• filter:
  • 1207208209210 211
  • Page
  • Previous 40
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
kamalktk said:   
 
Both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also used personal email for State Department stuff. link And those emails are classified

/ I anxiously await the Congressional Hearings.

 
Email Scandal Spin: No, Hillary, Powell and Rice Didn't 'Do It Too'
 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/02/05/no-the-powell-and-condi-classified-emails-story-is-not-a-gamechanger-n2114842 
. said: "See? Condi and Colin did it, too!" relies on a thoroughly bogus equivalency. Above all else, neither Rice nor Powell set up and used a recklessly unsecure private emails server on which they conducted all of their official business, against "clear cut rules" implemented in 2005. (A former CIA director and Secretary of Defense have each stated that her vulnerable server was likely penetrated by foreign powers like the Russians and Chinese). This review identified ten -- total -- emails that have now been assigned retroactive, low-level classification levels. Only two of them went to then-Secretary of State Powell, with the others going to Rice's aides, and both of those are now classified at the lowest level ("confidential").

As mentioned above, Hillary's server contained 1,600 classified emails and counting, including the most sensitive level of intelligence in existence (SAP, beyond-top-secret). There is no comparison between the conduct of Hillary Clinton and that of her immediate predecessors. Beyond her exclusive use of an improper and unsecure server, Sec. Clinton was personally and specifically warned about the vulnerability of her email scheme in 2011, when a State Department security expert sounded the alarm over foreign hackers seeking to infiltrate US secrets by targeting high-ranking officials' private emails. Mrs. Clinton carried on with her arrangement anyway.

Clinton mishandled hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails, which held state secrets at the highest classification levels.  In fact, just this week, the State Department deemed another seven Clinton emails too sensitive to release in any form =17px, even with redactions, bringing that total to 29.  Intelligence officials who've seen some of the documents in question say they betray operational intelligence =17px, the leakage of which puts covert missions and lives at risk. 





 

rated:
ryeny3 said:   IMO, one of the better uses of state or federal funds, would be to make birth certificates and photo ID's available at little or no cost to those in poverty. I believe that the lack of an ID is severely limiting and I would like to see all states endeavor to help those in need obtain them. Although NYS does not require any voter identification, NYC provides free ID's to all residents.

If someone who is indigent wants an ID, she can provide her last four digits of her SSN and her date and place of birth to someone at the DMV or other government facility who could confirm online that person's identity, as I believe that Wisconsin does. IIRC, Tennessee has Saturday hours solely for the purposes of obtaining an ID and has a toll free number where a citizen can call for a ride to the DMV. My guess is that the Sanders or Clinton campaign headquarters could find a ride for a potential voter to the DMV.  

The amount of information required to obtain a voter ID is generally less than or equal to the requirements for new hires. I don't know of any state where one can't present a valid driver's license to vote, but an employer would need additional identification, like a birth certificate, to verify eligibility for employment. Since Form I-9 has been around almost three decades, the need for a copy of one's birth certificate at some point in life shouldn't be shocking. ​

Although I believe that in-person voter fraud, unlike absentee ballot fraud, is minimal, the effects of requiring an ID vote are probably modestly understated. In states where an ID is required, I doubt many try. In states, where no ID is required, it would be hard to know if there was fraud. When I was in high school, there was a bar that almost never checked ID's and although on some nights might have had more minors than adults inside, the owner to my knowledge never removed an underage visitor. Other places that were serious about checking ID's probably didn't see many minors trying to get in. 

Many voter id laws have been ruled constitutional. Although they need to be free to those who can't afford them, the Supreme Court has found that the time and travel required to obtain an ID is not an unreasonable burden. My hope is that any such laws are structured to make obtaining an ID as easy as possible for everyone who wants one.

  I agree, as a Democrat I have no problems with voter ID laws if ID is free and very easy to get.  But then you have the case of Alabama where they enacted voter ID laws and then closed down something like 90% of their rural DMVs though due to "budgetary reasons", and that is not acceptable at all.

rated:
The Democrat clown car is in full swing today in New Hampshire. Who will people vote for: a communist, or a felon?

I wonder if Democrats will commit voter fraud in New Hampshire like they did in Iowa.

Remember all the times it was said Democrats could never commit voter fraud?  "How dare you accuse Democrats of such a thing!"  And now Democrats are accusing other Democrats of cheating in Iowa.
[L=[L=[L=[L=[L=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3394081/posts said: ]http...]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3394081/posts]]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3394081/posts] [/L]

Remember whenever the Democrats lost an election, the DUmmies would accuse the Republicans of vote fraud? Of course, DUmmies would also get completely outraged if Democrats were accused of the same crime. Could never happen. As rare a an asteroid strike on the planet.

Well, the DUmmies have now changed their tune. They are now accusing DEMOCRATS of massive vote fraud in the Iowa caucuses. ... In another case, there was only ONE vote in an Iowa precinct and the person who cast that ONE vote claims he voted for Bernie yet it was recorded as a Hillary vote. Right now the Des Moines Register is cataloging many, many more instances of vote irregularities which just so happened to have gone Hillary's way each and every time.

There is now enough evidence to think that Bernie actually won the Iowa Caucus.
Too many vote-count irregularities. Too many "transpositions" of odd-numbered delegations, always in Hillary's favor..
Thus far, 4 people have come forward to say that the numbers were reported incorrectly.
The entire Editorial Board of the Des Moines Register has called for the Iowa Democratic Party to examine the caucus results.
I get a kick out of watching democrats argue against transparency.


 

rated:
JorgeBurrito said:   
ryeny3 said:   IMO, one of the better uses of state or federal funds, would be to make birth certificates and photo ID's available at little or no cost to those in poverty. I believe that the lack of an ID is severely limiting and I would like to see all states endeavor to help those in need obtain them. Although NYS does not require any voter identification, NYC provides free ID's to all residents.

If someone who is indigent wants an ID, she can provide her last four digits of her SSN and her date and place of birth to someone at the DMV or other government facility who could confirm online that person's identity, as I believe that Wisconsin does. IIRC, Tennessee has Saturday hours solely for the purposes of obtaining an ID and has a toll free number where a citizen can call for a ride to the DMV. My guess is that the Sanders or Clinton campaign headquarters could find a ride for a potential voter to the DMV.  

The amount of information required to obtain a voter ID is generally less than or equal to the requirements for new hires. I don't know of any state where one can't present a valid driver's license to vote, but an employer would need additional identification, like a birth certificate, to verify eligibility for employment. Since Form I-9 has been around almost three decades, the need for a copy of one's birth certificate at some point in life shouldn't be shocking. ​

Although I believe that in-person voter fraud, unlike absentee ballot fraud, is minimal, the effects of requiring an ID vote are probably modestly understated. In states where an ID is required, I doubt many try. In states, where no ID is required, it would be hard to know if there was fraud. When I was in high school, there was a bar that almost never checked ID's and although on some nights might have had more minors than adults inside, the owner to my knowledge never removed an underage visitor. Other places that were serious about checking ID's probably didn't see many minors trying to get in. 

Many voter id laws have been ruled constitutional. Although they need to be free to those who can't afford them, the Supreme Court has found that the time and travel required to obtain an ID is not an unreasonable burden. My hope is that any such laws are structured to make obtaining an ID as easy as possible for everyone who wants one.

  I agree, as a Democrat I have no problems with voter ID laws if ID is free and very easy to get.  You have the case of Alabama where they enacted voter ID laws and then closed down something like 90% of their rural DMVs though due to "budgetary reasons", and that is not acceptable at all.

I believe almost any form of picture ID should be enough to vote. I doubt that there is much risk of someone going to the trouble to make a fake picture ID so they can vote in someone else's name.

If someone is required by a state to obtain a new ID in order to vote, then these IDs should not only be free to anyone who can't afford them and easy to get but usable as an ID elsewhere. In other words, the ID should be the equivalent of a state's non-driver ID and not simply an ID that can only be used for voting. I believe that these ID's and the required document's to obtain them should be free to impoverished residents in every state and not just those where ID is needed to vote.

Although I am not defending Alabama's approach to voting rights, the state does allow people to obtain a voter ID at a county registrar's office. Although this might be preferable to a visit to the DMV, it would be much better if this was an additional option instead of an alternative.

rated:
JorgeBurrito said:   
ryeny3 said:   IMO, one of the better uses of state or federal funds, would be to make birth certificates and photo ID's available at little or no cost to those in poverty. I believe that the lack of an ID is severely limiting and I would like to see all states endeavor to help those in need obtain them. Although NYS does not require any voter identification, NYC provides free ID's to all residents.

If someone who is indigent wants an ID, she can provide her last four digits of her SSN and her date and place of birth to someone at the DMV or other government facility who could confirm online that person's identity, as I believe that Wisconsin does. IIRC, Tennessee has Saturday hours solely for the purposes of obtaining an ID and has a toll free number where a citizen can call for a ride to the DMV. My guess is that the Sanders or Clinton campaign headquarters could find a ride for a potential voter to the DMV.  

The amount of information required to obtain a voter ID is generally less than or equal to the requirements for new hires. I don't know of any state where one can't present a valid driver's license to vote, but an employer would need additional identification, like a birth certificate, to verify eligibility for employment. Since Form I-9 has been around almost three decades, the need for a copy of one's birth certificate at some point in life shouldn't be shocking. ​

Although I believe that in-person voter fraud, unlike absentee ballot fraud, is minimal, the effects of requiring an ID vote are probably modestly understated. In states where an ID is required, I doubt many try. In states, where no ID is required, it would be hard to know if there was fraud. When I was in high school, there was a bar that almost never checked ID's and although on some nights might have had more minors than adults inside, the owner to my knowledge never removed an underage visitor. Other places that were serious about checking ID's probably didn't see many minors trying to get in. 

Many voter id laws have been ruled constitutional. Although they need to be free to those who can't afford them, the Supreme Court has found that the time and travel required to obtain an ID is not an unreasonable burden. My hope is that any such laws are structured to make obtaining an ID as easy as possible for everyone who wants one.

  I agree, as a Democrat I have no problems with voter ID laws if ID is free and very easy to get.  You have the case of Alabama where they enacted voter ID laws and then closed down something like 90% of their rural DMVs though due to "budgetary reasons", and that is not acceptable at all.

  
There needs to be something easier to get, cheaper (actually, free), and more relevant than a Driver's License. There are some shocking areas of poverty in this country, where owning a car and thus needing a Driver's License is not going to happen, let alone needing a passport or Driver's License so you could board a plane or whatever. If you need a ID to vote, fine, but make it free, make it easy to get, or else you oppose democracy.

I remember driving through a place on the Arizona/California border that was a shanty town, a Brazilian favela, in the richest country on the planet

rated:
I think the call to all this free stuff is overblown, but if that's the cost of securing our democratic vote, I'm okay with it.

rated:
Finally got on a desktop. How does the new avatar look?

rated:
Bernie wins NH

rated:
Oh Bernie, he might have a small chance after all and I thought we were in trouble with Trump.

Run, Bloomberg, run!

rated:
ganda said:   
There needs to be something easier to get, cheaper (actually, free), and more relevant than a Driver's License. There are some shocking areas of poverty in this country, where owning a car and thus needing a Driver's License is not going to happen, let alone needing a passport or Driver's License so you could board a plane or whatever. If you need a ID to vote, fine, but make it free, make it easy to get, or else you oppose democracy.

I remember driving through a place on the Arizona/California border that was a shanty town, a Brazilian favela, in the richest country on the planet


Depending on the state, the DMV will issue ID cards. IMO, they should be issued for free.

Living in a very poor town, many of my friends got ID's instead of Drivers Licenses. All of them were able to get ID's, and they needed them for certain things.  In California, it's just $8 for the ID if you are poor.

rated:

daily news (311.60kB)
Disclaimer
NH EXIT POLL: 66% of GOP primary voters support banning Muslims from entering the U.S. #Decision2016 pic.twitter.com/ML7gElzaZR
— Meet the Press (@meetthepress) February 9, 2016

rated:

... (104.41kB)
Disclaimer
feel the bern

rated:
"Mom! Grandpa's posting political things he saw on Facebook again!"

rated:
Grandpa? Hardly...

rated:
mapatsfan said:   Bernie wins NH
  He still lost NH, Hilary got more delegates there. Though "superdelegates" do get to change their minds and tend to vote for the winner when it comes time for the convention.

rated:
scrouds said:   
kamalktk said:   How you can be the only voter in your district, and the other person gets the delegate :Text 

That's the kind of systemic fraud that has a real effect on who is elected, but that Voter ID does nothing about. It's the kind of voting fraud that something actually needs to be done about.

This kind too: Text


Ahem, let me repeat.

If I had a nickel for every time you said look over here when someone brought attention over there, I'd have big Mac money by now.

The problem is voting fraud, right? Systemic voting fraud is part of voting fraud.

I already pointed out that Voter ID fraud would have solved the 0.000006% of votes where there was Voter ID fraud, so I've addressed your point. Voter ID does nothing but waste money (because really, do we want to spend lots of money on 0.000006% ? ) and Target a political group for disenfranchisement (as admitted on video by the Pennsylvania Speaker. Intentional disenfranchisement is bad, mmmkay?).

Now the above was directly on your topic right?

 I don't want to spend a bunch of money on a problem that effectively doesn't exist, because I'm a conservative and throwing money at non-existing problems is not exactly fiscally conservative.

On the other hand, I remember that Voter ID is theoretically supposed to address voting fraud (and not Voter IDs admitted on camera purpose of disenfranchisement). Systemic voting fraud however? That definitely exists (And lest people think I'm only concerned if Republicans are doing it, my example of systemic fraud, which I already provided in this thread, was systemic fraud occurring in the Democratic party). But here's another example link, showing how easy it is (and sourced from Fox News to counter the "only democratic sources used" argument). Here's 2500 ballots requested via systemic fraud: link . Here's some programmer testifying in Florida about doing it link.

 Addressing voting fraud is good, Voter ID does effectively zero to address it. Voting fraud should be addressed, so let's address it.

rated:
Christie is out. Fiorina is out.

rated:
You keep repeating the same lies I've already debunked. Come up with some new lies I can disprove.

You're becoming as bad as the 3 stooges and his insistence of inherited racism.

rated:

... (224.44kB)
Disclaimer
Sad, even Bernie's kissing the ring of this felon.  I'm losing my enthusiasm for Bernie.

rated:
"Mom! Grandpa's posting political things he saw on Facebook again!"

I knew Christie was out earlier this afternoon, the grocery store was cleaned out of pork roll, dude's home.

rated:
mapatsfan said:   Sad, even Bernie's kissing the ring of this felon.  I'm losing my enthusiasm for Bernie.
  So did HRC.  Have to pay respect to the Godfather.

rated:
Utterly disgusting scumbag, can't believe anyone listened to him after Tawana Brawley. There's another case where he didn't pay up what the government told him to, and he got away with it.

rated:
Sanders got 13 delegates, Clinton got 15 in New Hampshire, including pledged and super delegates. Clinton now leads Sanders 394 to 42 in the delegate count; 2382 are needed to capture the nomination.

According to the AP, in the Republicans' race, Donald Trump will win at least 10 delegates in New Hampshire and John Kasich will win at least three. Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush will both win at least two, with six delegates still to be allocated.

In the overall race for delegates, Trump leads with 17, Cruz has 10, Marco Rubio has seven, Kasich has four and Bush has three.

It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination.

rated:
mapatsfan said:   

It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination.

  
Whoa, the Republican establishment have blown my mind. It's looking like they'll have a contested convention in Cleveland, all the world's media will be there, the convention is going to be terrorist Target #1... and they have banned the good guys from having guns at the convention. My mind is blown. We know how to stop bad guys with guns, you need good guys with guns. That why the GOP want guns in my child's school, to keep her safe, even though her school is so much less of a likely Target than the Republican convention.

They know they are a Target, but they don't want to protect themselves. Is mass martyrdom a viable political strategy? Every delegate should be required to wear a sidearm, for safety's sake.

 

rated:
ganda said:   
MAazing the hypocrisymapatsfan said:   

It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination.

  
Whoa, the Republican establishment have blown my mind. It's looking like they'll have a contested convention in Cleveland, all the world's media will be there, the convention is going to be terrorist Target #1... and they have banned the good guys from having guns at the convention. My mind is blown. We know how to stop bad guys with guns, you need good guys with guns. That why the GOP want guns in my child's school, to keep her safe, even though her school is so much less of a likely Target than the Republican convention.

They know they are a Target, but they don't want to protect themselves. Is mass martyrdom a viable political strategy? Every delegate should be required to wear a sidearm, for safety's sake.
 

  Amazing hypo-crazy.  They are afraid of guns there, but want them everywhere else (including elementary schools).  This should be a debate question I would like to see answered and their logic behind it.

rated:
mapatsfan said:   Sanders got 13 delegates, Clinton got 15 in New Hampshire, including pledged and super delegates. Clinton now leads Sanders 394 to 42 in the delegate count; 2382 are needed to capture the nomination.

According to the AP, in the Republicans' race, Donald Trump will win at least 10 delegates in New Hampshire and John Kasich will win at least three. Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush will both win at least two, with six delegates still to be allocated.

In the overall race for delegates, Trump leads with 17, Cruz has 10, Marco Rubio has seven, Kasich has four and Bush has three.

It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination.

  I had forgotten about all the "super delegates".  That is a bunch of BS.  They mentioned that Clinton had most of those pledged to her last time, even before Iowa.  They want to call it a democratic process, but having those influence the candidate we get to vote for in the elections is such a farce.

rated:
MilleniumBuc said:   
ganda said:   
MAazing the hypocrisymapatsfan said:   

It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination.

  
Whoa, the Republican establishment have blown my mind. It's looking like they'll have a contested convention in Cleveland, all the world's media will be there, the convention is going to be terrorist Target #1... and they have banned the good guys from having guns at the convention. My mind is blown. We know how to stop bad guys with guns, you need good guys with guns. That why the GOP want guns in my child's school, to keep her safe, even though her school is so much less of a likely Target than the Republican convention.

They know they are a Target, but they don't want to protect themselves. Is mass martyrdom a viable political strategy? Every delegate should be required to wear a sidearm, for safety's sake.

  Amazing hypo-crazy.  They are afraid of guns there, but want them everywhere else (including elementary schools).  This should be a debate question I would like to see answered and their logic behind it.

  
I am worried for them. A contested convention will have delegates preoccupied with heated, fraught, and potentially bad tempered discussions, they'll be too distracted to watch out for muslim terrorists. They need to be carrying during those discussions.

I fear the delegates will be like lambs led to slaughter (in front of the world's media). How do we get this overturned? Can't the GOP do something and allow its delegates to defend themselves? Don't the delegates have that Right?

rated:
Hillary and Bernie's debate live right now on CNN

rated:
I'm torn now between Hil and Bern.

She sounds rational, he wants to give out a lot of free stuff.

She has foreign policy experience, the bill for all his free stuff won't come due for a long time.

She wants to maintain ACA, he proposes an even more expensive plan.

She gets money from Wall street, so does he.

She was married to Slick Willie, Bern doesn't understand math(there aren't enough "rich" for him to confiscate from, so middle class will get penalized regardless of what he says now).

She's considered an insider with 23 years in DC, he's been a politician for 45 years.

She's from IL, he's from NY.

Only have until March 1 to decide.

rated:
mapatsfan said:   I'm torn now between Hil and Bern.

She sounds rational, he wants to give out a lot of free stuff.

She has foreign policy experience, the bill for all his free stuff won't come due for a long time.

She wants to maintain ACA, he proposes an even more expensive plan.

She gets money from Wall street, so does he.

She was married to Slick Willie, Bern doesn't understand math(there aren't enough "rich" for him to confiscate from, so middle class will get penalized regardless of what he says now).

She's considered an insider with 23 years in DC, he's been a politician for 45 years.

She's from IL, he's from NY.

Only have until March 1 to decide.


She lies though her teeth, he believes his shit.

She has experience getting ambassadors killed, he does not.

She wants to continue the medical gravy train at the expense of the people, he wants to give it out free damn the cost

Everyone loves wall street!

He marched with MLK. Her rallying cry is "I have a vagina"

They've both been politicking since before I knew my multiplication table.

Both want to raise taxes and take your guns. Hillary wants all your guns, bernie will let you keep a shotgun unloaded in the house for hunting only.

Both support making taco Tuesday everyday, but bernie wants the tacos to be free.

rated:
I guess I'm back to leaning toward Bernie.

rated:
mapatsfan said:   
 

  Torn between a felon and a communist.  

Hillary has foreign policy experience?  I guess getting people killed and lying to their families counts as "foreign policy experience."  As does wanting to force a no-fly zone in Syria because... because why again?  Because Syria and Russia are killing terrorists?  And because ISiS doesn't have an air force?  Sounds like a great reason to go to war with the Syrian government and Russia and start the next world war.  

Obama and Hillary and Jeb and some others want to "regime change" Syria.  Did Congress ever vote to go to war with the government of Syria?  No.  So doing that, like they've been doing, is unconstitutional.  But everyone knows Obama and Hillary don't care about things like The Constitution.

And then there's Bernie who has supported plenty of U.S. interventionism around the globe.  Obviously he's done so less than Hillary.  Donald Trump of all people is actually the most non-interventionist candidate.

The Democrat clown car rolls on.  Showing everyone its corruption via Super Delegates.  

How come there's so little "diversity" from the Democrat candidates, by the way?  The Democrat candidates are all old white people.  Like they are at the liberal Hollywood Democrat Oscars.

rated:
MilleniumBuc said:   
mapatsfan said:   Sanders got 13 delegates, Clinton got 15 in New Hampshire, including pledged and super delegates. Clinton now leads Sanders 394 to 42 in the delegate count; 2382 are needed to capture the nomination.

According to the AP, in the Republicans' race, Donald Trump will win at least 10 delegates in New Hampshire and John Kasich will win at least three. Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush will both win at least two, with six delegates still to be allocated.

In the overall race for delegates, Trump leads with 17, Cruz has 10, Marco Rubio has seven, Kasich has four and Bush has three.

It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination.

  I had forgotten about all the "super delegates".  That is a bunch of BS.  They mentioned that Clinton had most of those pledged to her last time, even before Iowa.  They want to call it a democratic process, but having those influence the candidate we get to vote for in the elections is such a farce.

   You have to remember a couple things about the super delegates.  Just because they claim they are supporting a candidate, it doesn't mean they can't change their support later.  We saw this in 2008 with Hillary vs. Obama...the only reason that race was close at the end was because of the Super Delegates pledging to Hilary, but once they saw that the electorate had a clear preference for Obama, a lot of them shifted support and voted for him at the convention.  That is really the second point, it would be suicide for the Democratic party to overturn the clear will of the voters.  If it is very close, sure we might see super delegates decide the nominee (For Clinton almost undoubtedly), but they aren't going to risk fracturing the party if Bernie has a fairly clear mandate from the voters.

rated:
I just hate this entire primary process, which overwhelmingly favors more fringe crowds. Should be a one day national primary then followed by a run off of the top 2.

rated:
mapatsfan said:   Utterly disgusting scumbag, can't believe anyone listened to him after Tawana Brawley. There's another case where he didn't pay up what the government told him to, and he got away with it.
Sharpton was sold as a civil rights leader by then NBC chairman Robert Wright, who was rather political (pressured NBC News into quickly declaring GW Bush winner in the 2000 Florida general election) and wanted to help the Republican party by promoting a buffoon as a civil rights leader.

rated:
He was a attention whore scumbag for decades before that.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
mapatsfan said:   Utterly disgusting scumbag, can't believe anyone listened to him after Tawana Brawley. There's another case where he didn't pay up what the government told him to, and he got away with it.
Sharpton was sold as a civil rights leader by then NBC chairman Robert Wright, who was rather political (pressured NBC News into quickly declaring GW Bush winner in the 2000 Florida general election) and wanted to help the Republican party by promoting a buffoon as a civil rights leader.

  Wow, is that from infowar or similar sites?  Sharpton got his start way way before that.  Heck, the Trump got more way more proven Democrat credential then this flimsy conspiracy theory.

The next thing you are going to tell us is that Black Life Matters are a  white supremacist false flag operation to make them look dumb.

rated:
ZenNUTS said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
mapatsfan said:   Utterly disgusting scumbag, can't believe anyone listened to him after Tawana Brawley. There's another case where he didn't pay up what the government told him to, and he got away with it.
Sharpton was sold as a civil rights leader by then NBC chairman Robert Wright, who was rather political (pressured NBC News into quickly declaring GW Bush winner in the 2000 Florida general election) and wanted to help the Republican party by promoting a buffoon as a civil rights leader.

  Wow, is that from infowar or similar sites?  Sharpton got his start way way before that.  Heck, the Trump got more way more proven Democrat credential then this flimsy conspiracy theory.

The next thing you are going to tell us is that Black Life Matters are a  white supremacist false flag operation to make them look dumb.

I don't see how because this started before Internet was very popular, and Sharpton wasn't nationally famous until the Tawana Brawley hoax, after which he stated to pop up as a serious person on serious news programs.  Also I don't visit crazy websites, whether they're on the far right or far left.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.
  • 1207208209210 211
  • Page
  • Previous 40


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2016