally, to a right-wing group in South America.
>
>He would have been shit-on-toast in today's Republican party, and
>anybody that says differently is a liar. Like you.

[FPP]

I just knew you'd have something intelligent to say.

Something on the level of a coloring book is exactly the response I
expected, and you never disappoint.
--
REP. JOHN DUNCAN (R): "Do you understand that great numbers of people
feel, now, that there's one standard of justice for the Clintons and
another for regular people?"

COMEY: "Yeah, I've heard that a lot... it's NOT TRUE, but I've heard
it a lot."

[trotsky]

Ad hominem noted. In crayon.

[BTR1701]

In article <nm75tf$547$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments

Hillz's greatest accomplishment was beating the indictment, despite having clearly committed the crime.

[trotsky]

That makes sense. Being the kind of guy you are that constantly takes a
shit on America, being a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State don't even
rate, right?

[FPP]

And your greatest accomplishment is lying about it.

It's nice to know that you know better than a platoon of FBI agents and
Justice Dept investigators, who spent over a year investigating it
because you read some blurb on the Drudge Report...

We have actual proof that people in our government committed war
crimes... but you go to your default position that whatever Hillary and
the "progs" do is suspected of being criminal activity.

Keep up the good work, laughing-boy... because that's all it's good
for. A laugh.
--
As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices: take it or leave
it. -Hackett

[FPP]

But, but... at least he's not a Republican, right? So it's all good, then...
--
If all is not lost, then where is it?

[trotsky]

He's not? He's as right wing as they come. He's the opposite of a
RINO, whatever the fuck that would be called.

[BTR1701]

In article <nmbmlc$71k$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-07-15 17:24:46 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <nm75tf$547$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments
> >
> > Hillz's greatest accomplishment was beating the indictment, despite
> > having clearly committed the crime.
>
> And your greatest accomplishment is lying about it.
>
> It's nice to know that you know better than a platoon of FBI agents

Those platoons of rank-and-file FBI agents are just as disgusted with
the whole affair as I am.

[FPP]

However, people don't get put in jail because they disgust you, or
them. Thankfully, our Justice system's standards are a little higher
than that.
--
You see three Branches of Government. I see firewood.

[FPP]

It certainly was nice of them all to call you personally, and confide
their thoughts on the investigation to you, personally.

They DID all call, or write you, correct?

Because any answer other than "Yes" means what you said is pure
fantasy. A figment of an overly active imagination.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with
the average voter. -Winston Churchill

[Ubiquitous]

In article <nm8quo$qf9$2...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 2016-07-14 13:34:54 +0000, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:
>> dfag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:54:10 PM UTC-7, FPP wrote:

>>>> If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments, and that
>>>> Obama has facilitated a race war, then you are either a complete
>>>> moron, or you are mentally ill. Or you're simply trolling us.
>>>>
>>>> No matter which it is, you are not to be taken seriously... and that's
>>>> about the worst thing I can say about an individual.
>>
>> Ad hominems noted.
>>
>>> 1st Debate ... Trump "Hillary, so far what has been your greatest
>>> accomplishment ...besides avoiding prosecution for your gross
>>> mismanagement of Classified Government Secrets at the State Department?
>>
>> The premise of your argument is incorrect.
>>
>> Crooked Hillary will never debate Trump b/c she knows he'd wipe the
>> floor with her.
>
>Now everybody KNOWS you are nothing but a troll... and not a terribly
>bright or original one.

Apparently I struck a nerve.

Ad hominem noted.
Projection noted.

Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

--
The old Soviet leaders had it right. Our destruction comes from within:
Moochers, parasites, and Obama.

[FPP]

On 2016-07-14 20:00:00 +0000, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:

> In article <nm8quo$qf9$2...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 2016-07-14 13:34:54 +0000, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:
>>> dfag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:54:10 PM UTC-7, FPP wrote:
>
>>>>> If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments, and that
>>>>> Obama has facilitated a race war, then you are either a complete
>>>>> moron, or you are mentally ill. Or you're simply trolling us.
>>>>>
>>>>> No matter which it is, you are not to be taken seriously... and that's
>>>>> about the worst thing I can say about an individual.
>>>
>>> Ad hominems noted.
>>>
>>>> 1st Debate ... Trump "Hillary, so far what has been your greatest
>>>> accomplishment ...besides avoiding prosecution for your gross
>>>> mismanagement of Classified Government Secrets at the State Department?
>>>
>>> The premise of your argument is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Crooked Hillary will never debate Trump b/c she knows he'd wipe the
>>> floor with her.
>>
>> Now everybody KNOWS you are nothing but a troll... and not a terribly
>> bright or original one.
>
> Apparently I struck a nerve.

That's what a not terribly bright troll would say... what a shock!

What do you think a not terribly bright troll will say next, pray tell?
Only you can answer that one...

--
When we talk to God, we're praying. When God talks to us, we're
schizophrenic. -J Wagner

[BTR1701]

In article <nmce60$urh$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-07-15 22:49:02 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <nmbmlc$71k$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-07-15 17:24:46 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <nm75tf$547$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments
> >>>
> >>> Hillz's greatest accomplishment was beating the indictment, despite
> >>> having clearly committed the crime.
> >>
> >> And your greatest accomplishment is lying about it.
> >>
> >> It's nice to know that you know better than a platoon of FBI agents
> >
> > Those platoons of rank-and-file FBI agents are just as disgusted with
> > the whole affair as I am.
>
> However, people don't get put in jail because they disgust you, or
> them.

Oh, so now the opinions of FBI agents are irrelevant? Two posts ago you
were lauding them as experts. Now their views are summarily dismissed.

[BTR1701]

In article <nmceft$vdu$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> > On 2016-07-15 22:49:02 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >
> >> In article <nmbmlc$71k$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2016-07-15 17:24:46 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <nm75tf$547$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments
> >>>>
> >>>> Hillz's greatest accomplishment was beating the indictment, despite
> >>>> having clearly committed the crime.
> >>>
> >>> And your greatest accomplishment is lying about it.
> >>>
> >>> It's nice to know that you know better than a platoon of FBI agents
> >>
> >> Those platoons of rank-and-file FBI agents are just as disgusted with
> >> the whole affair as I am.
> >
> > However, people don't get put in jail because they disgust you, or
> > them. Thankfully, our Justice system's standards are a little higher
> > than that.
>
> It certainly was nice of them all to call you personally, and confide
> their thoughts on the investigation to you, personally.

They didn't call. I attend FBI case coordination meetings every Friday
at the Wilshire building. The topic of Hillz's case was quite popular in
the before- and after-meeting chats.

There are also two FBI agents that work out of our office on the
electronic crimes task force, and neither of them was very pleased with
Comey's decision, either. I believe the quote from one of them after the
press conference was, "I'm embarrassed for my agency today."

> They DID all call, or write you, correct?

Incorrect.

> Because any answer other than "Yes" means what you said is pure
> fantasy.

Heh, such a limited intellect you have.

[FPP]

Your comment WAS fantasy, then. The FBI employs some 35,000 people.
So, you may have talked to a limited number of people who were in a
position to say something relevant.

You are a fraud if you're saying you talked to any significant number
of employees, and what makes you think they'd tell you what they really
thought anyway?

Have you ever talked to a cab driver? What do they all think, pray tell?
--
Donald Trump in his own words: "I know words, I have the best words. I
have the best..." - Hilton Head, SC (Dec. 30, 2015)
George Carlin: "In my own words? Personally, I'm using the same ones
everybody else is using."

[FPP]

Yup, they are. Opinions don't make cases... facts and investigation do.

The personal opinion of any FBI employees are just that... opinions.
They don't count towards putting people in jail. That's beyond their
pay grades.

A great legal scholar such as yourself would know the guidelines,
wouldn't they? I mean, if they really studied the law?

> 9-27.220 - Grounds for Commencing or Declining Prosecution
>
> The attorney for the government should commence or recommend Federal
> prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a
> Federal offense and that the admissible evidence will probably be
> sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless, in his/her
> judgment, prosecution should be declined..."

I didn't see anything in the guidelines that say the opinion of an
employee counts for shit.
--
“There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Disraeli

[moviePig]

What was the consensus of the previous Hillary supporters? There must
have been a couple, right?

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Adam H. Kerman]

They're Hatched, doofus, and they're supposed to be neutral anyway.
How do you not know this?

[BTR1701]

In article <nmd9h8$9tg$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-07-16 09:12:14 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <nmce60$urh$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-07-15 22:49:02 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <nmbmlc$71k$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2016-07-15 17:24:46 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <nm75tf$547$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hillz's greatest accomplishment was beating the indictment, despite
> >>>>> having clearly committed the crime.
> >>>>
> >>>> And your greatest accomplishment is lying about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's nice to know that you know better than a platoon of FBI agents
> >>>
> >>> Those platoons of rank-and-file FBI agents are just as disgusted with
> >>> the whole affair as I am.
> >>
> >> However, people don't get put in jail because they disgust you, or
> >> them.
> >
> > Oh, so now the opinions of FBI agents are irrelevant? Two posts ago you
> > were lauding them as experts. Now their views are summarily dismissed.
>
> Yup, they are. Opinions don't make cases... facts and investigation do.

So now Comey's opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring that
case" is now just a meaningless comment that can be challenged? Great!
We're making progress.

> The personal opinion of any FBI employees are just that... opinions.
> They don't count towards putting people in jail. That's beyond their
> pay grades.

It's beyond everyone's pay grade in the government. Putting people in
prison is the job of civilian citizens sitting on juries. Of course we
can't get to that point if the politicians make cases go away before a
jury can hear them.

> > 9-27.220 - Grounds for Commencing or Declining Prosecution
> >
> > The attorney for the government should commence or recommend Federal
> > prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a
> > Federal offense and that the admissible evidence will probably be
> > sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless, in his/her
> > judgment, prosecution should be declined..."
>
> I didn't see anything in the guidelines that say the opinion of an
> employee counts for shit.

What do you think "attorney for the government" is? Yep, an employee.

[BTR1701]

In article <nmd95l$8p2$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

> The FBI employs some 35,000 people. So, you may have talked to a
> limited number of people who were in a position to say something
> relevant.

Ah, so FBI agents are only an unimpeachable and unchallengeable source
of information so long as they're saying things you agree with.

Gotcha.

And I think actual agents have a better sense of the overall mood and
morale in their agency than FPP does.

> You are a fraud if you're saying you talked to any significant number
> of employees, and what makes you think they'd tell you what they really
> thought anyway?

Umm... they're my friends?

[moviePig]

So, they'll talk about whether she should be incarcerated, but not about
whether she should be elected...

[jgro...@hotmail.com]

>
> 1st Debate ... Trump "Hillary, so far what has been your greatest accomplishment ...besides avoiding prosecution for your gross mismanagement of Classified Government Secrets at the State Department? Hillary ..."I helped Obama get re-elected when I lied about Benghazi even to the families of the four U.S. Diplomats that were murdered on my watch ...and blamed it on a video ...even though I knew the truth and when I lied over and over again to the media about it."
>
> Democrats in the audience ... CHEER Loudly!!!
>
> MSM reports Hillary made a fool out of Trump ...with her quick response to a "Gotcha" question ... and won the debate easily.

Will Tranny Granny Kardashian have a prime time speech slot in Cleveland ?? Cocktail dress or pants suit ??

[Adam H. Kerman]

Sigh.

Federal employees are prohibited from being political partisans. They
must not be party members. They can certainly vote in primaries in states
without party registration. I don't know if they are prohibited from party
registration in states that have that; I don't see how federal law could
prevent voting in a primary. They cannot make political contributions
and they can't work for political campaigns or political parties, a
restriction on their activities when not on their employer's time. But it's
not against the First Amendment because employers can restrict employees.

They're not prohibited from having a discussion, but they can't be any
candidate's supporter by working on a campaign.

In general, a police officer is supposed to act under neutrality. It's
illegal to use police powers to promote or oppose a candidate. So even
an FBI agent who anticipated voting for Hillary would be expected to
enforce federal law without considering whether it's good or bad for
her election chances.

[moviePig]

...is just a sigh. The fundamental things apply...

> Federal employees are prohibited from being political partisans. They
> must not be party members. They can certainly vote in primaries in states
> without party registration. I don't know if they are prohibited from party
> registration in states that have that; I don't see how federal law could
> prevent voting in a primary. They cannot make political contributions
> and they can't work for political campaigns or political parties, a
> restriction on their activities when not on their employer's time. But it's
> not against the First Amendment because employers can restrict employees.
>
> They're not prohibited from having a discussion, but they can't be any
> candidate's supporter by working on a campaign.
>
> In general, a police officer is supposed to act under neutrality. It's
> illegal to use police powers to promote or oppose a candidate. So even
> an FBI agent who anticipated voting for Hillary would be expected to
> enforce federal law without considering whether it's good or bad for
> her election chances.

...but none of them seems relevant to BTR's informal conversations.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Sigh.

Yes, doofus, he was describing a conservation. He was NOT describing
a conversation with "Hillary supporters", as a government employee must
not support or oppose a candidate beyond voting in an election. Federal
law has severe restriction on support, and most ordinary forms of
support for a candidate or opposing a candidate are prohibited.

Do you understand how the word "supporter" is properly used in a
sentence when discussing politics?

[BTR1701]

In article <nmdth0$7kv$2...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Federal employees are prohibited from being political partisans.

That's not completely true. They just can't tie their politics to their
federal position.

A federal employee can put a campaign sign in his front yard, a bumper
sticker on her personal car, engage in public debate over political
issues with other citizens, etc.

They can't just speak for their agency or bring the politics into the
office-- a campaign sign on their office door would be a no-no.

> They must not be party members.

Again, untrue. You can be a federal employee and register as a Democrat
or a Republican. Most do.

https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Pamphlet%20Sept%202014.pdf

> They cannot make political contributions

Again, not true. (All in the above link.)

> and they can't work for political campaigns or political parties

Again, not true. (All in the above link.)

> They're not prohibited from having a discussion, but they can't be any
> candidate's supporter by working on a campaign.

Again, not true. (All in the above link.)

[moviePig]

Do *you*?

sup·port·er
səˈpôrdər/
noun
noun: supporter; plural noun: supporters

1.
a person who approves of and encourages someone or something
(typically a public figure, a movement or party, or a policy).
"Reagan supporters"
synonyms: advocate, backer, adherent, promoter, champion, defender,
upholder, crusader, proponent, campaigner, apologist;

"For all the ways that supporters of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
differ, we forget about all the ways the two groups are actually the
same." - CNBC

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Federal employees are prohibited from being political partisans.

>That's not completely true. They just can't tie their politics to their
>federal position.

>A federal employee can put a campaign sign in his front yard, a bumper
>sticker on her personal car, engage in public debate over political
>issues with other citizens, etc.

>They can't just speak for their agency or bring the politics into the
>office-- a campaign sign on their office door would be a no-no.

>>They must not be party members.

>Again, untrue. You can be a federal employee and register as a Democrat
>or a Republican. Most do.

>https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Pamphlet%20Sept%202014.pdf

>>They cannot make political contributions

>Again, not true. (All in the above link.)

>>and they can't work for political campaigns or political parties

>Again, not true. (All in the above link.)

That is true with respect to employees who are "further restricted",
including FBI.

>>They're not prohibited from having a discussion, but they can't be any
>>candidate's supporter by working on a campaign.

>Again, not true. (All in the above link.)

That is true with respect to employees who are "further restricted",
including FBI.

Ok. Reading that document, there are categories of federal employees who
are "further restricted" under the Hatch Act and cannot take an active
part in political management or political campaigns (i.e., engage in
political activity in concert with a political party, candidate for
partisan political office, or partisan political group); FBI is in
that category.

Huh. It doesn't include all federal law enforcement agencies, just FBI
and Secret Service and just one portion of ATF. It doesn't include all
spooks. Both the US Treasury and Homeland Security have spooks working
for them, in example.

There are categories I don't recognize: What the fuck is Criminal Division
of DOJ? I thought that was the FBI. Is that a category of investigators on
a prosecutor's staff who don't have arrest power like FBI agents? What
the fuck is US Office of Special Counsel? "Special counsel" is a term
generally used for a staff attorney at an agency. I see from the next
pararaph that it investigates and prosecutes civil service violations.
I didn't know that.

I knew if I tried to correct moviePig, I'd get in trouble. Yes, the
Hatch Act has been somewhat relaxed over the years. Those were all
prohibitions historically, weren't they?

[Adam H. Kerman]

>supporter

>noun
>noun: supporter; plural noun: supporters

> 1.
> a person who approves of and encourages someone or something
>(typically a public figure, a movement or party, or a policy).

That's Hatched, doofus, with respect to campaigning for or against a
candidate in an election, with respect to circulating nominating petitions,
with respect to making campaign speechs, with respect to literature
distribution, and with respect to being a campaign volunteer.

So, no, doofus, an FBI agent cannot support Hillary in a large number
of ways that are restricted to him.

These are all categories of support prohibited to "further restricted"
federal employees, which includes FBI agents, you know, the people
being discussed. BTR1701 had me read the official brochure.

All federal employees are Hatched with respect to partisan activity
on federal property, and while on the government time, and while wearing
a uniform or driving a federal vehicle. This would restricting encouraging
someone to vote for or against a candidate in those circumstances.

I was right in part with respect to FBI agents. I was wrong about
campaign donations and party registration.

You're a doofus.

[FPP]

I know people too... and they weren't in on the investigation, just
like your friends. They told me they all love Hillary, and she wasn't
guilty of anything. Guess she's all set, then.
--
Liberals are concerned about economic inequality.
Conservatives are confident that one day they'll be rich.

[moviePig]

Adam, your strain is showing signs of strain. Give it a rest...

[FPP]

On 2016-07-16 16:26:12 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> So now Comey's opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring that
> case" is now just a meaningless comment that can be challenged? Great!
> We're making progress.

Comey headed the investigation. He was in the best position to know
what he was talking about. What you're talking about is water-cooler
talk. We, at work, solve all of the world's problems on our lunch
breaks, too...

Your "friends" had absolutely nothing to do with it. They know about
as much as anyone else... and if they DID have something to do with it,
they need to be reprimanded and possibly brought up on charges for
leaking any information on a confidential classified investigation.

You really want to go there? I mean, if they're really your friends?
--
"A pessimist is somebody who complains about the noise when opportunity
knocks." -Oscar Wilde

[Barb May]

The opinions of FBI agents who actually worked on the investigation
might be relevant, but they signed non-disclosure agreements, so we
won't be hearing from them, even second hand. The opinions of FBI agents
who didn't work on the investigation are just as uninformed as yours and
everyone else's.

How you could take FPPs comments about Comey and make it about all FBI
agents and then use it to claim that the whining about Hillary you heard
from FBI agents at some conference should be taken as if it were factual
information and informed opinions about her case is truly astonishing --
astonishing that you would even attempt such a laughable and absurd feat
of legerdemain. You are so full of shit, Thanny...

--
Barb

[FPP]

I'm pretty sure it's not a random federal employee, talking out of his
ass to another random employee.
--
If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made
prolonging the problem.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-F59F31...@news.giganews.com>,

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <nmdth0$7kv$2...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > Federal employees are prohibited from being political partisans.
>
> That's not completely true. They just can't tie their politics to their
> federal position.

Our Maricopa County Assessor just ran a DONALD TRUMP IS NOT WELCOME IN
ARIZONA rally, conspicuously using his government title for publicity.

As if he already didn't belong in prison.

> A federal employee can put a campaign sign in his front yard, a bumper
> sticker on her personal car, engage in public debate over political
> issues with other citizens, etc.
>
> They can't just speak for their agency or bring the politics into the
> office-- a campaign sign on their office door would be a no-no.
>
> > They must not be party members.
>
> Again, untrue. You can be a federal employee and register as a Democrat
> or a Republican. Most do.
>
> https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Pamphlet%20Sept%202014.pdf
>
> > They cannot make political contributions
>
> Again, not true. (All in the above link.)
>
> > and they can't work for political campaigns or political parties
>
> Again, not true. (All in the above link.)
>
> > They're not prohibited from having a discussion, but they can't be any
> > candidate's supporter by working on a campaign.
>
> Again, not true. (All in the above link.)

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[Adam H. Kerman]

I will continue to defend innocent words against your abuse.

[BTR1701]

In article <nme543$o7n$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 wrote:

> > In article <nmce60$urh$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:

> >> However, people don't get put in jail because they disgust you, or
> >> them.
> >
> > Oh, so now the opinions of FBI agents are irrelevant? Two posts ago
> > you were lauding them as experts. Now their views are summarily
> > dismissed.
>
> The opinions of FBI agents who actually worked on the investigation
> might be relevant, but they signed non-disclosure agreements, so we
> won't be hearing from them, even second hand.

I've worked plenty of federal investigations. Never seen anyone sign a
non-disclosure agreement before. The only secrecy provisions are for
grand jury testimony and cases with classified evidence and that's
provided for by statute, not signed for on a case-by-case basis by each
individual agent. And the Comey-Lynch tag-team made sure this case never
even reached the grand jury, so that's not even relevant here.

> The opinions of FBI agents who didn't work on the investigation are
> just as uninformed as yours and everyone else's.

Ummm... no. Any FBI agent can get on their desktop computer and pull up
any closed case and read the reports and view the evidence in that case.

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-61056...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <atropos-F59F31...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <nmdth0$7kv$2...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Federal employees are prohibited from being political partisans.
> >
> > That's not completely true. They just can't tie their politics to their
> > federal position.
>
> Our Maricopa County Assessor just ran a DONALD TRUMP IS NOT WELCOME IN
> ARIZONA rally, conspicuously using his government title for publicity.

The mayor of West Hollywood held a big press conference a couple of
months ago where she-- in her official capacity as mayor-- banned Donald
Trump from the city of West Hollywood. As if that's even remotely
enforceable.

[BTR1701]

In article <nme55h$a5h$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

Yes, you're right. They don't hold a lottery and select names out of a
big drum to represent the government at trial in the federal courts.

That's also something no one here has asserted, so good job rebutting
something no one has ever claimed.

[BTR1701]

In article <nme52o$a5h$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-07-16 16:26:12 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > So now Comey's opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring that
> > case" is now just a meaningless comment that can be challenged? Great!
> > We're making progress.
>
> Comey headed the investigation.

No, he didn't. If you think the director of the FBI was out there
investigating a case, you're delusional. This isn't a Hollywood movie.

Working agents headed the investigation. Comey was briefed on their
progress.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2016-07-16 16:26:12 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

>>>So now Comey's opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring that
>>>case" is now just a meaningless comment that can be challenged? Great!
>>>We're making progress.

>>Comey headed the investigation.

>No, he didn't. If you think the director of the FBI was out there
>investigating a case, you're delusional. This isn't a Hollywood movie.

So his wife solves all the case? Do they have a wise-ass maid?

[FPP]

On 2016-07-16 23:59:16 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> And the Comey-Lynch tag-team

Nice. He's a conservative Republican, so now you're eating your own.

How's it taste?
--
"The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the
taxidermist leaves the skin." -Twain

[FPP]

Just like Trump's muslim ban, I guess. Or his stance on torture. Or
his plan to steal other countries oil. Or his call to kill innocent
mothers, fathers wives and children of terrorists. Or any of a dozen
other crackpot slogans masquerading as policy.

Refresh my memory... which one of them wants to be president again?
--
It's good to keep an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall
out. -Dawkins

[FPP]

I didn't say he was the lead investigator, I said he headed the
investigation. Comey is the head of the FBI. This was an FBI
investigation. Here are HIS words:

> What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what WE did;
> what WE found; and what WE are recommending to the Department of
> Justice. - James Comey

Note the use of the word "we", instead of the word "he". His entire
statements are filled with the words "we" and "our".
Last I checked, that means that Comey is saying HE was involved, at
every stage of the investigation. There are literally over a dozen
references to "we" and "our".

But, of course, you know better than the Director of the FBI... and we
should take your word, seeing as how you're a completely anonymous
source we know aboluteley nothing about, whatsoever.
--
Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food
and water and shelter and affection, they will think YOU are God.

Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide
them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the
conclusion that THEY are gods. -C.Hitchens

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-EA6EA8...@news.giganews.com>,

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <anim8rfsk-61056...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-F59F31...@news.giganews.com>,
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <nmdth0$7kv$2...@news.albasani.net>,
> > > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Federal employees are prohibited from being political partisans.
> > >
> > > That's not completely true. They just can't tie their politics to their
> > > federal position.
> >
> > Our Maricopa County Assessor just ran a DONALD TRUMP IS NOT WELCOME IN
> > ARIZONA rally, conspicuously using his government title for publicity.
>
> The mayor of West Hollywood held a big press conference a couple of
> months ago where she-- in her official capacity as mayor-- banned Donald
> Trump from the city of West Hollywood. As if that's even remotely
> enforceable.

These people are amazing.

[Ubiquitous]

On 2016-07-16 02:26:16, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 2016-07-14 20:00:00 +0000, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:
>> In article <nm8quo$qf9$2...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 2016-07-14 13:34:54 +0000, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:
>>>> dfag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:54:10 PM UTC-7, FPP wrote:

>>>>>> If you actually believe that Hillary has no accomplishments, and that
>>>>>> Obama has facilitated a race war, then you are either a complete
>>>>>> moron, or you are mentally ill. Or you're simply trolling us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No matter which it is, you are not to be taken seriously... and that's
>>>>>> about the worst thing I can say about an individual.
>>>>
>>>> Ad hominems noted.

>>>>
>>>>> 1st Debate ... Trump "Hillary, so far what has been your greatest
>>>>> accomplishment ...besides avoiding prosecution for your gross
>>>>> mismanagement of Classified Government Secrets at the State Department?
>>>>

>>>> The premise of your argument is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Crooked Hillary will never debate Trump b/c she knows he'd wipe the
>>>> floor with her.
>>>
>>> Now everybody KNOWS you are nothing but a troll... and not a terribly
>>> bright or original one.
>>
>> Apparently I struck a nerve.
>
>That's what a not terribly bright troll would say... what a shock!

Wow, it took you two days to come up with that rejoinder?
Methinks the sockpuppet doth protest too much.

Ad hominem noted.
Projection noted.

Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

--
The old Soviet leaders had it right. Our destruction comes from within:
Moochers, parasites, and Obama.

[trotsky]

Cite?

[trotsky]

It's a symbolic way of saying he's an asshole. Do you need help with
anything else?

[trotsky]

Cite?

[FPP]

So, any agent can just pull up the file on a possible President of the
United States and peruse the evidence? Just leaf through the private
details of their lives at their leisure?

Since when?
--
"Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same." -Oscar Wilde

[FPP]

What? You don't believe this?

Just because the Director's statement used the words "we" and "our"
repeatedly, did you think that ant that he was actually involved?

What would make anybody think that? I mean, except if they could read
and understand English at a Grade 3 level, that is... that would be a
dead giveaway that Comey considered himself an integral part of the
investigation, rather than just a paperweight in a suit.
--
Only the mediocre are always at their best. - Giraudoux

[trotsky]

No, Thanny will tell us he's in a secret government job as a govt. agent
that has to be kept secret, but gives him insider knowledge such that we
have no way to corroborate his bullshit. He's done this a million times.

[trotsky]

It's just another one of Thanny's straw man arguments that make him such
a complete and utter asshole. He knows that Comey is responsible for
anything that happens on his watch so whether or not he's directly
involved in the investigation is irrelevant. Thanny makes the same
mistake over and over. He's too stupid to realize people are smarter
than him and will see through his bullshit every time. He's the same as
Ubi typing "ad hominem noted" as if that meant something and wasn't
using the word incorrectly. The mental equivalents of Hervé Villechaize.

[trotsky]

On 7/16/16 8:18 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 2016-07-16 23:59:16 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> And the Comey-Lynch tag-team
>
> Nice. He's a conservative Republican, so now you're eating your own.
>
> How's it taste?

Like the teabags he's used to.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>Federal employees are prohibited from being political partisans.

>>>That's not completely true. They just can't tie their politics to their
>>>federal position.

>>Our Maricopa County Assessor just ran a DONALD TRUMP IS NOT WELCOME IN
>>ARIZONA rally, conspicuously using his government title for publicity.

>The mayor of West Hollywood held a big press conference a couple of
>months ago where she-- in her official capacity as mayor-- banned Donald
>Trump from the city of West Hollywood. As if that's even remotely
>enforceable.

What's really sad about shit like this is if The Donald sued her for
a blatant civil rights violation, her defense is charged to the taxpayers.
It's not all that different than when a cop beats a suspect during
interrogation, but the legal fees and damage awards are paid by the
taxpayers.

My theory is that there would be no civil rights violations at all if
the perpetrators themselves had to pay, and not the deep pockets
municipality.

[BTR1701]

In article <nmemiv$38n$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Which one pulling this shit is actually a government official?

[BTR1701]

In article <nme3d9$gkh$2...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>Federal employees are prohibited from being political partisans.
>
> >That's not completely true. They just can't tie their politics to their
> >federal position.
>

> >A federal employee can put a campaign sign in his front yard, a bumper
> >sticker on her personal car, engage in public debate over political
> >issues with other citizens, etc.
>
> >They can't just speak for their agency or bring the politics into the
> >office-- a campaign sign on their office door would be a no-no.
>

> >>They must not be party members.
>

> >Again, untrue. You can be a federal employee and register as a Democrat
> >or a Republican. Most do.
>
> >https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Pamphlet%20Sept%202014.pdf
>

> >>They cannot make political contributions
>

> >Again, not true. (All in the above link.)
>
> >>and they can't work for political campaigns or political parties
>
> >Again, not true. (All in the above link.)
>

> That is true with respect to employees who are "further restricted",
> including FBI.

>
> >>They're not prohibited from having a discussion, but they can't be any
> >>candidate's supporter by working on a campaign.
>

> >Again, not true. (All in the above link.)
>

> That is true with respect to employees who are "further restricted",
> including FBI.
>
> Ok. Reading that document, there are categories of federal employees who
> are "further restricted" under the Hatch Act and cannot take an active
> part in political management or political campaigns (i.e., engage in
> political activity in concert with a political party, candidate for
> partisan political office, or partisan political group); FBI is in
> that category.
>
> Huh. It doesn't include all federal law enforcement agencies, just FBI
> and Secret Service and just one portion of ATF. It doesn't include all
> spooks. Both the US Treasury and Homeland Security have spooks working
> for them, in example.
>
> There are categories I don't recognize: What the fuck is Criminal
> Division of DOJ? I thought that was the FBI.

It's the prosecutors-- the assistant US attorneys-- that prosecute
cases. There's a civil division that handles all the stuff like civil
rights cases and administrative regulatory matters, and the criminal
division which prosecutes all the federal criminal violations.

[BTR1701]

In article <nmg7nm$mik$2...@news.albasani.net>,

The flip side to that is the victims wouldn't get very much in
compensation. Taking everything a city employee has wouldn't even pay
the legal fees.

[BTR1701]

In article <nmemd0$2ck$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-07-16 23:59:16 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > And the Comey-Lynch tag-team
>
> Nice. He's a conservative Republican, so now you're eating your own.

I'm not a Republican.

[BTR1701]

In article <nmfqjt$rdb$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The non-class evidence, yes. And since you keep insisting that Hillz
never sent or received class material with her home-brew server, that
would be all the evidence, wouldn't it?

[BTR1701]

In article <nmejmb$34j$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 2016-07-16 16:26:12 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> >>>So now Comey's opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring that
> >>>case" is now just a meaningless comment that can be challenged? Great!
> >>>We're making progress.
>
> >>Comey headed the investigation.
>
> >No, he didn't. If you think the director of the FBI was out there
> >investigating a case, you're delusional. This isn't a Hollywood movie.
>
> So his wife solves all the case? Do they have a wise-ass maid?

Heehee

[BTR1701]

In article <nmen4j$36k$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-07-17 00:04:58 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <nme52o$a5h$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-07-16 16:26:12 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> So now Comey's opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring that
> >>> case" is now just a meaningless comment that can be challenged? Great!
> >>> We're making progress.
> >>
> >> Comey headed the investigation.
> >
> > No, he didn't. If you think the director of the FBI was out there
> > investigating a case, you're delusional. This isn't a Hollywood movie.
> >
> > Working agents headed the investigation. Comey was briefed on their
> > progress.
>
> I didn't say he was the lead investigator, I said he headed the
> investigation. Comey is the head of the FBI. This was an FBI
> investigation.

Using that standard, he heads *every* FBI investigation, so it becomes a
meaningless distinction.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Thanks.

Don't US Attorney handle both civil and criminal? Do they report
directly to the Attorney General, or do they report through the
civil or criminal divisions at headquarters?

[Adam H. Kerman]

That's true.

When they commit an actual violent crime, make 'em liable for something.
Perhaps that would be a deterant.

[moviePig]

But, over the last several months, wouldn't *this* investigation have
been the near the top of his list for personal involvement? What's the
scuttlebutt at the office?...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[FPP]

Joe Arpaio?
--
Never try and teach a pig to sing. You just waste your time, and you
annoy the pig.

[FPP]

How many investigations have the Director of the FBI making a public
statement on TV?

This was far, far from "every FBI investigation". It was a unique
situation... and anyone with real legal background would have stated
that at the outset - instead of pretending that this was a routine
inquiry.
--
"If the 2016 GOP primary season taught us anything, it’s that
Republicans can’t tell the difference between a deep bench and the
bottom of a barrel." -Bill Harnsberger

[FPP]

Yeah, and I'm not a Democrat either... I don't know why you keep
believing that I have any interest in that party coming to power.

Everybody who wants to avoid any accountability draws that distinction.
It's the coward's way out. So, what are you? A party of one?
--
Why are people with closed minds the first to open their mouths?

[FPP]

Then show me the reg that says any agent can do that. I'm sure every
single rule is written down and codified, right?

Where is the text of that one, then? You KNOW it's permissible... so
show us the pertinent passage that allows such behavior.

You're the supposed expert... so expound on it, and "learn" us rubes...
Enlighten us with your considerable expertise.
--
Donald Trump in his own words:
"I know words, I have the best words. I have the best..." - Hilton
Head, SC (Dec. 30, 2015)
- "Iran is taking over Iraq and they're taking it over bigly..."
- "Obamacare kicks in in 2016, really bigly." - D Trump

[BTR1701]

In article <nmgomb$n59$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>There are categories I don't recognize: What the fuck is Criminal
> >>Division of DOJ? I thought that was the FBI.
>
> >It's the prosecutors-- the assistant US attorneys-- that prosecute
> >cases. There's a civil division that handles all the stuff like civil
> >rights cases and administrative regulatory matters, and the criminal
> >division which prosecutes all the federal criminal violations.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Don't US Attorney handle both civil and criminal?

*The* US Attorney in each district rarely tries cases. Their job is to
oversee and manage the cases which are actually tried by the assistants.

This isn't like Hollywood depictions e.g., the show BILLIONS, where the
US Attorney for Manhattan in shown sitting in his office in the middle
of the night eating cold Chinese take-out, pouring over depositions and
bank statements and prepping witnesses. It's absurd. The US Attorney for
NYC would be briefed daily on the case but would have no active role in
prosecuting it.

LAW & ORDER got it more correct, with ADA Jack McCoy giving the DA
updates on his cases but the DA himself was never in the courtroom
trying them.

> Do they report directly to the Attorney General

Yes

> or do they report through the civil or criminal divisions at
> headquarters?

The HQ divisions at main Justice are another level of bureaucratic
management over the cases in the various districts. But the actual US
Attorneys in each district, as political appointees, do not report to
civil service employees in DC. They report to the AG.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>There are categories I don't recognize: What the fuck is Criminal
>>>>Division of DOJ? I thought that was the FBI.

>>>It's the prosecutors-- the assistant US attorneys-- that prosecute
>>>cases. There's a civil division that handles all the stuff like civil
>>>rights cases and administrative regulatory matters, and the criminal
>>>division which prosecutes all the federal criminal violations.

>>Thanks.

>>Don't US Attorney handle both civil and criminal?

>*The* US Attorney in each district rarely tries cases. Their job is to
>oversee and manage the cases which are actually tried by the assistants.

Yes, yes, I know. There has to be a lot of interest from television
news for the US Attorney to prosecute himself.

>This isn't like Hollywood depictions e.g., the show BILLIONS, where the
>US Attorney for Manhattan in shown sitting in his office in the middle
>of the night eating cold Chinese take-out, pouring over depositions and
>bank statements and prepping witnesses. It's absurd. The US Attorney for
>NYC would be briefed daily on the case but would have no active role in
>prosecuting it.

. . . whose wife personally works for the defendant?

>LAW & ORDER got it more correct, with ADA Jack McCoy giving the DA
>updates on his cases but the DA himself was never in the courtroom
>trying them.

>>Do they report directly to the Attorney General

>Yes

>>or do they report through the civil or criminal divisions at
>>headquarters?

>The HQ divisions at main Justice are another level of bureaucratic
>management over the cases in the various districts. But the actual US
>Attorneys in each district, as political appointees, do not report to
>civil service employees in DC. They report to the AG.

Thanks.

[BTR1701]

In article <nmgqpv$79e$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-07-17 19:45:54 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <nmemd0$2ck$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-07-16 23:59:16 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> And the Comey-Lynch tag-team
> >>
> >> Nice. He's a conservative Republican, so now you're eating
> >> your own.
> >
> > I'm not a Republican.
>
> Yeah, and I'm not a Democrat either.

You've said you are in the past.

> So, what are you? A party of one?

Why do I have to belong to a party, comrade?

[BTR1701]

In article <nmgqlr$6po$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-07-17 19:45:58 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <nmen4j$36k$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-07-17 00:04:58 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <nme52o$a5h$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2016-07-16 16:26:12 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> So now Comey's opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring that
> >>>>> case" is now just a meaningless comment that can be challenged? Great!
> >>>>> We're making progress.
> >>>>
> >>>> Comey headed the investigation.
> >>>
> >>> No, he didn't. If you think the director of the FBI was out there
> >>> investigating a case, you're delusional. This isn't a Hollywood movie.
> >>>
> >>> Working agents headed the investigation. Comey was briefed on their
> >>> progress.
> >>
> >> I didn't say he was the lead investigator, I said he headed the
> >> investigation. Comey is the head of the FBI. This was an FBI
> >> investigation.
> >
> > Using that standard, he heads *every* FBI investigation, so it becomes a
> > meaningless distinction.
>
> How many investigations have the Director of the FBI making a public
> statement on TV?

How is that relevant to which investigations the director heads?

[trotsky]

No, you're a Libertarian teabagger, and who even gives a shit.

[BTR1701]

In article <nmgssu$uik$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>There are categories I don't recognize: What the fuck is Criminal
> >>>>Division of DOJ? I thought that was the FBI.
>
> >>>It's the prosecutors-- the assistant US attorneys-- that prosecute
> >>>cases. There's a civil division that handles all the stuff like civil
> >>>rights cases and administrative regulatory matters, and the criminal
> >>>division which prosecutes all the federal criminal violations.
>
> >>Thanks.
>
> >>Don't US Attorney handle both civil and criminal?
>
> >*The* US Attorney in each district rarely tries cases. Their job is to
> >oversee and manage the cases which are actually tried by the assistants.
>
> Yes, yes, I know. There has to be a lot of interest from television
> news for the US Attorney to prosecute himself.
>
> >This isn't like Hollywood depictions e.g., the show BILLIONS, where the
> >US Attorney for Manhattan in shown sitting in his office in the middle
> >of the night eating cold Chinese take-out, pouring over depositions and
> >bank statements and prepping witnesses. It's absurd. The US Attorney for
> >NYC would be briefed daily on the case but would have no active role in
> >prosecuting it.
>
> . . . whose wife personally works for the defendant?

Yeah, talk about WTF. I couldn't figure out if he knew she worked for
the guy or if she was keeping it a secret from him.

[FPP]

It illustrates that this investigation was a unique situation. This
type of statement is unprecedented. Let's not pretend this was
anything but highly unusual.

> FBI directors don’t make public statements about investigations, even
> when those investigations result in indictments. The last thing the FBI
> ever does is detail an entire investigation that led nowhere, and then
> follow up with a sweeping opinion about how the subject acted.
>
> FBI Director James Comey’s public pronouncement of Hillary Clinton as
> “extremely careless” was both not the point and totally the point.
> Obviously, Comey’s opinion lacks direct relevance to a Clinton
> prosecution, given that Comey is not a prosecutor and that the “extreme
> carelessness” is not an applicable legal standard. However, the
> statement carries great weight in the court of public opinion – a
> reality that has a very useful dual purpose.
>
> On the one hand, it allows the FBI to take credit for a nonpartisan
> investigation that was curtailed before it became a full-scale
> witch-trial. On the other, it satisfied Hillary-haters with an open and
> credible declaration of her sloppiness.

http://lawnewz.com/opinion/james-comeys-criticizing-of-clinton-was-unprecedented-improper-and-maybe-even-politicized/
--



Originality is the fine art of remembering what you hear but forgetting
where you heard it. -LJ Peter

[FPP]

I changed my mind. What's your excuse?
--
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. -W Rogers

[NoBody]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 15:20:23 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

So Adam seems to be in favor of ruining a person financially merely
because some loon wants to sue someone in authority. So "tolerant and
caring" of him.

[Adam H. Kerman]

That's a reading comprehension problem worthy of FPP.

No, I didn't say the guy suing for a civil rights violation was making
shit up. In the hypothetical I offered, his civil rights were violated
in a serious manner, that is he was seriously injured or killed.

I want to protect taxpayers here. But you're free to pony up to pay
for someone else's deliberate, if not criminal action. I object
to doing so.

[Barb May]

BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <nme543$o7n$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> In article <nmce60$urh$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> However, people don't get put in jail because they disgust you, or
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Oh, so now the opinions of FBI agents are irrelevant? Two posts ago
>>> you were lauding them as experts. Now their views are summarily
>>> dismissed.
>>
>> The opinions of FBI agents who actually worked on the investigation
>> might be relevant, but they signed non-disclosure agreements, so we
>> won't be hearing from them, even second hand.
>
> I've worked plenty of federal investigations. Never seen anyone sign a
> non-disclosure agreement before.

Oh well, if you haven't ever seen it then it couldn't possibly ever
happen...
--
Barb