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: [email protected]
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:[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von That One Guy
/sarcasm
Gesendet: Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 07:05
An: [email protected]
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:[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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.
