What is really up with Huma Abedin?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-02-2016, 08:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see false equivalence there. Ties like the ones being claimed to exist would be investigated thoroughly when someone is a part of the inner circle to the FLOTUS (because that is how far back her time with Clinton goes). The Secret Service, FBI, and CIA would have investigated all of this back then before she would have gotten in the door of the White House. I get that the DHS and the agencies under that umbrella aren't perfect, but the level of scrutiny is much different for that situation than it is for the other things mentioned.

Depends on who you pay....

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 01:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Depends on who you pay....

Or kill.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-02-2016, 02:15 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well we don't know if aliens really exist, so there's a higher chance.

No but whether we'll be "taken over" is another argument. My problem is that we have obviously let a lot of people into this country that want an Islamic rule not only in America but the world as a whole. I feel that we are setting ourselves up for much more internal conflict.

People want to sit back in their lawn chairs calling Islamic Terrorists barbarians as if that means the terrorists are stupid. Islamic terrorists are getting smarter everyday and taking what they learn in America back to their barbarian caves.

Every time these terrorists fail, it gives them a better blueprint of how to succeed. ISIS, while now being defeated is one of the most successful terrorist groups to date, and their failure is only serving as a reminder of what not to do next time. Their military power was not only surprising but also sophisticated and even made an American military general say we should be taking them seriously.

Even the ISIS propaganda machine was at a level never seen before. Their beheading videos were of extremely high quality and nothing close to the low quality home videos that Al Qaeda or the Taliban made.

"An American military general" said that?  As in one?  Singular?  Uno?

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 02:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "An American military general" said that?  As in one?  Singular?  Uno?

No multiple have. But not sure why that matters. It doesn't take 50 generals for an opinion to be right.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-03-2016, 02:39 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: No multiple have. But not sure why that matters. It doesn't take 50 generals for an opinion to be right.

I thought it was an odd choice of words, "an American military general."  If multiple generals said that, then why did you write "an American military general" if you meant "multiple American military generals"?  

How long do you think we have been fighting ISIS?

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 02:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I thought it was an odd choice of words, "an American military general."  If multiple generals said that, then why did you write "an American military general" if you meant "multiple American military generals"?  

How long do you think we have been fighting ISIS?

What's so odd about what I said?

If it was a basketball player I would have said "a basketball player". If it was a bus driver for the Clinton campaign I would have said "a bus driver for the Clinton campaign". 

I said "An American military general" because that's what I meant. His quote of "seriousness" is what came to mind when typing. Whether other people said the same thing was irrelevant to the point.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-03-2016, 03:40 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What's so odd about what I said?

If it was a basketball player I would have said "a basketball player". If it was a bus driver for the Clinton campaign I would have said "a bus driver for the Clinton campaign". 

I said "An American military general" because that's what I meant. His quote of "seriousness" is what came to mind when typing. Whether other people said the same thing was irrelevant to the point.

Donald Trump sure as hell wouldn't claim only one "American military general" endorsed him if "multiple" Generals endorsed him.  If Bill Clinton had "multiple" allegations of sexual assault, you wouldn't claim it was only one.  Understand?

How long do you think we have been fighting ISIS?

[Belsnickel]

(11-03-2016, 12:18 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: False equivalence? This isn't about who would be investigated "more". It's about proper actions not being taken even after these individuals have been investigated.

It's still a false equivalence even looking at that alone.

[Belsnickel]

(11-03-2016, 01:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Depends on who you pay....

The regularity of bribery, and the influence of money in general, is an overblown myth in Washington.

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 04:23 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Donald Trump sure as hell wouldn't claim only one "American military general" endorsed him if "multiple" Generals endorsed him.  If Bill Clinton had "multiple" allegations of sexual assault, you wouldn't claim it was only one.  Understand?

How long do you think we have been fighting ISIS?

What point are you trying to make? I'm honestly confused as to where you're going with this. I said "An American military genetal". So what?

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 04:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's still a false equivalence even looking at that alone.

How is that false equivalance? I'm not making the assertion the Abedin wouldn't be properly handled because those two instances show how the DHS or FBI handles everything. I'm simply making light of the fact that the DHS and FBI make mistakes, thus why should we just believe that the DHS would "be all over" that shit?

Because the DHS would put Abedin under intense scrutiny and properly handle the investigation and their findings because everyone in her position would receive the same treatment? What facts do you have to back up that claim other than wishful thinking?

[Au165]

Let me help you out. No radical Islam will never take over the country. No ISIS will never take over the country. Too think otherwise is to really not understand the foundation of the United States (took hundreds of years for even a Black President) or the strategical advantages of our location in the world (can't invade without Navy/Air force, or taking Mexico or Canada first).

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-03-2016, 05:08 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What point are you trying to make? I'm honestly confused as to where you're going with this. I said "An American military genetal". So what?

Let's just say it is an attention to detail idiosyncrasy. 

How long do you think we have been fighting ISIS?

[Belsnickel]

(11-03-2016, 05:16 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: How is that false equivalance? I'm not making the assertion the Abedin wouldn't be properly handled because those two instances show how the DHS or FBI handles everything. I'm simply making light of the fact that the DHS and FBI make mistakes, thus why should we just believe that the DHS would "be all over" that shit?

Because the DHS would put Abedin under intense scrutiny and properly handle the investigation and their findings because everyone in her position would receive the same treatment? What facts do you have to back up that claim other than wishful thinking?

Because of the type of access involved, because of the length of time involved, because of the difference reasons for investigation, the list could go on. to look at a situations like that of Abedin and compare it to the Orlando shooter or the San Bernadino shooters is extremely fallacious because of all of those things. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and asparagus.

[fredtoast]

Anyone who believes that the United States will ever be controlled by any group that does not allow bacon is clueless.

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because of the type of access involved, because of the length of time involved, because of the difference reasons for investigation, the list could go on. to look at a situations like that of Abedin and compare it to the Orlando shooter or the San Bernadino shooters is extremely fallacious because of all of those things. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and asparagus.

I'm not saying I don't believe the DHS wouldn't have investigated Abedin properly because of what happened with the shooters, I'm saying I question whether they would properly act against Abedin given what they had found because they failed to act properly in past scenarios involving lower ranking citizens. The level of scrutiny is not what it's in question here. It's how the DHS would respond given their findings.

Omar Mateen, who again was working for the DHS, was given clearance to work for a firm that was handling sensitive US information? How? This guy was on the terror watch list for 2 years, a huge red flag that would involve heavy scrutiny, yet somehow he was allowed to work for the US government and was cleared to do so. You don't think that's a reason to lose faith in the DHS's handling of Abedin?

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 07:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Anyone who believes that the United States will ever be controlled by any group that does not allow bacon is clueless.

You know honestly Fred, you got a point.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-02-2016, 10:17 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: This seems concerning to me given the election and all the conspiracy surrounding Clinton's emails. Thoughts? I can't help but get an eerie feeling that we really are being infiltrated by an islamic rule slowly but surely. Perhaps Trumps "great Trojan horse" comments aren't that off base. I've always held the belief that the US will never be defeated from the outside, it can only be defeated from the inside, and I still hold on to that belief.

So what is your solution to prevent being defeated from the inside by Muslms?  An Inquisition?  What a show!

How long do you think we have been fighting ISIS?

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 09:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So what is your solution to prevent being defeated from the inside by Muslms?  An Inquisition?  What a show!

How long do you think we have been fighting ISIS?

Banning all Muslims.

No I'm joking. It's hard to say really. I think anyone entering this country from a place where religious violence or anti-american sentiment is high should not be given most of the freedoms Americans have and should be under stricter laws than normal Americans are. I think they should be treated like prisoners, but not exactly like prisoners. More like prisoners on parole.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-03-2016, 11:22 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Banning all Muslims.

No I'm joking. It's hard to say really. I think anyone entering this country from a place where religious violence or anti-american sentiment is high should not be given most of the freedoms Americans have and should be under stricter laws than normal Americans are. I think they should be treated like prisoners, but not exactly like prisoners. More like prisoners on parole.

Do you know anything about Huma Abedin other than her religion?  Did you know she was born in Michigan?  You're asking "what is really up" with her and implied she is a jihadist infiltrator intent on over throwing the US government in order to establish a caliphate and institute sharia law. You have suggested multiple intelligence agencies involved with vetting White House staff are incompetent. Now you just suggested a legislative caste system. Maybe we can hang a sign from the Statue of Liberty, "Welcome to Matt_Crimson's Land of Free* and Home of the Scared."

Is that how you will treat Jesus when he comes back?  What is really up with you?

How long will you avoid answering how long do you think we have been fighting ISIS?