+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Current Events (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=55)
+--- Thread: Crooked Hillary! (/showthread.php?tid=76008)
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-08-31
SaptaZapta Wrote:Did you read the Snopes rebuttal?
It disputes "what they were about do/had done".
Yes, and that's precisely why I didn't trust the article in the least. "those four people had only the most tenuous and indirect of connections to Hillary Clinton". That's the only line I needed to see, thought I looked through the rest of the article regardless to confirm that it was worthless.
edit: upon further reading, I don't mind admitting I was wrong about some portions of what I said. Shawn Lucas was indeed only a process server, not a lead attorney. Victor Thorn is still completely suspicious to me regardless of the article and the followups I read based on it. John Ashe I can't make a confirmation or denial on, there are things saying he was testifying on his own case of corruption and ones saying he was testifying against Clinton, I'm still looking for a link to a legitimate legal document not connected to news media for that one. edit2: yeah, this one I'm wrong on as well, Ashe was definitely not testifying against Clinton. edit3: I finally figured out where people are at least getting the misconception from, though it's a pretty big jump in logic; supposedly Ashe was going to be testifying against a certain Chinese billionaire (Ng Seng?), and people have in the past made connections between that billionaire and the Clinton Foundation (he is a large donor). Rich is impossible for me to see as coincidence, other than the fact that since he was out at 4AM for some reason and he wouldn't have been going directly to the FBI from there, he was still going to do so very soon after his death.
Based on this, I'm going through every one of the deaths to confirm whether or not they are legitimate or can be considered coincidence.
John Jones: most likely coincidence, nothing in his history would suggest that Hillary even knows about him
Michael Ratner: cancer
John Ashe: already stated incorrect
Molly Macauley: too far removed, while connected not anywhere near enough to warrant killing her given that there was no overt reason
Seth Rich: I'm sticking to this one
Joe Montano: Aide to Tim Kaine, killing him because he is an activist for things she supposedly stands for is ridiculous
John Rossi: connections exist, but the information all disappears at certain points so it's impossible to make any direct connection all the way through, which in itself is suspicious, but there's no proof that's strong enough to say why he would be murdered
Victor Thorn: he was enough of an annoyance to her to warrant being killed, he directly attacked her with his books
Shawn Lucas: barely connected, and not important enough to kill
Thus, the first infographic was almost entirely false, and I have removed it.
As to the second, though it's a pomegranateload of people to look up
James McDougal: died in solitary confinement while waiting for a Whitewater trial, partners with Hillary and Bill. Extremely likely.
Mary Mahoney: one of the girls who was just starting to go public as having been sexually harrassed by Bill. Unlikely, if only because by this point (1997) it would be more damaging to kill all of the girls coming forward than to just let them talk, but not impossible given that they may have seen her case as more damaging than others.
Vince Foster: worked with Hillary at Rose Law Firm when she was just starting out as a lawyer, EX, intimate knowledge of the Kathy Shelton case. Extremely likely.
Ron Brown: died in plane crash, found with circular wound in head which was subsequently ruled as "blunt trauma", a few days later the air traffic controller committed suicide. No survivors on plane. He was Sec of Commerce under Bill and was being investigated for financial issues, began making an ass of himself publicly to try to bring everyone else down instead of himself. 100% likely can't be assumed, but I'll at least say 99.999%.
Victor Raiser: outside of messing up badly which is not seen in what I can find, I don't think they would have killed him. Not very likely.
Paul Tulley: he knew a lot about voter turnout numbers and other information of the sort, so could potentially be a threat if voter fraud was attempted. Not very likely, but not impossible.
Ed Willey: husband to one of the women Bill sexually assaulted. Found dead of a gunshot wound to the head in a forested area, ruled a suicide. No previous suicidal tendencies. Pretty likely.
Jerry Parks: head of a Clinton security team, was gathering evidence of some sort against Bill, killed by gunshot. Files were all removed from his home. Even more likely than Ron Brown.
James Bunch: Not likely.
James Wilson: Not impossible, but not likely.
Kathy Ferguson: Likely, as a warning to her ex-husband to shut up, especially given the circumstances of her death.
Bill Shelton: Fiance' to Kathy Ferguson when she was killed, publicly denounced the "suicide", died of gunshot also ruled suicide. Also likely, and these two together make the set more likely as well.
Gandy Baugh: Not very likely.
Florence Martin: Doubtful.
Suzanne Coleman: Claimed to be pregnant with Bill's child. Gunshot wound to the back of the head ruled suicide? LOL. No autopsy performed. Pretty pineappleing likely.
Paula Grober: no reason I can see for this one to even be on here.
Danny Casolaro: might have just killed himself out of disgust for the people he was investigating. Unlikely, but...
Paul Wilcher: doing investigation with Danny Casolaro. Also found dead. Still unlikely, there's no real connection to the Clintons.
Jon Walker: Whitewater investigator. That alone makes it pretty likely.
Barbara Wise: no reason other than connections to people who I consider to have been almost definitely killed. Unlikely.
Charles Meissner: died with Ron Brown. Probably circumstantial, though maybe put in the same place to kill two birds with one stone.
Stanley Heard: why kill the family doctor?
Barry Seal: while definitely an assassination, it may not have been the Clinton's since he was a drug runner and had likely pissed off a ton of other people too.
Johnny Lawhome: the damage was already done, there was no reason for them to have wanted to kill him unless out of spite.
Stanley Huggins: Likely, if only because his report was never published. If it had been, I would have said not likely at all.
Herschel Friday: Pretty close to impossible, there was bad weather at the time so there's no reason to assume it was on purpose even if there was a reason.
Ives and Henry: Murdered, then placed on train tracks and run over by a train. 7 people in the following 2 years also died who were related to this case before they could testify, some were unlikely to be murders but others were both very brutally murdered and the fact OF those murders was hidden in a few cases, such as Milan, who died of natural causes to decapitation LOL. Stabbed 113 times, shot mutilated and burned, decapitated, this entire case had to have hit on something important, but the question is if it was the drug cartels that did it or the Clintons, and it's probably more likely that it was the drug cartels.
Overall I don't feel that the second one needs to be removed, because a good portion of them are well-founded arguments that hold up even by researching outside of the document/random infographics.
Crooked Hillary! - xparasite9 - 2016-09-29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQcfjR4vnTQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amMsn3dfVU4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSlMEJWiFhM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMMCENF7Izk
great googly moogly how fucking deep does this tangled web go
can comey be charged with obstruction of justice
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-10-01
[video=youtube;WHiSVnmqRVY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHiSVnmqRVY[/video]
Hillary calls Sanders supporters "basement dwellers".
Audio is from February, just got leaked.
So now, everyone that doesn't support her either lives in a basement or in the basket of deplorables. A lot of people think this will be her "47%". I doubt it will be that big because not many will even cover it and most people that just watch the news on TV will never see it, but it's possible, she -is- referring directly to millenials and they are generally much more internet saavy and more likely to browse online, which is pretty much impossible to control the narrative completely on.
Then again, Obama DID just hand off the keys to ICANN last night, so they took a pretty big step toward that goal of controlling the narrative completely very recently by giving away control of one of the major root DNS servers to people without our best interests. Not that the US government does either, but at least we can call them out on it.
Crooked Hillary! - xparasite9 - 2016-10-01
Flonne Wrote:Then again, Obama DID just hand off the keys to ICANN last night, so they took a pretty big step toward that goal of controlling the narrative completely very recently by giving away control of one of the major root DNS servers to people without our best interests. Not that the US government does either, but at least we can call them out on it.
I think domain names are pretty stupid anyway. Do away with DNS and make everyone memorize IP addresses. why not? we have to manually type in phone numbers. why are internet addresses a special case?
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-10-01
xparasite9 Wrote:I think domain names are pretty stupid anyway. Do away with DNS and make everyone memorize IP addresses. why not? we have to manually type in phone numbers. why are internet addresses a special case?
Works in many cases, but some high traffic websites do not allow direct IP linking, either because the netadmin blocks it or they use Cloudflare/some other protection, which a lot of people are doing these days.
Crooked Hillary! - Eos - 2016-10-02
Flonne Wrote:Then again, Obama DID just hand off the keys to ICANN last night, so they took a pretty big step toward that goal of controlling the narrative completely very recently by giving away control of one of the major root DNS servers to people without our best interests. Not that the US government does either, but at least we can call them out on it.
So, first, it was IANA, not ICANN. ICANN was responsible for providing IANA, now someone else is.
Second, that process began in 1998 and I don't seem to recall Obama having been president just then.
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-01-en
https://www.icann.org/stewardship
xparasite9 Wrote:I think domain names are pretty stupid anyway. Do away with DNS and make everyone memorize IP addresses. why not? we have to manually type in phone numbers. why are internet addresses a special case?
Because a single IP address can serve an unlimited number of different hosts. The server running Southperry has about 15 of my sites on it, all with the same IP address, so how would your browser know which one you were trying to get to if you just gave it the IP? If you're going to go full telephone+extension you need to consider that while an IP4 address is four up to three digit numbers, an IPv6 address looks more like 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 and if the reason why your premise is broken isn't apparent yet there is no helping you.
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-10-02
Eos Wrote:So, first, it was IANA, not ICANN. ICANN was responsible for providing IANA, now someone else is.
pomegranate, I thought it was the other way around. Also, how exactly was the process "started" in 1998, that's when ICANN was formed, and it looks like they just opened up a comments section for a few months for input before ICANN was put into place. That would seem to me like it was them making ICANN the "solution" that was in compliance with that input, since ICANN was formed in September and the commenting was done between January and March of 1998. The main website is likely contractually obligated to say that it was always a temporary thing or somesuch, it looks like the actual request was made on March 14th 2014 for this transfer portion, unless I'm missing something else.
Crooked Hillary! - xparasite9 - 2016-10-02
Eos Wrote:Because a single IP address can serve an unlimited number of different hosts. The server running Southperry has about 15 of my sites on it, all with the same IP address, so how would your browser know which one you were trying to get to if you just gave it the IP? If you're going to go full telephone+extension you need to consider that while an IP4 address is four up to three digit numbers, an IPv6 address looks more like 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 and if the reason why your premise is broken isn't apparent yet there is no helping you.
1) IPv6 is still not fully supported
2) even if by some miracle it finally is, we could switch it over that all the stupid "internet of things" devices take the IPv6 space, and have actual servers into the IPv4 space.
Crooked Hillary! - Eos - 2016-10-03
xparasite9 Wrote:1) IPv6 is still not fully supported
2) even if by some miracle it finally is, we could switch it over that all the stupid "internet of things" devices take the IPv6 space, and have actual servers into the IPv4 space.
IPv4 exhaustion occurs regardless of the IOT and is currently being thwarted purely by using NAT to hide it.
IPv4 is also inherently worse as far as protocols go and needs to die.
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-10-18
It's already got millions of views in under a day, but if you haven't heard of/checked them out yet, watch the Project Veritas videos; he claims he will continue this series until the election occurs and has already released part 2 today. It makes me feel so good knowing I wasn't insane and I was right about all this pomegranate, tons of actual, legitimate sets of video recordings of people saying they are doing absolutely abominable pomegranate for the DNC to rig the election hard. Wikileaks is nice and all but they can't just say "these were forgeries" like they can with the emails. Even if she wins the election, trust in the US government is going to be nonexistent for the average citizen, you always have that suspicion in the back of your head that they are fucked up but when it's actually proven and you have solid evidence, people can no longer successfully try to shame you out of your viewpoint by calling you paranoid/a racist/a sexist/any number of other buzzwords used to control the thoughts of the people.
Crooked Hillary! - Eos - 2016-10-18
You'd be surprised how few people actually care about most of the things you hold strong convictions about.
Concepts like the morality of the government are actually pretty intangible to the average person who doesn't have the time or energy to care.
Most people don't have trust to begin with, they just don't care because it isn't meaningful to begin with. They spend their entire lives expecting to have no control over who is in power or how they got there with barely a glimmer of pretense of their own mattering in the grand scheme of things. In order for them to achieve a righteous outage over it they'd need to first attain a sense of entitlement to what it is you claim they're being robbed of to begin with.
In a related corollary, some people will go to any lengths to insist they're being robbed of something they never had to begin with but feel entitled to have even though they also also have no meaningful plan or use for it if it were in fact handed to them.
Crooked Hillary! - xparasite9 - 2016-10-18
Eos Wrote:You'd be surprised how few people actually care about most of the things you hold strong convictions about.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599#efmATGATb
but thanks for correcting the record regarding entitlement!
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-10-19
Eos Wrote:You'd be surprised how few people actually care about most of the things you hold strong convictions about.
Concepts like the morality of the government are actually pretty intangible to the average person who doesn't have the time or energy to care.
Most people don't have trust to begin with, they just don't care because it isn't meaningful to begin with. They spend their entire lives expecting to have no control over who is in power or how they got there with barely a glimmer of pretense of their own mattering in the grand scheme of things. In order for them to achieve a righteous outage over it they'd need to first attain a sense of entitlement to what it is you claim they're being robbed of to begin with.
Doesn't particularly matter to me if it actually has a lasting effect on other people, all I care about is that people can no longer call me a crazy tinfoil without looking silly with all of the proof out there. They may believe what they say, but I no longer have to doubt myself regardless of what is said, because proof is on my side.
By the way, I thought people in this country were -supposed- to be entitled to freedom.
xparasite9 Wrote:https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599#efmATGATb
but thanks for correcting the record regarding entitlement!
While I agree that dismissing the arguments because they take too much effort to delve into/you simply don't care falls directly into the establishment's plans, no need to bring /pol/ here, over half the posts on there right now are CTR and once you see their posting patterns you can single them out immediately, and they are much more obvious in their viewpoints (because they are being paid for them, so they don't really have any emotional investment in right vs. wrong).
and as a short continuation on that point
Eos Wrote:In a related corollary, some people will go to any lengths to insist they're being robbed of something they never had to begin with but feel entitled to have even though they also also have no meaningful plan or use for it if it were in fact handed to them.
If you take any stock into what the media and even Hillary are currently saying, /pol/ is currently directly influencing the election. So much so that they believe it is a collaboration of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, when in reality it is only a couple thousand unique IPs total that are actually doing anything; with the internet, even nobodies can now influence things that are important, so saying there is "no meaningful plan to use the information" is a very fatalistic viewpoint when there is also proof on the contrary for that. The best pieces of data we collect and sift through goes on to conservative media outlets (MSM aside from Fox won't touch it because anything anti-Hillary is blacklisted, but a media outlet is still a media outlet no matter how small or "biased", and it is having a real, legitimate effect on the election, Hillary should have had this locked up months ago if it weren't for "nobodies" on the internet constantly digging up new things on how much of a pomegranatety person she really is). Dismissing information because "I can't do anything or influence anything with it anyway, so why even bother" is a last century viewpoint, until the internet is locked down like China's, information spreads regardless of how hard it is suppressed.
Crooked Hillary! - xparasite9 - 2016-10-21
Eos Wrote:http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-dogged-by-1975-rape-case/
Quote:WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Clinton was requested as lawyer for the defense in a rape case involving a 12-year-old girl; Clinton reluctantly took on the case, successfully challenged mismanaged evidence, and entered a plea bargain for the defendant.
WHAT'S FALSE: Clinton laughed about the unreliable nature of polygraphs, not the case's outcome; Clinton did not volunteer to be the man's lawyer; Clinton did not claim the complainant fantasized about being raped by older men; the case did not go to trial.
Quote: In "Living History," Clinton wrote that the criminal court judge appointed her, and that she "couldn't very well refuse the judge's request." The 2008 Newsday story quotes then-Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson who refers to her as being "appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County." However, in the newly-released audio tapes Clinton says a prosecutor for the case asked to take the case "as a favor to him."[video=youtube;e2f13f2awK4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4[/video]
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-10-22
Quote:"Sources said late Wednesday Clinton likely violated two different types of Dept. of Defense SAP protocols. Since nuclear response is part of the sensitive national plan for nuclear war operations, all of its schematics are covered under both “Intelligence SAPs” and “Operation and Support SAPs,” sources said. Both contain Top Secret information.So now, by the PENTAGONS OWN ADMISSION, she has committed treason AGAIN by leaking SAP only information, but this time at a debate that hundreds of millions of people were watching. And still no action is being taken against her, anyone else would have had a fucking SEAL team putting a bullet in their head a day later.
“Targeting options by ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missiles), air or sea, launch order, launch procedures and response are some of the most secretly guarded tenets of national security and nuclear war policy,” a Pentagon source said. “It’s truly incredible that (nuclear) response time as part of an ERO (Emergency Response Option) is now out there in the public domain to our adversaries.”
U.S. Defense sources said according to developed U.S. counterintelligence, military officials in China, North Korea, Syria, Russia, Iran and even actors like ISIS had no previous definitive intelligence to determine the U.S. nuclear response time, especially during an ERO, prior to Clinton’s admission Wednesday night. Sources reluctantly acknowledged her calculations were accurate.
“Any time frame calculated would have merely been an educated hypothesis, absent leaked documents and there have been no such breaches,” the DOD source said.
Crooked Hillary! - Eos - 2016-10-22
Flonne Wrote:So now, by the PENTAGONS OWN ADMISSION, she has committed treason AGAIN by leaking SAP only information, but this time at a debate that hundreds of millions of people were watching. And still no action is being taken against her, anyone else would have had a pineappleing SEAL team putting a bullet in their head a day later.
For a highly regarded secret there sure are a lot of articles about it. Might also want to look up the history of the phrase "four minute warning".
Some real super secret timings there; http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/05/nuclear-football-goes-japan/128580/
Crooked Hillary! - MuscleWizard - 2016-10-23
Welp. I'm voting for Clinton ever since he named pence his vp.
Lesser of two evils situation, trump would be impeached and then pence would be prez.
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-10-23
Eos Wrote:For a highly regarded secret there sure are a lot of articles about it. Might also want to look up the history of the phrase "four minute warning".
Some real super secret timings there; http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/05/nuclear-football-goes-japan/128580/
Quote:“Any time frame calculated would have merely been an educated hypothesis, absent leaked documents and there have been no such breaches,” the DOD source said.It may have been a correct guess, but it was still only a guess. It's still a breach.
Crooked Hillary! - Marksman Bryan - 2016-10-23
Flonne Wrote:It may have been a correct guess, but it was still only a guess. It's still a breach.
Where exactly are your quotes from? Is there any proof those statements are actually from a DOD source?
The 3~5minute nuclear response time isn't exactly secret knowledge. Many TV shows, documentaries, etc. have used such a time frame in describing how nuclear launch operations happen - in fact, some documentaries talk about exact procedures that happen once a 'go' for nuclear attack is given. I would think that is more sensitive information than knowing the US can respond really fast with nuclear weapons.
If anything, the breach of national security would be this 'source' admitting the response time is accurate. But what difference does it make either way if it's already public knowledge?
Crooked Hillary! - xparasite9 - 2016-10-23
MuscleWizard Wrote:Welp. I'm voting for Clinton ever since he named pence his vp.
Lesser of two evils situation, trump would be impeached and then pence would be prez.
uh-huh, and please tell me for what reason Trump would be impeached? I don't even think CNN has made this crazy scenario into play.
I don't really understand how it's a "lesser of two evils", when your "lesser" is a warmonger who is even now pushing for a full-on war with a nuclear power.
And for those who might argue that in no way could this happen because Congress needs to approve going into war, look how well that worked out in stopping Bush.
Hillary wants to set up a No-Fly zone. That's not a magical force-field. It means setting up anti-aircraft missiles and shooting down planes. That's an act of aggression. In fact, to many, (even NPR), it's an act of war. And it doesn't require Congressional approval to happen.