Hillary Clinton Posted Names of Hidden Intelligence Officials On Her Email

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

14 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I did though which should've been obvious from my reply.

I didn't ask you to explain everything that's misleading in the article either. You already did that. I'm just saying that people who are not gullible find enough in the actual article to be able to check if it's valuable information or not, since they provide links to back up their claims (which doesn't mean I agree with the article, but just that the article provides opportunities to check its veracity, which is indeed close to nihil).

I just don't like when people complain about others being gullible when they're only complaining about things that don't match their own political agenda. And yes, this article is pretty much bs, but so have a lot of your Bernie threads been bs.

Well if people did check the article but still believed it, the not only are they gullible but they're also pretty dense, so I'm actually being generous in my descriptions by giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm also not sure why you are linking my political agenda here. There has never been a single instance of any Hillary supporter posting a false article as far as I have seen. 

Actually there was one time where I posted an article regarding a certain homophobic rap song being used at a rally. As soon as I learned that even my trusted sources got it wrong, I rushed to correct it, something I'm sure many people here wouldn't do. 

That should actually prove how much I believe in maintaining integrity of my posts.

Nobody here has ever posted and maintained a false article about Sanders, so I'm not sure why you're trying to call any of them BS. No liberal should ever post anything from Breitbart. If there ever is anything resembling a false article regarding ANYTHING, then I always make sure to correct it irrespective of what it talks about. Yes that can even include Donald ****ing Trump. Well...sometimes I just pretend that I didn't see it  

What's weird is that you have yourself outright admitted to not understanding US politics that much so why are you claiming to know what is and what is not BS to begin with?

Maybe you're talking about opinion pieces?  This is very clearly not an opinion piece.

Please don't generalize. Please stop trying to clapback me.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Russia, China, South Korea, and Germany all hacked her server, including that lone wolf basement hacker that's currently in jail.

No proof of any of that. Like none whatsoever. Literally none.

5 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Breitbart is pretty extreme. That doesn't mean this article is false. If she shared the classified names on an unsecure server, those people could have f*cking died. That's criminally negligent. That's not retroactive classification. Not to mention that we have NO IDEA what HALF(!!!!!) of those emails even contained! She could've deleted sooo many more classified emails.

I have already pointed out that these emails in question are unclassified e-mails and it says so in the documents provided. Feel free to form your own conclusions. They're all going to be wrong.

5 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Also, someone can be gay and also conservative. You'll be reported for that slanderous rhetoric, free of charge  

Sure, but non-delusional gay conservatives don't join the GOP which actively works against their interests. They usually limit themselves to financial conservatism and stick to being independents.

I'm talking about people like Milo who are full on social conservatives who engage in all the liberties the liberals have afforded them while fighting them every step of the way.

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Actually there was one time where I posted an article regarding a certain homophobic rap song being used at a rally. As soon as I learned that even my trusted sources got it wrong, I rushed to correct it, something I'm sure many people here wouldn't do. 

Yeah, you corrected it after you acted like it was "breaking news" and how it was part of the mounting proof that Bernie was blatantly attacking the LGBT community. And even your correction was only half-effective since you still maintained that there was no final proof of it being a hoax and that it was possible Bernie's campaign edited the original video, even though its creator had already been identified, who had already admitted it was a hoax aimed, ironically, at gullible Hillary supporters.

As he poignantly put it:

"Just like you all accused the Bernie supporters of being senseless for following this man coming out to a DMX you too are a victim of blindly believing everything you see on the internet."

Which was my original point in this thread.

7 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

What's weird is that you have yourself outright admitted to not understanding US politics that much so why are you claiming ti know what is and what is not BS to begin with?

I don't think that's weird. If only one questionable source is reporting something with no good proof to back it up, obviously I'm gonna call bs.

But I can do that without feeling the need to call people gullible for doing something very natural. This is not even half as bad as everyone freaking out over "a source says" which is far more frequent on GGD

I dunno. I just feel like you could've proven that this thread didn't contain factual information without acting so heated and defensive. I'm sure people would believe you if you just explained why this isn't true and if not, they're clearly hopeless cases.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Yeah, you corrected it after you acted like it was "breaking news" and how it was part of the mounting proof that Bernie was blatantly attacking the LGBT community. And even your correction was only half-effective since you still maintained that there was no final proof of it being a hoax and that it was possible Bernie's campaign edited the original video, even though its creator had already been identified, who had already admitted it was a hoax aimed, ironically, at gullible Hillary supporters.

As he poignantly put it:

"Just like you all accused the Bernie supporters of being senseless for following this man coming out to a DMX you too are a victim of blindly believing everything you see on the internet."

So what you use one instance among hundreds of threads to generalize my motive and intent?

Really?

Also you believe that idiot? He probably thought it would be cool to mix a song in there and when he realized he ****ed up, a friend of his told him to spin it as an experiment.

Again with the gullibility?

3 minutes ago, Didymus said:

 

I don't think that's weird. If only one questionable source is reporting something with no good proof to back it up, obviously I'm gonna call bs.

But I can do that without feeling the need to call people gullible for doing something very natural. This is not even half as bad as everyone freaking out over "a source says" which is far more frequent on GGD

I dunno. I just feel like you could've proven that this thread didn't contain factual information without acting so heated and defensive. I'm sure people would believe you if you just explained why this isn't true and if not, they're clearly hopeless cases.

Why are you trying to redefine what gullible means?

You are gullible if you believe something without fact checking. Those who believed this article are being gullible.

That's all there is to it. It's not even an offensive statement. People who are gullible need to work on that for their own good. I'm not calling them stupid or hopeless. You're saying it like it's a denigrating insult.

And you very well know that these are the same people who do the same thing over and over again. At this point it might as well be one even though I don't mean it as such.

----

 

Look this argument is pointless and will probably last 10 pages like the last time we played word police. Let's just drop it  

[MJHolland 12,725]

15 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

No proof of any of that. Like none whatsoever. Literally none.

I have already pointed out that these emails in question are unclassified e-mails and it says so in the documents provided. Feel free to form your own conclusions. They're all going to be wrong.

Sure, but non-delusional gay conservatives don't join the GOP which actively works against their interests. They usually limit themselves to financial conservatism and stick to being independents.

I'm talking about people like Milo who are full on social conservatives who engage in all the liberties the liberals have afforded them while fighting them every step of the way.

You can be gay and want to get a job and you're allowed to think that conservative principles are going to make that happen. That's not delusional. Some gay people rather have full employment for millions first and worry about bathroom situations for a few thousand people in the entire country second. 

Anyways, I'm glad she's finally being exposed. She put these agents in grave danger, not to mention what other secrets she put in danger on the other HALF of her unprecedented private email server that she deleted. So suspect. 

Edit: Breaking news, the economy added less that 40K jobs this past month, down from a prediction of 150K new jobs  That is absolutely awful. Further proof it's not "delusional" to worry about jobs first THEN incremental social issues.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

 

Edit: Breaking news, the economy added less that 40K jobs this past month, down from a prediction of 150K new jobs  That is absolutely awful. Further proof it's not "delusional" to worry about jobs first THEN incremental social issues.

Jobs were lost because of the failing societal problems.

And no, social issues come first and foremost. Liberty. Fraternity. Equality. 

It's a shame that you place its value so low.

[Didymus 34,380]

10 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

So what you use one instance among hundreds of threads to generalize my motive and intent?

Really?

Yes, because I don't have the freakin' time to go through all the threads you created and the posts displaying your own dynamic of spinning things out of context to be able to judge Bernie while Hillary always gets a defense.

Besides, one example is usually enough to identify a dynamic like that. Calling that ridiculous video "breaking news" and a "blatant attack on the LGBT community" is just crazy and only a person actively trying to get off on Bernie supporters losing their cool would do that, which is the exact same reason people post negative, incorrect Hillary articles.

10 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Also you believe that idiot? He probably thought it would be cool to mix a song in there and when he realized he ****ed up, a friend of his told him to spin it as an experiment.

Well, that's just as much conjecture as believing him.

I have less problems believing that than I have believing Hillary carries hot sauce in her bag. But that's just me

Even if he did it for fun, that doesn't make it any less fake, which is something you kept denying in that "corrected" OP, acting like there wasn't any proof Bernie's campaign didn't edit the correct footage, which is another pretty extreme accusation even if you don't have proof of the contrary.

10 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Why are you trying to redefine what gullible means?

I'm not. I just think it's silly to expect people on GGD to read every article they see posted here every damn hour like it's a dissertation. Most of the discussions in this section are already stuck in their prime dynamic anyway, no opinions are being challenged and everyone is just repeating their own bias (which is probably correct procedure lol).

Why bother complaining about it now? Like I said, I think you could've convinced a lot more people that the article was inaccurate by just explaining why instead of being all "are we seriously this low to post this source?" dramatic. You eventually ended up doing that which is great, but you only did it properly because you imagined someone was trying to shade you  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Yes, because I don't have the freakin' time to go through all the threads you created and displaying your own dynamic of spinning things out of context to be able to judge Bernie while Hillary always gets a defense.

Besides, one example is usually enough to identify a dynamic like that. Calling that ridiculous video "breaking news" and a "blatant attack on the LGBT community" is just crazy and only a person actively trying to get off on Bernie supporters losing their cool would do that, which is the exact same reason people post negative, incorrect Hillary articles.

Well you're employing revisionist history here because I did not call it Breaking News when I first posted it. I called it Breaking after I edited it so that people could see the change. I did not want people keeping their impressions. 

Since you don't have time, then don't hurl generalizations at me. I don't see a pattern. I have mostly stuck to posting about Hillary and Trump and only recently have begun ramping up on anti-Sanders threads because he is pissing me off due to his hypocrisies and negative campaigning, many of which have turned off even my most ardent Bernie supporters from him.  

And no, one example is never enough to identify anything. There's something called context.

2 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I'm not. I just think it's silly to expect people on GGD to read every article they see posted here every damn hour like it's a dissertation. Most of the discussions in this section are already stuck in their prime dynamic anyway, no opinions are being challenged and everyone is just repeating their own bias (which is probably correct procedure lol).

Why bother complaining about it now? Like I said, I think you could've convinced a lot more people that the article was inaccurate by just explaining why instead of being all "are we seriously this low to post this source?" dramatic. You eventually ended up doing that which is great, but you only did it properly because you imagined someone was trying to shade you  

Fine lol

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Jobs were lost because of the failing societal problems.

And no, social issues come first and foremost. Liberty. Fraternity. Equality. 

It's a shame that you place its value so low.

I don't value them low. I am not a Republican. But that doesn't mean you can call people delusional because they have different values than you. You sound EXACTLY like "family value" pushers.

We saw such sh*tty job numbers because of failed liberal policies that have failed to get us out of this recession for the past 8 years, on top of having an unprecedented deficit. These are not the same policies of the party Bill Clinton once led.

Also, stay on topic. We're talking about Hillary Clinton's criminal negligence when it comes to these brave American heros.  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I don't value them low. I am not a Republican. But that doesn't mean you can call people delusional because they have different values than you. You sound EXACTLY like "family value" pushers.

We saw such sh*tty job numbers because of failed liberal policies that have failed to get us out of this recession for the past 8 years, on top of having an unprecedented deficit. These are not the same policies of the party Bill Clinton once led.

Also, stay on topic. We're talking about Hillary Clinton's criminal negligence when it comes to these brave American heros.  

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

8 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Russia, China, South Korea, and Germany all hacked her server, including that lone wolf basement hacker that's currently in jail.

Breitbart is pretty extreme. That doesn't mean this article is false. If she shared the classified names on an unsecure server, those people could have f*cking died. That's criminally negligent. That's not retroactive classification. Not to mention that we have NO IDEA what HALF(!!!!!) of those emails even contained! She could've deleted sooo many more classified emails.

Also, someone can be gay and also conservative. You'll be reported for that slanderous rhetoric, free of charge  

If you think that'll take him down 

Especially against a woman standing federal trial  

Gullible people are the worst. Just like people who are gullible enough to believe that HALF of Hillary's server was private messages between her and her husband... even though her husband said he's only ever sent ONE email in his entire life... 

I cringe tbh. 

I do!  That and his bigotry, lying literally every damn day, ignorance, bluster, like of knowledge on policy, lack of temperament, receiving praise from dictators & into it with our allies & he is only a presidential nominee.  Not even president yet.  Need I go on!???  

CONCLUSION: He will bring HIMSELF down.!!!!  

 

[Whispering 18,865]

You know the Bernie supporters are getting desperate when they have moved from posting that full time hater's blog posts on Huffpost to now posting Brietbart articles. Come on guys, y'all are better than this! 

[MJHolland 12,725]

33 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

I do!  That and his bigotry, lying literally every damn day, ignorance, bluster, like of knowledge on policy, lack of temperament, receiving praise from dictators & into with our allies & he is only a presidential nominee.  Not even president yet.  Need I go on!???  

CONCLUSION: He will bring HIMSELF down.!!!!  

 

Buddy. Donald Trump made fun of a beloved prisoner of war and said "I like  soldiers who weren't caught"... NOTHING will take him down. When will you people learn that Donald Trump cannot say anything that will make his base leave him. Nothing! The sooner you accept that the sooner you can create an effective campaign against him instead of just sitting back and saying "well, the American people will eventually wake up and elect Hillary". It's so foolish to think that the American people are too smart to elect Trump. I love America, I think it's the best country on Earth, but two thirds of our population are so dim that they've literally eaten themselves to death. They will elect Trump unless he's stopped, and I think you do that by fighting fire with fire. 

[bionic 50,111]

11 hours ago, Solitaire said:

I pray that all of the potential Clinton sh*t is exposed before the convention and not after she potentially becomes the nominee... If she's the nominee and a bunch of nasty stuff comes out of these investigations we can all say hola to Prezzy Trump. 

Sanders getting the nomination is an even more certain way to say hello to Prezzy Trump  

[venusfly 17,885]

Her email was not breached repeatedly, there were repeated attempts to breach it. Her server seemed secure enough to ward these attempts off THANK GOD. Also anything is hackable, even the government. Anything. If it's on the internet someone will know how to hack it.

Hillary was stupid for the way she acted but god damn the twisting of words to make it sound worse...