DESERTER BERGDAHL, 6 DEAD AMERICAN MARINES AND 6 TERRORISTS GO FREE....

The strikes are all against Hildabeast for not providing the e-mails surrounding the death of a U.S. ambassador, e-mails that were subpoenaed on September 20, 2012, and it's not merely an "opinion" that Hildabeast destroyed e-mails after they were subpoenaed, Hildabeast admitted it.





Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Why are having so much trouble comprehending that the word perception is speaking about your opinion not any particular piece of info true or otherwise.

The larger point I am attempting to make is your double standard, from my "perception."

Why are having so much trouble comprehending that the word perception is speaking about your opinion not any particular piece of info true or otherwise.

The larger point I am attempting to make is your double standard, from my "perception." Originally Posted by slingblade

There's no "double standard" involved in seeing that Hildabeast crossed a line -- a line firmly established by historical precedent -- into criminality, and it's your erroneous "perception" that the precedent somehow excuses subsequent Hildabeast's criminal behavior.

There's no "double standard" involved in seeing that Hildabeast crossed a line -- a line firmly established by historical precedent -- into criminality, and it's your erroneous "perception" that the precedent somehow excuses subsequent Hildabeast's criminal behavior.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I know you like to digress every thread in to oblivion but I have no interest in following you into an Rush Limbaugh style conversation where you pile on whatever crap you want and whomever piles the most and the fastest wins.

I made a comment about people having a double standard and you want to replace it with a single example. If you want to dry hump someone verbally find another victim.

I know you like to digress every thread in to oblivion but I have no interest in following you into an Rush Limbaugh style conversation where you pile on whatever crap you want and whomever piles the most and the fastest wins.

I made a comment about people having a double standard and you want to replace it with a single example. If you want to dry hump someone verbally find another victim. Originally Posted by slingblade

That just might be the clearest, most accurate description of IB ever posted. Well done Sir! Well done.

WOW! That's about par for the IBIdiot course! Hijacking a thread with insults, name-calling and general "choad-rage."

Keep spreading the love, dipshit. You indict yourself with your every blurtation!

I know you like to digress every thread in to oblivion but I have no interest in following you into an Rush Limbaugh style conversation where you pile on whatever crap you want and whomever piles the most and the fastest wins.

I made a comment about people having a double standard and you want to replace it with a single example. If you want to dry hump someone verbally find another victim. Originally Posted by slingblade

You submitted to being a victim when you allowed yourself to be "#Gruberized" to the degree that you imagined that you could excuse Hildabeast's inexcusable criminality.

That just might be the clearest, most accurate description of IB ever posted. Well done Sir! Well done. Originally Posted by Old-T

Aren't you quite the cock-sucking, stalking troll, Old-THUMPER.

WOW! I B Idiot
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yes, you are the very model of an idiot, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

Typical IB reaction: verbal diarrhea.

Typical IB reaction: verbal diarrhea. Originally Posted by Old-T

You're still a hypocritical, lying little troll, that's been stalking my posts for over two years, Old-THUMPER.

I am not stalking your post you ego maniac. You have 16,000. I have about one third of that, and many of mine are not even in this forum. Most of your posts I never read, or if I do I laugh at you and move on because they are not worth the effort to reply. YOU are not worth the effort, but sometimes I enjoy rattling your cage. If I was stalking you I would have replied to far more of your posts. In this forum I post when I see something I wish to comment on seriously, or when I see something that deserves some ridicule. I can't help it if you fall in that second category so often.

I am not stalking your post you ego maniac. You have 16,000. I have about one third of that, and many of mine are not even in this forum. Most of your posts I never read, or if I do I laugh at you and move on because they are not worth the effort to reply. YOU are not worth the effort, but sometimes I enjoy rattling your cage. If I was stalking you I would have replied to far more of your posts. In this forum I post when I see something I wish to comment on seriously, or when I see something that deserves some ridicule. I can't help it if you fall in that second category so often. Originally Posted by Old-T

You're a lying troll, Old-THUMPER. 70 to 80% of your posts in this forum are directly or indirectly about me, you SOB, that shows you're a pathetic, lying, stalking little troll, Old-THUMPER. BTW, Old-THUMPER, the forum is still waiting on your "Top Secret" memorandums on the A-bomb and the Zimmerman Telegram.

Maybe a disproportionate number of my posts are about YOU because YOU post so much stuff worthy of ridicule.

As to waiting, well, you can keep waiting. I hope the suspense doesn't kill you.

Maybe a disproportionate number of my posts are about YOU because YOU post so much stuff worthy of ridicule.

As to waiting, well, you can keep waiting. I hope the suspense doesn't kill you. Originally Posted by Old-T

That's pure bullshit, Old-THUMPER, your posts are nothing more than chickenshit deflection from all of the times you've had your ass handed to you when you couldn't back up your asinine, supercilious lies with substantive proof, Old-THUMPER.

Rather than simple "name-calling", let's make this a substantive exchange, Old-THUMPER. Where are your "Top Secret" memorandums or documents on the A-bomb and the Zimmerman Telegram that support your asinine statements, Old-THUMPER?

Is thread about what to do with the traitor ...errr... deserter?

May be he would like to join ISIS.

You submitted to being a victim when you allowed yourself to be "#Gruberized" to the degree that you imagined that you could excuse Hildabeast's inexcusable criminality.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I would be a victim if I was effected by your childish behavior, I am not.
I think sparring with you is like practice for when I take on some of the more informed conservatives around here. They may not have the experience you have, but they have held a grasp on reality and have a better concept of debate protocols. Not to mean this as an insult but you are more of a way for me to build up my confidence in the political arena. Kind of like a fluffer for lack of a better term

IB,

So nice of you to unilaterally decide when you wish to dispense with the insults and when you don't. I am perfectly fine dispensing with them, but not at your select choice of venues (though I will this time). There are other posters on here I vehemently disagree with but the insults are minimal. I am adaptable and can play by a number of rules depending upon how the opposition plays.

But the other connected issue has to be on the table is your contorting what is said. This is a discussion board, not a refereed journal. I have plenty of things posted in both kinds of venues. The rules and procedures/accepted courtesies are quite different as I know you know. Much of my issue with you stems from your three and four leaps of logic to put words in my mouth (and others) that were never there. Specifically, the fact that I do not bash a post is not the same as saying I agree with it. If you want to attack what I said, fine. That's fair game. When you attack what I didn't say, or attack me for what someone else said, that gets us back to where we are now.

As to your specific issue: I never said I had TS papers. What I said is that most the posters on here do not understand how high level international negotiations actually work. I stand by that. I have made similar comments at other times when posters were making ignorant claims about processes they obviously only saw in spy movies--and bad ones at that. I state my opinions of what seems reasonable reconstruction of things based upon similar situations I have seen. Let's be real: for you or I to actually have been a first hand observer to 1945 in a substantive way would make us in our mid 90s. I know I am not, and I doubt you are. So we are both going by hearsay and after the fact written docs. I do know from first hand observation and involvement that even official documents display "truth" very much through the eyes of the writer. So when you posit that YOUR source speaks the whole truth and nothing but the truth--well, I don't believe that of ANY source.

I HAVE seen the source files, images, transcriptions, etc., of many other "interesting" events going back to the 60s. What gets into the open never tells the whole truth. Do you expect to ever see the definitive Benghazi blow-by-blow?

Actually, one of the better ones is the film a few years back about Kennedy and the Cuban Missile crisis. Kennedy never talked with Khrushchev, and could swear on a stack of bibles that he never traded Turkey for Cuba. But understandings were exchanged if later disavowed at the highest levels on both sides. That is reality. You can believe what you wish about 1945. The facts of the bombs and the surrender are irrefutable--and what was or was not said/implied/understood with a wink will forever be speculation. I don't know the truth, but I know the patterns of the game as I saw it played later by some of the same people who were involved. You don't know the truth either, but you know what has been documented and written. Those can easily lead us to different beliefs/guesses/speculations. I have been around the spooks too long, I know definitive statements are almost always wrong so I try to make few of them. I also react with jaundice when I see people make definitive statements that they could never actually know. When you say that your beliefs/speculations are no longer beliefs/speculations, but FACT--and that my beliefs/speculations are lies, then yes, I react in a hostile way. Had you said something of the sort as, "Based upon XXXXX I don't believe the prosecution of the Emperor was a big factor in the Japanese surrender...." I may have disagreed, but I would not have vehemently attacked/ridiculed. But you generally post your opinions and far more than that, and I react accordingly.

As to the Zimmerman telegram, that is truly before my first hand knowledge.

And it goes almost without saying that if I do have true TS info, I sure as hell am not about to print it here. I'll talk process all day.

PS: For calling a truce on "name calling" you may wish to do a better job of proof reading your post.