HorrorMovieFans.com

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You should have just stuck with the "I don't care that they knew" angle instead of pretending we all can't read these e-mails.

I'd certainly want to know what kind of shady shit Hillary was doing, especially since she is running for the highest political office in the world. Doesn't matter if it was some Russian woman or Kim Jong Un. You got legitimate dirt, show it. And thank you for the information. If you expect political favors out of me, then no deal.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Sweet! If true, guess how much more I give a shit. Zilch.

Lmao, literally right as I post it.

Luckily, what you care about and what amounts to attempted collusion do not correlate much if at all.

Literally before you posted it.

Who cares?

Foo wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Foo wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Yeah, because nothing has changed with technology and information since the 1970s.

Why are you so adamant about this investigation catering to you? Jesus, when they're done they're done. They're not working on Foo o'clock, there's nothing for you to legitimately bitch about. Pretty weird.

I remember when every second of the day all we heard about was Clinton being investigated for lying about a blowjob.....this went on for a loooooong time. Funny, that something serious should just be dropped and let Trump do his job. Lol

What is this serious investigation? I'm still waiting for someone to explain what's so serious, and why all the fake outrage...

If you think Jr's emails are no big deal, then I don't know what else to say. Remember the show To Catch a Predator? Dudes were setting up meeting with 14 year old girls.....but hey, no sex happened, right?

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/ ... 261-5.html

That is the California state law against statutory rape. Notice the specificity and how it is clear having sex with a minor is illegal except under certain circumstances. Again, the specificity.

Ok, now show me the specific law you are alleging was going to be broken. Again, specific. Don't give me some vague bullshit that you liberally interpreted.

Lol.....I have already said nothing illegal so far. Go back a few pages. Question, would you let the guy setting up a casual encounter with a 12 year old boy watch your kids because he didn't do anything technically wrong?

Do you honestly think this is how the law works? You allege something with no evidence and then continually poke around hunting for some sort of crime. Really?

When did you go from a liberal who believes in laws to a banana republic dictator who uses the police to go after enemies?

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You should have just stuck with the "I don't care that they knew" angle instead of pretending we all can't read these e-mails.

I'd certainly want to know what kind of shady shit Hillary was doing, especially since she is running for the highest political office in the world. Doesn't matter if it was some Russian woman or Kim Jong Un. You got legitimate dirt, show it. And thank you for the information. If you expect political favors out of me, then no deal.

Great. Start a country in San Berno county and you can make all the rules.

Jmac Attack wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Jason wrote:Liberal spin: Trump Jr. met with an enemy government official in attempt to collude with their government and bring down a political opponent.
Actual: Some Russian broad with no government ties pretended to have information damaging to Hillary's campaign, but didn't.

Did you read it, or did you read that on Breitbart too? Lol

I simply go by what is known.

What was known by Trump Jr. is someone claiming to be part of the Russian government offered dirt and he was all for it.

Headhunter wrote: What was known by Trump Jr. is someone claiming to have dirt and he was all for it.

Correct.

Really? Read the e-mails. She's described as a Russian GOVERNMENT attorney and the "Crown Prosecutor of Russia". That is actually in the e-mails Trump Jr. released, not made up.

Holy shit . . .

Even the conservatives over at the Bengals board accept it. It's like me denying the Clinton emails. Which I never did and called her piece of shit when it came out. But, if you don't believe YouTube conspiracy theories about having people murdered, then I must love her.

Which, BTW, the last thread Jason made about it, Fox even retracted the story. Lulz up in here!

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Sweet! If true, guess how much more I give a shit. Zilch.

Lmao, literally right as I post it.

Luckily, what you care about and what amounts to attempted collusion do not correlate much if at all.

Please explain the difference between "collusion" and an ally sharing information with another.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You should have just stuck with the "I don't care that they knew" angle instead of pretending we all can't read these e-mails.

I'd certainly want to know what kind of shady shit Hillary was doing, especially since she is running for the highest political office in the world. Doesn't matter if it was some Russian woman or Kim Jong Un. You got legitimate dirt, show it. And thank you for the information. If you expect political favors out of me, then no deal.

Great. Start a country in San Berno county and you can make all the rules.

What are you outraged about?

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Sweet! If true, guess how much more I give a shit. Zilch.

Lmao, literally right as I post it.

Luckily, what you care about and what amounts to attempted collusion do not correlate much if at all.

Please explain the difference between "collusion" and an ally sharing information with another.

Conspiring to work with a foreign government to obtain damaging material about a political candidate for pure election purposes is collusion. Sharing info would be if it was some random politically unaffiliated chick Trump boned in Russia he wanted files on.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You should have just stuck with the "I don't care that they knew" angle instead of pretending we all can't read these e-mails.

I'd certainly want to know what kind of shady shit Hillary was doing, especially since she is running for the highest political office in the world. Doesn't matter if it was some Russian woman or Kim Jong Un. You got legitimate dirt, show it. And thank you for the information. If you expect political favors out of me, then no deal.

Great. Start a country in San Berno county and you can make all the rules.

What are you outraged about?

I'm not outraged, just amused by your "I woulda"s like those matter.

Jmac Attack wrote:

Foo wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Foo wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Yeah, because nothing has changed with technology and information since the 1970s.

Why are you so adamant about this investigation catering to you? Jesus, when they're done they're done. They're not working on Foo o'clock, there's nothing for you to legitimately bitch about. Pretty weird.

I remember when every second of the day all we heard about was Clinton being investigated for lying about a blowjob.....this went on for a loooooong time. Funny, that something serious should just be dropped and let Trump do his job. Lol

What is this serious investigation? I'm still waiting for someone to explain what's so serious, and why all the fake outrage...

If you think Jr's emails are no big deal, then I don't know what else to say. Remember the show To Catch a Predator? Dudes were setting up meeting with 14 year old girls.....but hey, no sex happened, right?

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/ ... 261-5.html

That is the California state law against statutory rape. Notice the specificity and how it is clear having sex with a minor is illegal except under certain circumstances. Again, the specificity.

Ok, now show me the specific law you are alleging was going to be broken. Again, specific. Don't give me some vague bullshit that you liberally interpreted.

Lol.....I have already said nothing illegal so far. Go back a few pages. Question, would you let the guy setting up a casual encounter with a 12 year old boy watch your kids because he didn't do anything technically wrong?

Do you honestly think this is how the law works? You allege something with no evidence and then continually poke around hunting for some sort of crime. Really?

When did you go from a liberal who believes in laws to a banana republic dictator who uses the police to go after enemies?

You are making a mountain out of a molehill regarding my point. Hell, I was just having a laugh with Jason about it. Said it isn't the best analogy, lol

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Sweet! If true, guess how much more I give a shit. Zilch.

Lmao, literally right as I post it.

Luckily, what you care about and what amounts to attempted collusion do not correlate much if at all.

Literally before you posted it.

Who cares?

I don't. You brought it up.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You should have just stuck with the "I don't care that they knew" angle instead of pretending we all can't read these e-mails.

I'd certainly want to know what kind of shady shit Hillary was doing, especially since she is running for the highest political office in the world. Doesn't matter if it was some Russian woman or Kim Jong Un. You got legitimate dirt, show it. And thank you for the information. If you expect political favors out of me, then no deal.

Great. Start a country in San Berno county and you can make all the rules.

What are you outraged about?

I'm not outraged, just amused by your "I woulda"s like those matter.

Just my way of explaining why it's retarded to be so outraged about this.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Sweet! If true, guess how much more I give a shit. Zilch.

Lmao, literally right as I post it.

Luckily, what you care about and what amounts to attempted collusion do not correlate much if at all.

Literally before you posted it.

Who cares?

I don't. You brought it up.

You made it the entirety of your response, you clearly thought about it more than I did. Was a 2/10 response at best too.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Sweet! If true, guess how much more I give a shit. Zilch.

Lmao, literally right as I post it.

Luckily, what you care about and what amounts to attempted collusion do not correlate much if at all.

Literally before you posted it.

Who cares?

I don't. You brought it up.

You made it the entirety of your response, you clearly thought about it more than I did. Was a 2/10 response at best too.

Was it a correct response or an incorrect response?

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You should have just stuck with the "I don't care that they knew" angle instead of pretending we all can't read these e-mails.

I'd certainly want to know what kind of shady shit Hillary was doing, especially since she is running for the highest political office in the world. Doesn't matter if it was some Russian woman or Kim Jong Un. You got legitimate dirt, show it. And thank you for the information. If you expect political favors out of me, then no deal.

Great. Start a country in San Berno county and you can make all the rules.

What are you outraged about?

I'm not outraged, just amused by your "I woulda"s like those matter.

Just my way of explaining why it's retarded to be so outraged about this.

Right, in your hypothetical country in San Berno county where that explanation means something.

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Sweet! If true, guess how much more I give a shit. Zilch.

Lmao, literally right as I post it.

Luckily, what you care about and what amounts to attempted collusion do not correlate much if at all.

Please explain the difference between "collusion" and an ally sharing information with another.

Conspiring to work with a foreign government to obtain damaging material about a political candidate for pure election purposes is collusion. Sharing info would be if it was some random politically unaffiliated chick Trump boned in Russia he wanted files on.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Sweet! If true, guess how much more I give a shit. Zilch.

Lmao, literally right as I post it.

Luckily, what you care about and what amounts to attempted collusion do not correlate much if at all.

Literally before you posted it.

Who cares?

I don't. You brought it up.

You made it the entirety of your response, you clearly thought about it more than I did. Was a 2/10 response at best too.

Was it a correct response or an incorrect response?

Correct but really a waste.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Sweet! If true, guess how much more I give a shit. Zilch.

Lmao, literally right as I post it.

Luckily, what you care about and what amounts to attempted collusion do not correlate much if at all.

Please explain the difference between "collusion" and an ally sharing information with another.

Conspiring to work with a foreign government to obtain damaging material about a political candidate for pure election purposes is collusion. Sharing info would be if it was some random politically unaffiliated chick Trump boned in Russia he wanted files on.

So by your definition, it is not an attempt at collusion even in the worst case.

Lets say there was no meeting. She just emailed him information unsolicited. Collusion?

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Sweet! If true, guess how much more I give a shit. Zilch.

Lmao, literally right as I post it.

Luckily, what you care about and what amounts to attempted collusion do not correlate much if at all.

Literally before you posted it.

Who cares?

I don't. You brought it up.

You made it the entirety of your response, you clearly thought about it more than I did. Was a 2/10 response at best too.

Was it a correct response or an incorrect response?

Correct but really a waste.

Just like this Russian nonsense you libs keep spewing.

Headhunter wrote: Another bad comparison in a thread chalk full of them.