Farewell Reck. ELE bet settled.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Wikileaks Clinton Wall St. speeches seal the deal. I'll miss my punching bag. Kill your account.

[TheGreatYacht]

Didn't shake hands = didn't count

Thought you knew this

[TheSanityAnnex]

Reck are you a man of your word or a cowardly liar?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7243#

kill your account

[Reck]

Reck (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14412) are you a man of your word or a cowardly liar?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7243#

kill your account

Are you stupid or something?

This is from John Podesta and there is nothing in there that is grabbing. It's an email between two people.

What don't you understand about direct?

Assange has to have imformation partaining to Hillary..from Hillary.

[Reck]

Also, who the fuck starts an email chain by saying "I agree but?"

This was clearly a cut and paste job. No one starts an email in mid sentence.

Try again, resident retard.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Are you stupid or something?

This is from John Podesta and there is nothing in there that is grabbing. It's an email between two people.

What don't you understand about direct?

Assange has to have imformation partaining to Hillary..from Hillary.

you are a coward and a liar. Pathetic piece of shit you are lying so you can continue posting on a message board.

You were told by others not to take the bet and you didn't listen. Now you're flailing around trying to change the terms of the bet. What a pussy you are.

[hater]

:lmao Wreck

Another class A welcher :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Also, who the fuck starts an email chain by saying "I agree but?"

This was clearly a cut and paste job. No one starts an email in mid sentence.

Try again, resident retard.
:lmao you are so fucking retarded :lmao

the email chain doesn't start at the top you idiot. That is Hillary responding to Podesta's comment below.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Also, who the fuck starts an email chain by saying "I agree but?"

This was clearly a cut and paste job. No one starts an email in mid sentence.

Try again, resident retard.
:lmao there are even time stamps to help you peabrain :lmao

[Reck]

you are a coward and a liar. Pathetic piece of shit you are lying so you can continue posting on a message board.

You were told by others not to take the bet and you didn't listen. Now you're flailing around trying to change the terms of the bet. What a pussy you are.

Do you want me to quote the main post again?


If you are so sure he has nothing more directly on Hillary I propose an ELE bet. If Assange does, you are gone from the site. If Assange doesn't, I'm gone from this site. We got a deal?

So, where is the direct information?

This piece of shit you tried to pass as direct is not only not direct, it is taken out of context and not even started by Hillary. This chain of emails were from John Podesta.

Also, I'm still waiting for answers on post #5.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Do you want me to quote the main post again?



So, where is the direct information?

This piece of shit you tried to pass as direct is not only not direct, it is taken out of context and not even started by Hillary. This chain of emails were from John Podesta.

Also, I'm still waiting for answers on post #5.
You are too fucking stupid. Emails between Clinton and Podesta is nothing directly on Hillary? :lol does Assange need to release emails of Hillary emailing herself? :lol

Continue being a liar and continue posting here, it actually provides great entertainment.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Also, I'm still waiting for answers on post #5.
:rollin

[TheSanityAnnex]

:rollin
:rollin answered in post #8

[Reck]

You are too fucking stupid. Emails between Clinton and Podesta is nothing directly on Hillary? :lol does Assange need to release emails of Hillary emailing herself? :lol

Continue being a liar and continue posting here, it actually provides great entertainment.

Then why was this gotten through hacking Podesta, I wonder?

Or did you not catch the hacked email title in your own link? "Podesta-e-mails."

[TheSanityAnnex]

Then why was this gotten through hacking Podesta, I wonder?

Or did you not catch the hacked email title in your own link? "Podesta-e-mails."
It doesn't matter where the stuff came from. You said Assange had nothing more on Hillary, well he did. And I'm sure there is more. You lost the bet. you are a pussy a liar and a coward, with an extra helping of stupid.

:lmao Also, who the fuck starts an email chain by saying "I agree but?" :lmao

[Reck]

It doesn't matter where the stuff came from. You said Assange had nothing more on Hillary, well he did. And I'm sure there is more. You lost the bet. you are a pussy a liar and a coward, with an extra helping of stupid.

:lmao Also, who the fuck starts an email chain by saying "I agree but?" :lmao

It matters because that was the basis of the fucking bet. I like how you dropped the "directly" on Hillary.

Was this hacked from Hillary? No

Was this obtained from someone other than the person in question? Absolutely.

And ultimately, this is a generic email that shows literally nothing.

[Chris]

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy91yearoldmom.files. wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2Fwelches-grape-juice-large-image.jpg&sp=f6dfc74ea830625a867b0df9ef687347

[FuzzyLumpkins]

TSA fails again.

[TheSanityAnnex]

TSA fails again.
This should be fun...how so?

[TheSanityAnnex]

It matters because that was the basis of the fucking bet. I like how you dropped the "directly" on Hillary.

Was this hacked from Hillary? No

Was this obtained from someone other than the person in question? Absolutely.

And ultimately, this is a generic email that shows literally nothing.

Here is an example of how stupid you are, you quoted and even bolded it to emphasize your stupidity.



" Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex
If you are so sure he has nothing more directly on Hillary I propose an ELE bet. If Assange does, you are gone from the site. If Assange doesn't, I'm gone from this site. We got a deal?"

The bet was Assange has more shit on Hillary. It didn't matter where it came from, you clearly agreed to that even when others told you it was a losing proposition. Shocker.

You are the stupidest person I've interacted with on the web, it's not even close. You just demonstrated you can't/didn't read time stamps and even asked a second time for clarification on an email chain your stupid ass couldn't put together on your own.

You're just dumb dude. Own it.

Its obvious to all you are welching, not surprising but ill drop it and just refer to you as such.

[Reck]

Here is an example of how stupid you are, you quoted and even bolded it to emphasize your stupidity.



" Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex
If you are so sure he has nothing more directly on Hillary I propose an ELE bet. If Assange does, you are gone from the site. If Assange doesn't, I'm gone from this site. We got a deal?"

The bet was Assange has more shit on Hillary. It didn't matter where it came from, you clearly agreed to that even when others told you it was a losing proposition. Shocker.

You are the stupidest person I've interacted with on the web, it's not even close. You just demonstrated you can't/didn't read time stamps and even asked a second time for clarification on an email chain your stupid ass couldn't put together on your own.

You're just dumb dude. Own it.

Its obvious to all you are welching, not surprising but ill drop it and just refer to you as such.

You lack self awareness and its rich you calling other people stupid when your entire existence here is devoted to extreme conspiracy theories that makes cosmored look sane in comparison.

And as far as the bet goes, nothing's change. It is still on.

Nothing about what you have posted is coming directly from Hillary, its second hand bullshit. For one.

2, I made clear the terms of the bet. Go back and re-read the terms before you start making premature threads jizzing all over the place.

And finally, you don't expect something as mundane and boring as talking points be the thing that gets me off this board, do you?

We agreed it had to be bombshell like information or damaging information directly linking Hillary herself.


:lol

I'm fairly confident. This guy has nothing more on Hillary.

And let's be clear. There needs to be documents about Hillary doing such and such. Not some indirectly bullshit like the DNC hack.

I will honor your bet when that happens.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You lack self awareness and its rich you calling other people stupid when your entire existence here is devoted to extreme conspiracy theories that makes cosmored look sane in comparison.

And as far as the bet goes, nothing's change. It is still on.

Nothing about what you have posted is coming directly from Hillary, its second hand bullshit. For one.

2, I made clear the terms of the bet. Go back and re-read the terms before you start making premature threads jizzing all over the place.

And finally, you don't expect something as mundane and boring as talking points be the thing that gets me off this board, do you?

We agreed it had to be bombshell like information or damaging information directly linking Hillary herself.



I will honor your bet when that happens.

You keep moving the goalposts and trying to change the terms. Never did you say it had to be a bombshell.






I'm fairly confident. This guy has nothing more on Hillary.


And let's be clear. There needs to be documents about Hillary doing such and such. Not some indirectly bullshit like the DNC hack.

Assange released an email between Hillary Clinton and John Podesta discussing classified material. You lost, you welched.

[CosmicCowboy]

Give it up, TSA. No matter what comes out the puta will keep moving the goal post.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Half the fun is watching him step on his own dick.

[RandomGuy]

Are you stupid or something?

This is from John Podesta and there is nothing in there that is grabbing. It's an email between two people.

What don't you understand about direct?

Assange has to have imformation partaining to Hillary..from Hillary.

TheSanityAnnex has a very low bar when it comes to either evidence or interpretations of evidence.

He rushes in with what he is CONVINCED is some childish "gotcha" because he is a slave to his own confirmation bias. Not alone among partisan hacks of both side.

[DD]

Top 3 welsh moment on ST, tbh...surpassed only by dallaskd and Koolaid Man

[Reck]

You keep moving the goalposts and trying to change the terms. Never did you say it had to be a bombshell.



Assange released an email between Hillary Clinton and John Podesta discussing classified material. You lost, you welched.

Bro, how can I be moving the goalpost when I quoted one of my own quotes that same day saying there needs to be documents about Hillary doing illegal things or certainly doing something wrong. So where is that?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Bro, how can I be moving the goalpost when I quoted one of my own quotes that same day saying there needs to be documents about Hillary doing illegal things or certainly doing something wrong. So where is that?

Are you referring to this quote?








I'm fairly confident. This guy has nothing more on Hillary.




And let's be clear. There needs to be documents about Hillary doing such and such. Not some indirectly bullshit like the DNC hack.

[vy65]

"Directly on" =|= "directly from"

"Documents about" =|= "documents from"

What a welsher . . .

[Reck]

Are you referring to this quote?

That would be the one.

Point out a batch of emails where they focus on herself.

So far you've mentioned the portion of the leaked speeches which weren't even transcripts. It was some guy picking and choosing passages and telling it as second hand to Podesta.

Then you have these emails that were hacked from John Podesta that only contain boring talking points.

I want to see actual documents of Hillary doing it in the thick.

But hey, according to you, some 4chan users have recovered the missing 33k emails so surely, if so those will contain direct infomation from Hillary and I will be gone. ?

[StrengthAndHonor]

:lmao you are so fucking retarded :lmao

the email chain doesn't start at the top you idiot. That is Hillary responding to Podesta's comment below.
:lol:lol:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He quotes where the source used is specifically excluded and you have a legion of mouthbreathers calling welch.

The collective intelligence of this board's conservatives is pretty fucking sad.

[TheSanityAnnex]

He quotes where the source used is specifically excluded and you have a legion of mouthbreathers calling welch.

The collective intelligence of this board's conservatives is pretty fucking sad.
Nothing is excluded fuckwit. Reck just confirmed his own quote.

[Reck]

Nothing is excluded fuckwit. Reck just confirmed his own quote.

I confirmed my own quote with the terms, not the source.

Let me ask you this...how did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

You keep forgeting the key word directly.

[Splits]

Top 3 welsh moment on ST, tbh...surpassed only by dallaskd and Koolaid Man

Not even close. Thunderup and his faggot fartcatcher in 2014 after they lost my Spurs Thunder ELE are number 1 on the list.

[Reck]

He quotes where the source used is specifically excluded and you have a legion of mouthbreathers calling welch.

The collective intelligence of this board's conservatives is pretty fucking sad.

You'll also notice each of them are Trumpies. Bunch of deplorables who would be the first ones to run from a bet.

At least I'm still standing by our bet. Once TSA produces direct evidence from Assange to Hillary then I will honor it.

[Th'Pusher]

I don't gaf about a bet but the wiki leaks thus far have been a total dud and everyone knows it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I confirmed my own quote with the terms, not the source.

Let me ask you this...how did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

You keep forgeting the key word directly.


You've confirmed your terms, thank you. Your white knights RG and Fuzzy must feel even stupider than you at this point.

Here were your terms, and you even made them very clear as you so felt the need to point out :lol


I'm fairly confident. This guy has nothing more on Hillary.


And let's be clear. There needs to be documents about Hillary doing such and such. Not some indirectly bullshit like the DNC hack.

you said Assange had nothing more "on" Hillary and you needed to see documents of Hillary doing "such and such".

Only a person as stupid as yourself would start with lets be clear and finish with such and such.

Assange provided not only emails "on" Hillary but also "such and such". You call them mundane and talking points but that email was classified information on strategies dealing with ISIS.

You've shown how stupid you are, go out with some dignity and honor your bet. Kill your account or forever be known as not only a eel her but the stupidest poster here since Norcal.

[Reck]

You've confirmed your terms, thank you. Your white knights RG and Fuzzy must feel even stupider than you at this point.

Here were your terms, and you even made them very clear as you so felt the need to point out :lol



you said Assange had nothing more "on" Hillary and you needed to see documents of Hillary doing "such and such".

Only a person as stupid as yourself would start with lets be clear and finish with such and such.

Assange provided not only emails "on" Hillary but also "such and such". You call them mundane and talking points but that email was classified information on strategies dealing with ISIS.

You've shown how stupid you are, go out with some dignity and honor your bet. Kill your account or forever be known as not only a eel her but the stupidest poster here since Norcal.

How many times are you going to say stupid? Is that the only word you know?

You already tried and failed when you made this thread. You tried to pass off the transcripts exerpts from a random guy to be the thing that got me off the board..then that failed and you tried to say the latest email in which talking points were being discuss to be the "it" thing.

You have failed again.

Everyone knows these leaks have been a total fail thus far that have had zero consequences to anyone let alone Hillary.

You dont dictate shit. The rules are the rules.

You cant make useless information into legit information just because.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

How did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

TSA's reading skills are just as shitty as ever.

[TheSanityAnnex]

TSA's reading skills are just as shitty as ever.

You want to jump in on this go ahead. You'll only kill the account you are white knighting for.

Here are his terms. Explain how a hacked email of classified information between Clinton and Podesta released by Assange doesn't check off all of them.





" Originally Posted by Reck
I'm fairly confident. This guy has nothing more on Hillary.




And let's be clear. There needs to be documents about Hillary doing such and such. Not some indirectly bullshit like the DNC hack."

[TheSanityAnnex]

How many times are you going to say stupid? Is that the only word you know?

You already tried and failed when you made this thread. You tried to pass off the transcripts exerpts from a random guy to be the thing that got me off the board..then that failed and you tried to say the latest email in which talking points were being discuss to be the "it" thing.

You have failed again.

Everyone knows these leaks have been a total fail thus far that have had zero consequences to anyone let alone Hillary.

You dont dictate shit. The rules are the rules.

You cant make useless information into legit information just because.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

How did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

I'm not calling you stupid as an insult, it is just what you are. Your rant now is just more proof.

You poorly worded your terms, you continue to confirm those were your terms. You were told by multiple posters not to accept those terms, you ignored them and accepted your terms.
You are a fucking idiot.
You are a pussy.
You are a welcher.


Its always more fun when someone welches, this place never forgets. You've already gotten top 3 recommendations. Congrats welcher, this may be a positive as people may now forget stupidity as your top trait.

[Reck]

I'm not calling you stupid as an insult, it is just what you are. Your rant now is just more proof.

You poorly worded your terms, you continue to confirm those were your terms. You were told by multiple posters not to accept those terms, you ignored them and accepted your terms.
You are a fucking idiot.
You are a pussy.
You are a welcher.


Its always more fun when someone welches, this place never forgets. You've already gotten top 3 recommendations. Congrats welcher, this may be a positive as people may now forget stupidity as your top trait.

Holy shit. Mega retard sighted. :lmao

You dont get to call anyone stupid when you're candidate #1 when it comes to posting stupid shit. Not even ducks level. You go beyond Ducks and boutons level. For sure, undisputed.

I haven't welched because Assange and wikileaks have yet to release direct information from and of Hillary.

Oh and..

how did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

Why are you avoiding answering those questions? Top 3 recommendations the retard says. :lmao

[Reck]

You want to jump in on this go ahead. You'll only kill the account you are white knighting for.

Here are his terms. Explain how a hacked email of classified information between Clinton and Podesta released by Assange doesn't check off all of them.





" Originally Posted by Reck
I'm fairly confident. This guy has nothing more on Hillary.




And let's be clear. There needs to be documents about Hillary doing such and such. Not some indirectly bullshit like the DNC hack."

You seem to be stuck on stupid. How many times are you going to post that?

I've already posted it myself and it doesn't show anything that haven't been posted before. Grow a brain.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol now the dimwit meltdown

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not some indirectly bullshit like the DNC hack.

Reading is tough.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You seem to be stuck on stupid. How many times are you going to post that?

I've already posted it myself and it doesn't show anything that haven't been posted before. Grow a brain.
As many times as it takes your undeveloped brain to realize "on Hillary" is not the same as "from Hillary". You set the "on Hillary" terms not me. And even when you try and squirm out of that you lose because an email discussing classified information between Clinton and Podesta released by Assange 100% falls under "Hillary doing such and such". Again, your terms.

Welch on Reck

[TheSanityAnnex]

Not some indirectly bullshit like the DNC hack.

Reading is tough.
been a while since I read any of the DNC hack but I'm pretty sure none of it had actual Clinton emails and was more her campaign member staff amongst each other. Correct me if I'm wrong

[Reck]

As many times as it takes your undeveloped brain to realize "on Hillary" is not the same as "from Hillary". You set the "on Hillary" terms not me. And even when you try and squirm out of that you lose because an email discussing classified information between Clinton and Podesta released by Assange 100% falls under "Hillary doing such and such". Again, your terms.

Welch on Reck

Your lack of understanding is scary.

You're angling and you're doing it wrong. I said directly on Hillary. What's so difficult to understand?

how did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

Answer the questions and then ask yourself if that meets the terms agreed.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Perfect place for the o'keefe video he promised last week

NYC dem election commissioner----voter fraud

jUDTcxIqqM0

o'keefe said he's also got a Hillary Clinton saying niggger video coming out Monday. He's kept his word up until now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/0HOUR1__/status/787110776733626368

[TheGreatYacht]

These WikiLeaks have shown nothing so far tbh :lmao

Havent seen something so vanilla since Ben Carson ran for president

[TheSanityAnnex]

Your lack of understanding is scary.

You're angling and you're doing it wrong. I said directly on Hillary. What's so difficult to understand?

how did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

Answer the questions and then ask yourself if that meets the terms agreed.
"directly on Hillary"

yes. Assange did.


Anything else you say is irrelevant welcher.

[Splits]

o'keefe said he's also got a Hillary Clinton saying niggger video coming out Monday. He's kept his word up until now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/0HOUR1__/status/787110776733626368

Conspiracy theory bookmarked.

[Reck]

"directly on Hillary"

yes. Assange did.


Anything else you say is irrelevant welcher.

Ay ay ay.

Is that why you tried to stick me with that bullshit Hillary non-leaked leaked transcripts that weren't even that? After all, that's how you started your shitty premature thread after all.

You're at the point where your swinging all over the place to get me to leave.

Oh yeah..

how did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

[Reck]

Conspiracy theory bookmarked.

This nigga got balls. Here he is calling me stupid and he posts some far reaching conspiracy shit. :lmao

What a whack job.

[Winehole23]

I don't gaf about a bet but the wiki leaks thus far have been a total dud and everyone knows it.The donation from Qatar to the Clinton Foundation strained propriety to say the least. Also notable for me were her statements about a hemispheric common market with open borders, having private and public stances on policy, and Donna Brazile being fed questions at primary debates.

In any normal election cycle, these might be effective points of attack. Against a self-immolating Donald Trump, few people seem to be paying attention.

[Th'Pusher]

The donation from Qatar to the Clinton Foundation strained propriety to say the least. Also notable for me were her statements about a hemispheric common market with open borders, having private and public stances on policy, and Donna Brazile being fed questions at primary debates.

In any normal election cycle, these might be effective points of attack. Against a self-immolating Donald Trump, few people seem to be paying attention.

That's fair. I still don't think any of these revelations are anywhere near as devastating as Romney's 47% comment...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The donation from Qatar to the Clinton Foundation strained propriety to say the least. Also notable for me were her statements about a hemispheric common market with open borders, having private and public stances on policy, and Donna Brazile being fed questions at primary debates.

In any normal election cycle, these might be effective points of attack. Against a self-immolating Donald Trump, few people seem to be paying attention.

People haven't cared about policy since Willie Horton.

[hater]

Are you stupid or something?

This is from John Podesta and there is nothing in there that is grabbing. It's an email between two people.

What don't you understand about direct?

Assange has to have imformation partaining to Hillary..from Hillary.

:lmao Wreck :lol :lol

bye bye faggot

:lol


WikiLeaks releases transcripts of Clinton Goldman Sachs speeches

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches/index.html

[pgardn]

These WikiLeaks have shown nothing so far tbh :lmao

Havent seen something so vanilla since Ben Carson ran for president


We apparently now have some of the talks Hillary gave to Goldman-Sachs.
Could be interesting.

But it would take a nuke to change the obvious results.

Edit oops:

Hateraide strikes first.

So what did they say hater? Salient info, tell us what it means?
And... You are now taking info from the mouthpiece of the CIA? Why now?

You actually get valid news from CNN?
Fucktard...

[Will Hunting]

I have firsthand knowledge of what she said during those Goldman speeches and those transcripts don't look complete, some of the stuff she said is a lot more damning. Specifically about how Wall Street was :cry unfairly :cry blamed for the financial crisis.

[Reck]

:lmao Wreck :lol :lol

bye bye faggot

:lol


WikiLeaks releases transcripts of Clinton Goldman Sachs speeches

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches/index.html

Unverified, unaunthenticated and incomplete? :lmao

[DMC]

Reck has no intention of honoring a bet. He's going to call every revelation a DNC hack. He's going to deny it's pertaining to Hillary as he's moved the goal posts from "directly on Hillary" to "directly from Hillary". If someone forwards your email of you saying confidential things, giving your opinion on issues you want kept on the DL, then the recipient has something directly on you. It doesn't have to be about you giving an opinion of yourself. It can be anything from you saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote to saying Saudi Arabia is back door financing ISIL.

[DMC]

We apparently now have some of the talks Hillary gave to Goldman-Sachs.
Could be interesting.

But it would take a nuke to change the obvious results.

Edit oops:

Hateraide strikes first.

So what did they say hater? Salient info, tell us what it means?
And... You are now taking info from the mouthpiece of the CIA? Why now?

You actually get valid news from CNN?
Fucktard...
Yeah you can't rely on CNN. They will pretend to run the story then show a video bashing Trump beneath the headlines, and then have 2 or 3 positive spin articles related to their cherry picked items from the emails.

[Reck]

Reck has no intention of honoring a bet. He's going to call every revelation a DNC hack. He's going to deny it's pertaining to Hillary as he's moved the goal posts from "directly on Hillary" to "directly from Hillary". If someone forwards your email of you saying confidential things, giving your opinion on issues you want kept on the DL, then the recipient has something directly on you. It doesn't have to be about you giving an opinion of yourself. It can be anything from you saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote to saying Saudi Arabia is back door financing ISIL.

I have always maintained the Directly on Hillary.

The only reason wikileaks has had imformation on Hillary is because of John Podesta. These emails were lifted from one of her people. Fact.

[hater]

I have always maintained the Directly on Hillary.

The only reason wikileaks has had imformation on Hillary is because of John Podesta. These emails were lifted from one of her people. Fact.

They just released her leaked speeches moron. If thats not direct to you then u are a biggest dumbo than previously thought

[Reck]

They just released her leaked speeches moron. If thats not direct to you then u are a biggest dumbo than previously thought

First of all, it's unverified information gotten through a third party.

[Will Hunting]

I have always maintained the Directly on Hillary.

The only reason wikileaks has had imformation on Hillary is because of John Podesta. These emails were lifted from one of her people. Fact.
So you're admitting they have direct information on Hilary?

[Reck]

So you're admitting they have direct information on Hilary?

If they did, certainly they wouldn't need a middle man, would they?

[DMC]

So you're admitting they have direct information on Hilary?
What's what I saw as well.

It doesn't matter how they got it. What matters is that they released it.

Don't ELE bet if you have no intention of leaving, and he had none.

[DMC]

If they did, certainly they wouldn't need a middle man, would they?

Says who? Don't you think the Trump tape came from someone besides Trump?

[Will Hunting]

If they did, certainly they wouldn't need a middle man, would they?
Who's they? What middleman do they need?

[DMC]

I have always maintained the Directly on Hillary.

The only reason wikileaks has had imformation on Hillary is because of John Podesta. These emails were lifted from one of her people. Fact.

You're arguing the "directly from" angle though, thus the "middle man" comment. Her speech is on her, just as her comments regarding military tactics and strategic dealings with other ME nations is on her. Just because it was on Podesta's computer doesn't mean it's not on Hillary. Hell, it would be on TSA's computer if he copied the link, would he be the next middle man or does TSA need to contact Hillary and have Hillary contact you? Stop being a faggot.

[Reck]

What's what I saw as well.

It doesn't matter how they got it. What matters is that they released it.

Don't ELE bet if you have no intention of leaving, and he had none.

It matters when the point of the bet was that infomation needed to come directly out of Hillary. If Podesta doesn't get hacked=no emails.

[DMC]

It matters when the point of the bet was that infomation needed to come directly out of Hillary. If Podesta doesn't get hacked=no emails.

Here's you moving the goalposts from "on Hillary' to "from Hillary" again. Podesta's email was just a thread, like this one. What Reck says in this thread was said by Reck, even if I quote it. It doesn't mean it didn't come from you.

You've tried the "unverified" angle (if it's not qualified as "on Hillary", why does it matter?), the "middle man" angle, and now the "from" instead of "on" angle. You're still losing.

[hater]

First of all, it's unverified information gotten through a third party.

:lmao what leaked info is ever verified and gooten through the victim :lmao

Dumbass

[Reck]

Here's you moving the goalposts from "on Hillary' to "from Hillary" again. Podesta's email was just a thread, like this one. What Reck says in this thread was said by Reck, even if I quote it. It doesn't mean it didn't come from you.

You've tried the "unverified" angle (if it's not qualified as "on Hillary", why does it matter?), the "middle man" angle, and now the "from" instead of "on" angle. You're still losing.

No it's not. Directly on Hillary means directly on Hillary. It means it has to come from her personally hacked emails or otherwise.

Remove John Podesta and you got nothing. That's what directly means. If Hillary is not hacked, then you get nothing.

[Reck]

:lmao what leaked info is ever verified and gooten through the victim :lmao

Dumbass

Seriously? :lol

When the DNC got hacked..that was a direct hacking of the whole DNC infrastructure.

There is also Colin Powell. He also got hacked directly and his info leaked.

[DMC]

No it's not. Directly on Hillary means directly on Hillary. It means it has to come from her personally hacked emails or otherwise.

Remove John Podesta and you got nothing. That's what directly means. If Hillary is not hacked, then you get nothing.

Those are her personally hacked emails. They just came from a different computer, but they're still her emails. You're flailing now, and creating new caveats after the fact.

[Reck]

Those are her personally hacked emails. They just came from a different computer, but they're still her emails. You're flailing now, and creating new caveats after the fact.

Coming from a different computer=directly?

And this is not even taking into account the vadility of the hacking. Which I'm not even implying/

[DMC]

Seriously? :lol

When the DNC got hacked..that was a direct hacking of the whole DNC infrastructure.

There is also Colin Powell. He also got hacked directly and his info leaked.

So then how does "from her personally hacked emails" clear that "DNC hack" disqualifier?

[DMC]

Coming from a different computer=directly?
Yes, because it's directly from her, not someone paraphrasing her. If she emails you, do you read it from her computer? No, you read it from yours. You are reading this from yours. Why would she email herself?

[Reck]

Yes, because it's directly from her, not someone paraphrasing her. If she emails you, do you read it from her computer? No, you read it from yours. You are reading this from yours. Why would she email herself?

If I'm looking to hack you...why would I hack your friend? Information gotten from third party is not directly in my book.

[z0sa]

:lmao what leaked info is ever verified and gooten through the victim :lmao

Dumbass

Exactly.

Bye Reck.

[Reck]

Exactly.

Bye Reck.

So the DNC wasn't a victim? That was a direct hack...

[DMC]

If I'm looking to hack you...why would I hack some your friend? Information gotten from third party is not directly in my book.

Really? So if you post threats to the POTUS on CNN's forum and they forward that to the secret service, it doesn't count even if your IP is verified, because you didn't email yourself?

You didn't bet that Hillary wouldn't be hacked. You bet that Assange wouldn't have anything else directly on Hillary. He did. You lost. You're still falsely equivocating "directly on" with "directly from". It's dishonest and you know it.

There's nothing else to say about it, I'm not going to hand hold you back to your dignity. Perhaps you can blow goats for a nickel a herd and win some of it back if you record it and post it here.

[Reck]

Really? So if you post threats to the POTUS on CNN's forum and they forward that to the secret service, it doesn't count even if your IP is verified, because you didn't email yourself?

You didn't bet that Hillary wouldn't be hacked. You bet that Assange wouldn't have anything else directly on Hillary. He did. You lost. You're still falsely equivocating "directly on" with "directly from". It's dishonest and you know it.

There's nothing else to say about it, I'm not going to hand hold you back to your dignity. Perhaps you can blow goats for a nickel a herd and win some of it back if you record it and post it here.

That's a retarded analogy.

You keep saying emailing herself. Who's talking about self emailing?

Assange has yet to provide direct information that isn't coming from Podesta. Period.

[HI-FI]

Perfect place for the o'keefe video he promised last week

NYC dem election commissioner----voter fraud

jUDTcxIqqM0

o'keefe said he's also got a Hillary Clinton saying niggger video coming out Monday. He's kept his word up until now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/0HOUR1__/status/787110776733626368
If it's true, I bet the liberal shills and Hillary supporters will say "trigger...she's saying trigger....as in what will happen if Russia keeps interfering. It's been edited" or some bs like that.

[spurraider21]

reck is a bitch. was retarded enough to make that bet and now is being dishonorable about it after the fact

[Reck]

reck is a bitch. was retarded enough to make that bet and now is being dishonorable about it after the fact

How did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

You don't get to interpret this to suit your purpose. Directly means directly.

[spurraider21]

How did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

You don't get to interpret this to suit your purpose. Directly means directly.
link me to the post with the terms of your bet

[hater]

If it's true, I bet the liberal shills and Hillary supporters will say "trigger...she's saying trigger....as in what will happen if Russia keeps interfering. It's been edited" or some bs like that.

:lmao. Ma niga high as shit 5

[DMC]

How did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?

You don't get to interpret this to suit your purpose. Directly means directly.

Directly from means directly from. Directly on doesn't specify who it's from, it doesn't matter.

I've got information on your employer...

not the same as

I've got information from your employer...

You said "on".

[baseline bum]

If it's true, I bet the liberal shills and Hillary supporters will say "trigger...she's saying trigger....as in what will happen if Russia keeps interfering. It's been edited" or some bs like that.

Probably. Look how the right tried to brush off Santorum calling Obama an anti war government nig-oops in that speech.

[HI-FI]

Probably. Look how the right tried to brush off Santorum calling Obama an anti war government nig-oops in that speech.
:lmao
just saw the Santorum clip for the first time. Hilarious. i never was a fan of Santorum and can't imagine him ever having a real shot at POTUS.

[z0sa]

Probably. Look how the right tried to brush off Santorum calling Obama an anti war government nig-oops in that speech.

When bd talks christian sharia, santirum is who i think of.

[baseline bum]

When bd talks christian sharia, santirum is who i think of.

:lol

[Splits]

o'keefe said he's also got a Hillary Clinton saying niggger video coming out Monday. He's kept his word up until now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/0HOUR1__/status/787110776733626368

:wakeup

[TheSanityAnnex]

:wakeup
He posted another video today, 3 more to go. I still have no reason to doubt him, he's delivered so far.

[TheSanityAnnex]

reck is a bitch. was retarded enough to make that bet and now is being dishonorable about it after the fact