Odumbo's CIA Director John Brennan Voted for the Communist Party of the USA

Lusty you seem to be disenfranchised with life in America. You're a very hateful person with deep issues. And I hear you're a snitch Originally Posted by themystic

I'm beginning to believe this is a another handle for WTF!

When you guys start sensing your asses are getting handed to you in your discussions on here you begin to resort to marginalizing, ridiculing, and falsely accusing the opposition.

If your Dad was actually "active' in "the Agency" he made his "bread and butter" on "snitches"! But you want to use it as a derogatory reference .... do you also call people "fags" like WTF does to marginalize them and their ideas?

In the meantime have some more mushrooms.

And were these the same "national media pundits" who marginalized and ridiculed the Vice-President of the United States of America for failing to STAND UP from behind the bullet proof shield in front of him in "enemy territory" to "honor" the North Koreans? They are fretting over a "chance of extortion," but want the VP to expose himself to death?

The next several years are going to be "fun"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

ABC, CBS, CNN, and the NYT reported he stood only for USA team. How about a link to a "mainstream media" source that marginalized or ridiculed him? And since when is South Korea "enemy territory"?
You just make shit up as you go along.

Well feel comfortable in the notion that the Anti-Trump/Liberal media does also, along with a lot of other ignorant people.

Although given the context of the OP's general statement and "point" I would probably say the same with respect to those MEDIA CONCLUSIONS they are unwilling to BRAND ON OTHERS WITH WHOM THEY SHARE THEIR HATE FOR ALL THINGS TRUMP!

Parrots mindlessly repeat shit ... and we already have one of those: ButtScramble! Originally Posted by LexusLover

What national news outlet called porter a "wife beater"? If the original OP was referring to porter, then he is an example of those ignorant people you speak of. If he was referring to a convicted wife beater, after reading Brennan's statement, I would say the wife beater is the bigger threat.

Hopefully Brennan will get tapped for perjury and go to prison like the Watergate witnesses who lied to Congress, since Clapper has stated that the Russian investigation "pales" in comparison to Watergate. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Clapper stated that,
"I have to say, though, that I think when you compare the two, that Watergate pales really in my view compared to what we're confronting now," he added.

You're doing everything you can to avoid putting this into proper perspective.

The libtard argument is so what - it was just a youthful indiscretion on the part of Brennan to vote for Gus Hall back in 1976, a protest vote, no biggie! I beg to differ. It shows an appalling lack of judgment. He was in his 20s and out of college, so he had studied Marxism and knew what he was doing.

Of course it wasn't a crime for this stooge to vote for the USA communist party, but how the fuck does he wind up in charge of our country's leading intelligence agency??? Oh yeah, odumbo appointed him. Odumbo probably viewed his "youthful indiscretion" as a plus! As far as odumbo was concerned, the only thing that might have looked better on Brennan's resume would have been membership in the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers!

And don't you appreciate the supreme irony here? A guy who admits voting for a US political party whose leader (Gus Hall) pledged fealty to the Kremlin winds up running an investigation into a US Presidential campaign accused of colluding with the Kremlin? Originally Posted by lustylad

Differ all you want.
He told the truth about voting for Hall. Which doesn't mean he supports any specific aspect of communism. Who agrees with everything a candidate says? He explained he wasn't a communist, a repub, or a demo. Using a vote as a protest has long been done by college students (as well as many other groups). Also, the CIA had no problem with his response.
He made this public statement 4 months before trump took over so it didn't figure into him being selected by Obama or his resume.
Just because it escaped your notice 2 years ago doesn't make it relevant now.

Hahaha... good one, papadoodoo. But I think ngiat's comment was partly tongue-in-cheek. You overlook that he said "today". Back in the days when Trumpy supported them, the dims were still tepidly pro-capitalist. Originally Posted by lustylad

"Tepidly pro-capitalist"? Where did you get that idea at?
Obviously just your opinion.

He most certainly did! He mentioned his 1976 vote for Gus Hall in direct response to the polygraph question "Have you ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to the overthrow of the US?"

By claiming otherwise, your credibility just plummeted. It's stupid to deny plain English. Originally Posted by lustylad

No he didn't.
He said,
"I said I was neither Democratic or Republican, but it was my way, as I was going to college, of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change. I said I'm not a member of the Communist Party, so the polygrapher looked at me and said, 'OK,' and when I was finished with the polygraph and I left and said, 'Well, I'm screwed.'"
You've been corrected multiple times in this thread.
If anyone's credibility has plummeted it's yours.

I'm beginning to believe this is a another handle for WTF!

When you guys start sensing your asses are getting handed to you in your discussions on here you begin to resort to marginalizing, ridiculing, and falsely accusing the opposition.

If your Dad was actually "active' in "the Agency" he made his "bread and butter" on "snitches"! But you want to use it as a derogatory reference .... do you also call people "fags" like WTF does to marginalize them and their ideas?

In the meantime have some more mushrooms. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The last time I saw the word "fag" used was by the OP (other than your use).
Whenever you are getting your ass handed to you, you claim the opposite and bring up the marginalization, the ridicule,
name calling, mindreading and falsely accusing (in some combination). Things you do on a regular basis. You don't admit you do it and you don't provide examples.
But by far the most hypocritical thing and a bald face lie is that only one group does it.
You are completely disingenuous in your claim.

Anything to shift the focus.

I will accept the results of Mueller's investigation whatever it is.
Your claim of how liberals or anyone else will react to unfavorable finding is just your attempt at mind reading.
In other words how you will react.

ABC, CBS, CNN, and the NYT reported he stood only for USA team. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Have you had your milk and cookies yet this morning?

It would help your disposition, along with a diaper change.

I can imagine how grumpy you get with a dirty diaper!

The only comments you add are stupid, childish, and show that when you have nothing to say, you say something anyway. You go with what you know.
In your case, whiney little crybaby you are, you went with diapers.
Since you are stupid, I'm not marginalizing you by pointing it out. I couldn't ridicule you as much as you do yourself.
No false accusations because you are a hypocrite in regards to your "whine list".

Have you had your milk and cookies yet this morning?

It would help your disposition, along with a diaper change.

I can imagine how grumpy you get with a dirty diaper! Originally Posted by LexusLover

.... you went with diapers. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

It's 100% you need 'em. So it was an easy guess.

Go grab a coloring book and calm down.

I'm beginning to believe this is a another handle for WTF!

When you guys start sensing your asses are getting handed to you in your discussions on here you begin to resort to marginalizing, ridiculing, and falsely accusing the opposition.

If your Dad was actually "active' in "the Agency" he made his "bread and butter" on "snitches"! But you want to use it as a derogatory reference .... do you also call people "fags" like WTF does to marginalize them and their ideas?

In the meantime have some more mushrooms. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Please Lex, Sir, could you show me where the far right side of this board has been " handing people there asses in discussions" Could you give me an example. I believe you, I just cant find any. You are a legend sir. Back to my mushrooms

Show me where Guy hall pledged fealty to the Kremlin. Originally Posted by papadee

"From 1959 until 1989, when Gus Hall attacked the initiatives taken by Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union, the Communist Party USA received a substantial subsidy from the Soviets. There is at least one receipt signed by Gus Hall in the KGB archives.[37] Starting with $75,000 in 1959, this was increased gradually to $3 million in 1987. This substantial amount reflected the party's loyalty to the Moscow line, in contrast to the Italian and later Spanish and British Communist parties, whose Eurocommunism deviated from the orthodox line in the late 1970s. Releases from the Soviet archives show that all national Communist parties that conformed to the Soviet line were funded in the same fashion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA


What do you want to argue now, papadoodoo? That loyalty is not the same as fealty lol?

This whole story is just too fucking rich! The irony is even deeper than I suggested earlier. Think about it.

After admitting he voted for a party that was directly and significantly funded by the Kremlin, John Brennan winds up at the head of the CIA supervising an investigation into whether the Trump campaign "colluded" with the Kremlin. Taking money from your Kremlin masters, as the USA Communist Party did for decades, is the ULTIMATE FORM OF COLLUSION!!!

"From 1959 until 1989, when Gus Hall attacked the initiatives taken by Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union, the Communist Party USA received a substantial subsidy from the Soviets. There is at least one receipt signed by Gus Hall in the KGB archives.[37] Starting with $75,000 in 1959, this was increased gradually to $3 million in 1987. This substantial amount reflected the party's loyalty to the Moscow line, in contrast to the Italian and later Spanish and British Communist parties, whose Eurocommunism deviated from the orthodox line in the late 1970s. Releases from the Soviet archives show that all national Communist parties that conformed to the Soviet line were funded in the same fashion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA


What do you want to argue now, papadoodoo? That loyalty is not the same as fealty lol?

This whole story is just too fucking rich! The irony is even deeper than I suggested earlier. Think about it.

After admitting he voted for a party that was directly and significantly funded by the Kremlin, John Brennan winds up at the head of the CIA supervising an investigation into whether the Trump campaign "colluded" with the Kremlin. Taking money from your Kremlin masters, as the USA Communist Party did for decades, is the ULTIMATE FORM OF COLLUSION!!! Originally Posted by lustylad

Thank you. I like to have proof with my accusations.

My take: Brennan didn't admit that the commies were dedicated to etc., he thought back to that vote & nervously wondered if that would qualify as such. He erred on the side of caution & told the CIA about his vote.

He feared repercussions if he answered no, he didn't admit that the commies were dedicated... Originally Posted by papadee

Holy Urinating Russian Hookers!

I can't believe the lengths to which you commie apologists will go trying to defend and normalize subversion!

Oh yeah... Brennan just wanted to "err on the side of caution" lol. He knew damn well the USA Communist Party fell squarely into the category described by his questioner. That knowledge, plus the fact that he knew he couldn't beat a polygraph, is why he blurted out that he voted for Gus Hall back in 1976. If Brennan didn't think our home-grown commies were "dedicated to the overthrow of the US" he would have just remained calm and answered no to the question.

You've been corrected multiple times in this thread.
If anyone's credibility has plummeted it's yours.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Hahaha... right, you old drunkard. Being "corrected" by the dickmuncher is akin to being told you're fat by Rosie O'Donnell.

Why don't you take my credibility down another notch by calling CNN fake news, lol!

Hahaha... right, you old drunkard. Being "corrected" by the dickmuncher is akin to being told you're fat by Rosie O'Donnell.

Why don't you take my credibility down another notch by calling CNN fake news, lol! Originally Posted by lustylad

Your cocksucker avatar sure has nice tits. I bet you're a big hit with all the guys.
The CNN you affirmed as a credible and reliable source by using it in the OP?
Funny how you get pouty when you can't refute. Corrected I said and corrected you were.
Now reel up that fat lower lip so you don't trip on it yet again.

Brennan cast this vote in 1976 when he was 21. Mulligan.

That knowledge, plus the fact that he knew he couldn't beat a polygraph, is why he blurted out that he voted for Gus Hall back in 1976. If Brennan didn't think our home-grown commies were "dedicated to the overthrow of the US" he would have just remained calm and answered no to the question. Originally Posted by lustylad

I've taken a polygraph. "Beating it", "passing/failing" isn't how it works. There's a reason they're not admissible in courts. They aren't accurate.

Funny how you get pouty when you can't refute. Corrected I said and corrected you were. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I don't refute cocksuckers like you, I refudiate them. And you argue like a little bitch. Nancy Pelosi trained you well.