• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russian Cyber Meddling in US Media

Lafayette said:
Answer the question: Why was it OK for Dubya to lose millions of emails on the RNC email-system, but not Hillary to use her own private email-system ... ?
Click to expand...

1. Rules were different during the GWB administration.
2. Almost all those emails have been recovered. None were classified.
3. The GWB officials were involved in domestic policy and party affairs, not foreign policy and national security.
 
Lafayette said:
Oh? And what did the Dubya administration say to Congress about their use of the RNC's emailer?

See here: Bush White House email controversy, excerpt:

And here: Bush White-House Lost 22 Million Emails - excerpt:



Or here: CNN - White House: Millions of e-mails may be missing:


Answer the question: Why was it OK for Dubya to lose millions of emails on the RNC email-system, but not Hillary to use her own private email-system ... ?
Click to expand...

Answer me this, who ever said it was OK? I am not hearing anybody say that which goes against the law is OK. Want me to repeat or do you ALREADY GET IT? Who said it was OK? Breaking the laws are, quite obviously, against the laws. Laws come, however, and laws change, so show me the statute then in place during that period of time, first of all.

Secondly, I have NEVER, now, in the future or ever, BEEN FOR LETTING CULPRITS OFF THE HOOK, my side OR yours. Are we clear on that?

Go after them. Kinda late now, but what are the statutes of limitations on it? If they broke the law, that doesn't mean more people just automatically get to break the law. What, just let it go on and on and on into the future?

What kind of stupid reasoning would that be?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Answer me this, who ever said it was OK? I am not hearing anybody say that which goes against the law is OK. Want me to repeat or do you ALREADY GET IT? Who said it was OK? Breaking the laws are, quite obviously, against the laws. Laws come, however, and laws change, so show me the statute then in place during that period of time, first of all.

Secondly, I have NEVER, now, in the future or ever, BEEN FOR LETTING CULPRITS OFF THE HOOK, my side OR yours. Are we clear on that?

Go after them. Kinda late now, but what are the statutes of limitations on it? If they broke the law, that doesn't mean more people just automatically get to break the law. What, just let it go on and on and on into the future?

What kind of stupid reasoning would that be?
Click to expand...

Yeah, right - but HOW convenient that the director of the FBI should announce an investigation of Hillary just 10 days before the election date. And Trump wins the election but loses the plurality vote. (We shall see how he rewards Comey - a Republican - for his "timely assistance".)

Come off it. America's way-of-life is rife with cheating from top-to-bottom in order to pursue the Golden Globe of Great Wealth. But you (personally) claim to be "whiter than white", so everybody else should be as well. (You are unique in a country were being Numero Uno is a primal urge written in the male genetic code!)

And, Hillary was denied the presidency because she used an unauthorized email facility? There is simply no comparison in terms of "criminality". Come off it - as regards serious infraction of bankruptcy laws, Trump uses them to promote his business career that is prone to failures. (Your fired, Donald!)


And he refuses to show his tax-returns (which no other presidential candidate in recent history has refused to do) because he employs the same mechanism to avoid taxation since the 1990s.

There is simply no comparison between the two in terms of legal culpability! The real problem is that we, the sheeple, elected stoopidly a paraphiliac crook as PotUS.

And I also mention the latent antifemminist reaction to a female president for PotUS that may have prompted many American males to vote for Trump. This alone will make for a interesting psychological study of the American male population for years to come ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
Yeah, right - but HOW convenient that the director of the FBI should announce an investigation of Hillary just 10 days before the election date. And Trump wins the election but loses the plurality vote. (We shall see how he rewards Comey - a Republican - for his "timely assistance".)

Come off it. America's way-of-life is rife with cheating from top-to-bottom in order to pursue the Golden Globe of Great Wealth. But you (personally) claim to be "whiter than white", so everybody else should be as well. (You are unique in a country were being Numero Uno is a primal urge written in the male genetic code!)

And, Hillary was denied the presidency because she used an unauthorized email facility? There is simply no comparison in terms of "criminality". Come off it - as regards serious infraction of bankruptcy laws, Trump uses them to promote his business career that is prone to failures. (Your fired, Donald!)


And he refuses to show his tax-returns (which no other presidential candidate in recent history has refused to do) because he employs the same mechanism to avoid taxation since the 1990s.

There is simply no comparison between the two in terms of legal culpability! The real problem is that we, the sheeple, elected stoopidly a paraphiliac crook as PotUS.

And I also mention the latent antifemminist reaction to a female president for PotUS that may have prompted many American males to vote for Trump. This alone will make for a interesting psychological study of the American male population for years to come ...
Click to expand...

"Yeah, right" is wrong.

I meant it and mean it. I do not want folks representing me if they are wrong doers in the form of law breaking. You will not find a post on this site from me defending anybody breaking the law on my side.

So get off your two wrongs make it all right to break the law kick, would ya for chrissakes? I think probably the one time I have EVER considered it potentially okay is when we backed the Contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Armed the one side against the enemy in a world that the communists wanted to dominate, especially that close to our shores... and after we got them to drop their plow shares and take up arms [after which they would be targeted as was the common MO of all socialist/communist regimes of the time], Congress decided then that they would de-fund us arming them, make it against the law in fact. Quite simply a breach of faith and a potential death sentence to those we had allied with.

Breaking the law then could then be considered a true matter of conscience.

Other areas of wrongdoing, potentially, not breaking the law but what your side might or does consider wrongdoing... I will debate and defend if I think its right. But breaking the law, nah.

A comparison in Trump using bankruptcy laws? Legally? Get off it, man. Breaking national security laws, potentially allowing our enemies our secrets, potentially allowing our enemies the names of our friends in delicate positions in their countries maybe leading to their deaths... get off your high/wrong horse. You are simply way off here.

What was damned convenient, if you want to talk convenient this election cycle, was a meeting by a former BJClinton appointee, now AG, in a private jet with the former President while his wife is being investigated for crimes we now know she committed...and then no indictment on indictable crimes... that was convenient. Comey not even calling a grand jury to have them make the decision or allowing the prosecutors to do so, letting Lynch off the hook again? That? Wow convenient.

Hillary was denied the presidency because she made fatal mistakes in judgement, is corrupt and SHOULD be in prison or, at minimum, awaiting trial.

You folks and your sexist, racist, homophobic paranoias.

Lost you the current election, and if you dont learn from your mistakes, will lose you many more. You are a ill breed, not dying but certainly not growing. All branches of the Fed govt will soon be under right wing control, 30 governorships, 68 out of 99 state legislatures... there may be openings left for tree-huggers in the forestry service... or perhaps some PETA types as dog catchers... but wow, have you lost the confidence of the American people.

We are tired of your political correctness, lies, manipulations and intolerance.
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
Huh ... ? :doh

Earth to Gc, earth to Gc - come in, Gc ...
Click to expand...
That is the single thing you pick out of me destroying EVERYTHING YOU SAID for being the hypocritical/loss of morality tale you were trying to pull?

Besides which, your incorrect assumed sexism was disproved in another post. Along with that should be the idea of your assertion of racism directed towards my side just because people on my ideological side didn't, for example, vote for O bomb a [ what a laugh, simply mind numbing ridiculous tripe ] and all the homophobic stuff you can throw at the wall constantly...

So, as usual, you have it completely switched backward... should be earth to Laff, earth to Laff, are you there, is anyone there, over...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
That is the single thing you pick out of me destroying EVERYTHING YOU SAID for being the hypocritical/loss of morality tale you were trying to pull? So, as usual, you have it completely switched backward... should be earth to Laff, earth to Laff, are you there, is anyone there, over...
Click to expand...

Truth hurts doesn't. Especially to those who refuse it.

Moving right along ...
 
Lafayette said:
Truth hurts doesn't. Especially to those who refuse it.

Moving right along ...
Click to expand...
Dude, have a glance back at your posts vs mine here, this thread... or any other where we have engaged. You have said nothing but trash talking, moral equivocations and unsupported opinions. I deem your posts no longer worthy of even reading.

If you and your left leaning brethren don't learn pretty fast to understand the reality of the situation and the inadequacy of your side's leadership/ideology, I see lots of room for a third party to rise up, take a closer look at it all and make tremendous gains at your's expense.

Just saying. Rhetorically speaking, of course, as you have nothing worthy or thought provoking to add.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom