Anonymous wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/10/debbie-wasserman-schultz-scandal-241466

Sounds like her friends think it is time for her to go.

One question about her "integrity" in standing by Awan--where was her integrity when she was running the DNC and sabotaging the Presidential primary to ensure HRC win?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Yes, if you use crappy sources, you can expect to be called on it. Several of you have said that you don't believe Awan's lawyer is a satisfactory source. Nothing unusual in this sort of thing. But, your accusation about we was quite different.

Crappy sources: anything Jeff doesn't agree with. NYTIMES, CNN, Newsweak, Huffpo, MSNBC... Gold!

Poor little baby. Do you need your mommy's breast? Can't handle someone criticizing his sources. Such tragedy. I didn't know you were such a snowflake.

Wow new low for you Jeff. New low.

Name calling and such language shall not be appropriate at any forums, especially at the political discussions. The fact that the moderator is using name calling is especially disturbing. BTW, referring to the female as "mommy" is very vulgar.

DP. That was my reaction, as well. I was pretty shocked.

Sure, so say the posters who call anyone who disagrees with them "libtards."

When were you last asked if you "need your mommy's breast"? Where does that even come from??

Where does "libtard" even come from?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Yes, if you use crappy sources, you can expect to be called on it. Several of you have said that you don't believe Awan's lawyer is a satisfactory source. Nothing unusual in this sort of thing. But, your accusation about we was quite different.

Crappy sources: anything Jeff doesn't agree with. NYTIMES, CNN, Newsweak, Huffpo, MSNBC... Gold!

Poor little baby. Do you need your mommy's breast? Can't handle someone criticizing his sources. Such tragedy. I didn't know you were such a snowflake.

Wow new low for you Jeff. New low.

Name calling and such language shall not be appropriate at any forums, especially at the political discussions. The fact that the moderator is using name calling is especially disturbing. BTW, referring to the female as "mommy" is very vulgar.

DP. That was my reaction, as well. I was pretty shocked.

Sure, so say the posters who call anyone who disagrees with them "libtards."

When were you last asked if you "need your mommy's breast"? Where does that even come from??

Where does "libtard" even come from?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Yes, if you use crappy sources, you can expect to be called on it. Several of you have said that you don't believe Awan's lawyer is a satisfactory source. Nothing unusual in this sort of thing. But, your accusation about we was quite different.

Crappy sources: anything Jeff doesn't agree with. NYTIMES, CNN, Newsweak, Huffpo, MSNBC... Gold!

Poor little baby. Do you need your mommy's breast? Can't handle someone criticizing his sources. Such tragedy. I didn't know you were such a snowflake.

Wow new low for you Jeff. New low.

Name calling and such language shall not be appropriate at any forums, especially at the political discussions. The fact that the moderator is using name calling is especially disturbing. BTW, referring to the female as "mommy" is very vulgar.

DP. That was my reaction, as well. I was pretty shocked.

Sure, so say the posters who call anyone who disagrees with them "libtards."

When were you last asked if you "need your mommy's breast"? Where does that even come from??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Yes, if you use crappy sources, you can expect to be called on it. Several of you have said that you don't believe Awan's lawyer is a satisfactory source. Nothing unusual in this sort of thing. But, your accusation about we was quite different.

Crappy sources: anything Jeff doesn't agree with. NYTIMES, CNN, Newsweak, Huffpo, MSNBC... Gold!

Poor little baby. Do you need your mommy's breast? Can't handle someone criticizing his sources. Such tragedy. I didn't know you were such a snowflake.

Wow new low for you Jeff. New low.

Name calling and such language shall not be appropriate at any forums, especially at the political discussions. The fact that the moderator is using name calling is especially disturbing. BTW, referring to the female as "mommy" is very vulgar.

DP. That was my reaction, as well. I was pretty shocked.

Sure, so say the posters who call anyone who disagrees with them "libtards."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Yes, if you use crappy sources, you can expect to be called on it. Several of you have said that you don't believe Awan's lawyer is a satisfactory source. Nothing unusual in this sort of thing. But, your accusation about we was quite different.

Crappy sources: anything Jeff doesn't agree with. NYTIMES, CNN, Newsweak, Huffpo, MSNBC... Gold!

Poor little baby. Do you need your mommy's breast? Can't handle someone criticizing his sources. Such tragedy. I didn't know you were such a snowflake.

Wow new low for you Jeff. New low.

Name calling and such language shall not be appropriate at any forums, especially at the political discussions. The fact that the moderator is using name calling is especially disturbing. BTW, referring to the female as "mommy" is very vulgar.

DP. That was my reaction, as well. I was pretty shocked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Yes, if you use crappy sources, you can expect to be called on it. Several of you have said that you don't believe Awan's lawyer is a satisfactory source. Nothing unusual in this sort of thing. But, your accusation about we was quite different.

Crappy sources: anything Jeff doesn't agree with. NYTIMES, CNN, Newsweak, Huffpo, MSNBC... Gold!

Poor little baby. Do you need your mommy's breast? Can't handle someone criticizing his sources. Such tragedy. I didn't know you were such a snowflake.

Wow new low for you Jeff. New low.

Name calling and such language shall not be appropriate at any forums, especially at the political discussions. The fact that the moderator is using name calling is especially disturbing. BTW, referring to the female as "mommy" is very vulgar.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Yes, if you use crappy sources, you can expect to be called on it. Several of you have said that you don't believe Awan's lawyer is a satisfactory source. Nothing unusual in this sort of thing. But, your accusation about we was quite different.

Crappy sources: anything Jeff doesn't agree with. NYTIMES, CNN, Newsweak, Huffpo, MSNBC... Gold!

Poor little baby. Do you need your mommy's breast? Can't handle someone criticizing his sources. Such tragedy. I didn't know you were such a snowflake.

Wow new low for you Jeff. New low.

Anonymous wrote:
WAPO:

His wife and their three children are already in Pakistan

Leaves out how she abruptly took kids from school and took more cash out of the country than is allowed.

Anonymous wrote:I Google search "most people only read the first" and below was the first link that showed up. Same newspaper, 3 years apart and WaPo points out its own hypocrisy... Maybe I need to add this to the Democrat hypocrisy thread..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/19/americans-read-headlines-and-not-much-else/?utm_term=.cda9c39763ef

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

https://spectator.org/sherlock-holmes-investigates-debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-her-rogue-computer-technicians/

FWIW I have the deleted post (on topic with a dig) the mod claims he doesn't delete because it off topic.

Thank you for the link.
Well done. The piece is nothing short of brilliant!

Anonymous wrote: “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

https://spectator.org/sherlock-holmes-investigates-debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-her-rogue-computer-technicians/

FWIW I have the deleted post (on topic with a dig) the mod claims he doesn't delete because it off topic.