They’re really really good at it.
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 3:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [OT: Politics] Can we?
Witnesses? One? That many hit jobs would have a leak. Somewhere. None exist.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 1/22/2017 2:44 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Fact Bill, they are dead and they all had harmed or could have harmed Bill or
Hillary.
Just go through the list one by one. Some of it related to Waco. Many
related to Whitewater or Monica.
Remember Vince Foster?
One or three could be a coincidence. 10 perhaps just a series of unfortunate
and unrelated events, but 63 of them? Just happenstance?
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 3:38 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [OT: Politics] Can we?
Give. Me. A. Break.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 1/22/2017 2:34 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
One thing is for certain, absolute inarguable fact, these 63 people are as
dead as you can get and all of them either spilled the beans on the Clintons or
had information that could harm the Clintons.
So, if you want to talk ethics and morals of Trump, I have not yet heard of
anyone he had whacked. Maybe he is just better at doing it.
1.. Susan Coleman:
2.. Larry Guerrin:
3.. Kevin Ives
4.. Don Henry:
5.. Keith Coney:
6.. Keith McKaskle:
7.. Gregory Collins:
8.. Jeff Rhodes:
9.. James Milam:
10.. Richard Winters:
11.. Jordan Kettleson:
12.. Alan Standorf:
13.. Dennis Eisman: .
14.. Danny Casalaro:
15.. Victor Raiser:
16.. R. Montgomery Raiser:
17.. Paul Tully:
18.. Ian Spiro:
19.. Paula Gober:
20.. Jim Wilhite:
21.. Steve Willis,
22.. Robert Williams,
23.. Todd McKeahan
24.. Conway LeBleu:
25.. Sgt. Brian Haney,
26.. Sgt. Tim Sabel,
27.. Maj. William Barkley,
28.. Capt. Scott Reynolds:
29.. John Crawford:
30.. John Wilson:
31.. Paul Wilcher:
32.. Vincent Foster:
33.. Jon Parnell Walker:
34.. Stanley Heard
35.. Steven Dickson:
36.. Jerry Luther Parks:
37.. Ed Willey:
38.. Gandy Baugh:
39.. Herschell Friday:
40.. Ronald Rogers:
41.. Kathy Furguson:
42.. Bill Shelton:
43.. Stanley Huggins:
44.. Paul Olson:
45.. Calvin Walraven:
46.. Alan G. Whicher:
47.. Duane Garrett:
48.. Ron Brown:.
49.. Charles Meissner:
50.. William Colby:
51.. Admiral Jeremy Boorda:
52.. Lance Herndon:
53.. Neil Moody:
54.. Barbara Wise:
55.. Doug Adams:
56.. Mary C. Mahoney:
57.. Ronald Miller:
58.. Sandy Hume:
59.. Jim McDougal:
60.. Johnny Lawhon:
61.. Charles Wilbourne Miller:
62.. Carlos Ghigliotti:
63.. Tony Moser:
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 2:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [OT: Politics] Can we?
He also ran a lot of less than ethical schemes to make his money. Some were
legal, some were not. You may consider that smart, and that's your right. I do
not.
On Jan 22, 2017 2:53 PM, "Jon Langeler" mailto:jon-ispli...@michwave.net
wrote:
He had money, knew to hire the right people, and made good decisions.
Historically that's not been common in politics. It's always been mostly
'spenders'
Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.
On Jan 22, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Josh Reynolds mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com
wrote:
Net worth is in no way an indicator of intelligence. In fact, it often
happens by accident, or in spite of intelligence.
On Jan 22, 2017 2:00 PM, "Jon Langeler" mailto:jon-ispli...@michwave.net
wrote:
Considering his net worth he might he smarter than any of us. But if your
looking for miracles you might be better off reading the bible.
Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.
On Jan 22, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Jaime Solorza mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com
wrote:
Empty promises just like his brain. But it's okay to grope now....
Waiting for right time to do it comrades
On Jan 22, 2017 10:38 AM, "Josh Reynolds" mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com wrote:
https://streamable.com/md28v
I still cannot settle down with the idea that a Trump presidency is not
some kind of joke taken too far...
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Jaime Solorza
mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com wrote:
Waiting on Tweets Trump or Trumps Tweet response to this..
https://news.google.com/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fm.huffpost.com%2Fus%2Fentry%2Fus_5884a06be4b096b4a2325818%2Famp#pt0-568751
On Jan 22, 2017 7:40 AM, "Jaime Solorza" mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey but you can buy Melanias jewelry line on new white house website. The
bullshit is going to get worse...no million and half attended inauguration....
Women's March had a lot more... His ego is bruised. Let me Trumpspeak... So
sad.
On Jan 22, 2017 12:47 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm"
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote:
there is this gem now
http://www.hewillnotdivide.us/
24x7 real time stream of people being idiots ala transformers guy
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Stefan Englhardt mailto:s...@genias.net
wrote:
Today we’ve great possibilities to spread news. But it is very difficult to
get the real information unbiased. Breitbart is known to be very biased even
here over the ocean. But it seems the „normal“ media in USA is biased, too.
E.g. we never understood how Bush jun. got his second election where it was
clear he started a war based on wrong information. This is unthinkable here. It
would be the one point which would dominate the discussion and would make him
unvotable here. Your media seemed to move the discussion away from this fact
and relativated his guilty to make him votable.
Another example is the Hillary Email discussion. This is a topic which is
minor at best but was discussed the whole time.
I guess it is possible Trump kills a person in TV and get reelected if
media helps him. Unthinkable? But killing one person is much less a problem
than starting a war where thousands are killed. Breitbart would find 100
reasons why this person has to die and would find other topics to report.
Good and neutral media are the base of a working democracy. For sure you
have a problem.
Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von That One Guy /sarcasm
Gesendet: Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 07:05
An: af@afmug.com
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] [OT: Politics] Can we?
Im pretty confident the next few days is setting the stage to effectively
shutting down "media access". Im all for it in the current environment. Between
press releases, Publicly accessible data, FOIA responses, live streamed events,
and one on one interviews (and yes...twitter) the press really is the dialup
internet method of getting information. We know more in real time then the
press could ever package up and present. The current mindset of media in press
conferences is that of militants (both sides of the media isle) and there is
zero professionalism from either one. Neither really gives a damn what the
answer is anyway, theyre going to report whatever their preconceived response
was either way.
Question: Did we send B52 Bombers to hit an ISIS target?
Answer: Yes
CNN under Obama: Obama authorizes successful airstrike removing 100 ISIS
fighters in final days of his presidency. This act ensures that those who would
commit terror will be addressed accordingly, even during the transition of
power.
Breitbart under Obama: Obama, the snake furthers military conflict day
before leaving office, leaving all Americans at risk during a tumultuous time
of transition. Kills 100, ensuring a retaliatory response.
Had the same attack been authorized today:
CNN under Trump: MILITARY FIASCO: Trump bombs random targets. Top military
officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, refuse to verify there were no
civilian casualties, at least 100 confirmed dead. War crime charges possible?
Breitbart under Trump: God Emperor Trump authorized the removal of 100
ISIS top leaders in his first act as Commander in Chief. Rumors of ISIS
surrender. Barack Obama potentially one of the dead operatives.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jeremy mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm all for it. I think that everyone is probably just impressed by the
first white house press briefing and the remarks at Langley. What an amazing
public speaker this one is. Have you ever had a friend or friend's uncle or
something who did too much meth? You know how they start out with one sentence
and then before you know it they have told fifteen other stories before they
ever get to the point...if they ever do??? We have four years of that to look
forward to. Just watch the full speech at the CIA, you will see what I mean.
Or don't....save yourself the pain.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Josh Reynolds mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com
wrote:
Can we talk about politics yet? :P
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
