The Republicans got bad news today. Emails were a big problem for Hillary. Not anymore. She just buried them with the Justice Department. Smart move for the Hillary camp. The judge had a little power over Hillary, but no power over the Justice Department.Which cadidates for the Republican nomination do you think don't have private email accounts that they have also used for government business communications? Get real. Lois Lois, I don’t think anyone cares or gives a damn about using a private account for business communications. But it is the lying that is bothering everyone. I don’t think we will see the emails until after the election. I know I am sick and tired of how the government is operating. Just look at the IRS and those emails. Tens of millions for attorneys and years of legal battles for a department to turn over information to congress. Yes I agree. But did Hillary actually deny outright that she had a private account? I thought she said she did but never used it for sensitive governmemt communications. Has anything serious and specific been revealed yet? In any case, I'll bet the others have obliterated their private email accounts as thoroughly as they could, using expert help. Lois
It seems to me that emails, emails, emails is just a continuation of Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, which is just a continuation of whatever, her opponents latched on to, to try to discredit her, prior to that. I think that there is and has been, since she has been in the public eye, something about her that has been threatening to conservatives. And I believe that has motivated an unending series of accusations, generally with little foundation, if any, that are kept in the public consciousness to the extent that her opponents are able to do so.
These attacks, in isolation of each other, have never resulted in anything substantial, but the steady drip over the decades HAVE resulted in a reputation for Hillary of being untrustworthy. So is she any more, particularly, untrustworthy than anyone else? Or is it that her opponents, in their persistence, have had success in painting her to the public as untrustworthy?
It seems to me that emails, emails, emails is just a continuation of Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, which is just a continuation of whatever, her opponents latched on to, to try to discredit her, prior to that. I think that there is and has been, since she has been in the public eye, something about her that has been threatening to conservatives. And I believe that has motivated an unending series of accusations, generally with little foundation, if any, that are kept in the public consciousness to the extent that her opponents are able to do so. These attacks, in isolation of each other, have never resulted in anything substantial, but the steady drip over the decades HAVE resulted in a reputation for Hillary of being untrustworthy. So is she any more, particularly, untrustworthy than anyone else? Or is it that her opponents, in their persistence, have had success in painting her to the public as untrustworthy?Every candidate for president and quite a few more will always be deemed untrustworthy by his or her opponents. That's politics. If one thing doesn't fly, they'll think up another one. Lois
The Republicans got bad news today. Emails were a big problem for Hillary. Not anymore. She just buried them with the Justice Department. Smart move for the Hillary camp. The judge had a little power over Hillary, but no power over the Justice Department.Which cadidates for the Republican nomination do you think don't have private email accounts that they have also used for government business communications? Get real. LoisYou can cross Jeb Bush off that list: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-jeb-bush-used-e-mail-to-discuss-security-troop-movements/2015/03/14/0d7fae16-ca49-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html?postshare=1271439508279887
Jeb Bush used his private e-mail account as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants, according to a review of publicly released records. The e-mails include two series of exchanges involving details of Florida National Guard troop deployments after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the review by The Washington Post found. Aides to Bush said Saturday that none of the e-mails contained sensitive or classified information, and that many of the events mentioned in them were documented in press accounts, either contemporaneously or later. But security experts say private e-mail systems such as the one used by Bush are more vulnerable to hackers, and that details such as troop movements could be exploited by enemies.
It seems to me that emails, emails, emails is just a continuation of Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, which is just a continuation of whatever, her opponents latched on to, to try to discredit her, prior to that. I think that there is and has been, since she has been in the public eye, something about her that has been threatening to conservatives. And I believe that has motivated an unending series of accusations, generally with little foundation, if any, that are kept in the public consciousness to the extent that her opponents are able to do so. These attacks, in isolation of each other, have never resulted in anything substantial, but the steady drip over the decades HAVE resulted in a reputation for Hillary of being untrustworthy. So is she any more, particularly, untrustworthy than anyone else? Or is it that her opponents, in their persistence, have had success in painting her to the public as untrustworthy?Every candidate for president and quite a few more will always be deemed untrustworthy by his or her opponents. That's politics. If one thing doesn't fly, they'll think up another one. Lois The difference with Hillary is that she has been a non-stop target since, as 1st Lady, in Bill's 1st term, she promoted a national health care program.
Trump is reportedly starting to get a major organized ground game in Iowa. This is crucial to success in Iowa, as it is a caucus state. If he succeeds in Iowa, this will be a major step. Even so, I don’t think he will win in New Hampshire, as his negatives MUST bring him down at some point. Mustn’t they? (cough, cough)
The Republicans got bad news today. Emails were a big problem for Hillary. Not anymore. She just buried them with the Justice Department. Smart move for the Hillary camp. The judge had a little power over Hillary, but no power over the Justice Department.Which cadidates for the Republican nomination do you think don't have private email accounts that they have also used for government business communications? Get real. Lois Lois, I don’t think anyone cares or gives a damn about using a private account for business communications. But it is the lying that is bothering everyone. I don’t think we will see the emails until after the election. I know I am sick and tired of how the government is operating. Just look at the IRS and those emails. Tens of millions for attorneys and years of legal battles for a department to turn over information to congress. Yes I agree. But did Hillary actually deny outright that she had a private account? I thought she said she did but never used it for sensitive governmemt communications. Has anything serious and specific been revealed yet? In any case, I'll bet the others have obliterated their private email accounts as thoroughly as they could, using expert help. Lois There is a bad smell coming from the Benghazi attack stories from our government. We just want to see what is so rotten. What we have is no transparency. As Obama’s Justice Department, has lost all credibility with the people. It is taking tens of millions of dollars of legal costs and years to try and get a peek in Obama’s transparency government and find out what is going on in his departments. The Democratic Party today is not about what is good for America any more. It is about what it takes to buy the Democratic vote. At this point of the Republican's back of the mind thinking is, the emails can be compared to the break-in at Watergate. And this type of thinking is caused by political tactics and right out bald face lying by the Democrats.
So, besides Taiwan, and the Shah of Iran, can you name any of these "secret" actions? We know what a PAC is, and we know that they don't have to reveal where their money comes from, but I'm not familiar with them working with secret government departments. If they're secret, I guess that would explain why I don't know, but how do you know, Mike? This is a Center for Inquiry, we kinda prefer seeing some evidence.Lausten, I know of people who work for these department and because projects I have been involved in. We have 17 spy agencies that are collective known as the intelligence community. And if you follow what is going on in the election and the news today you will understand that the inspector general for these 17 spy agencies is the person who now has Hillary’s emails. And he is the one who informed Congress that there was top secret and sensitive information in a sampling of the emails.
Trump is reportedly starting to get a major organized ground game in Iowa. This is crucial to success in Iowa, as it is a caucus state. If he succeeds in Iowa, this will be a major step. Even so, I don't think he will win in New Hampshire, as his negatives MUST bring him down at some point. Mustn't they? (cough, cough)In horse racing the betting is done by handicapping. Take away the loyalty to the parties and politics races would be a lot like handicapping. In handicapping there is what is known as the public factor. And that is when all the data points in one direction, but the public for some unknown reason bets in the other direction. And when this occurs the public seems to be right most of the time on the winner of the race. What I think we have happing right now is a Public Factor going on. And the reporters and analyst are trying to deal with something the data can’t back up.
So, besides Taiwan, and the Shah of Iran, can you name any of these "secret" actions? We know what a PAC is, and we know that they don't have to reveal where their money comes from, but I'm not familiar with them working with secret government departments. If they're secret, I guess that would explain why I don't know, but how do you know, Mike? This is a Center for Inquiry, we kinda prefer seeing some evidence.Read Shock Doctrine and Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It's all right there. Really? Even "Confessions" talks about the World Bank and USAID, not any actual government insiders. The guy's a crank. "This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." MallabyThere you go. They've got you right where they want you. You dismiss anything they've gotten labeled a conspiracy. And BTW, if you read shock Doctrine, you'd see that the World Bank, IMF, etc are the exact tools used by the cabal to control things. Of course none of that matters to you since what you see on network TV is the truth, and all else "tin foil hat" conspiracy.
There is a bad smell coming from the Benghazi attack stories from our government. We just want to see what is so rotten. What we have is no transparency. As Obama’s Justice Department, has lost all credibility with the people. It is taking tens of millions of dollars of legal costs and years to try and get a peek in Obama’s transparency government and find out what is going on in his departments. The Democratic Party today is not about what is good for America any more. It is about what it takes to buy the Democratic vote. At this point of the Republican's back of the mind thinking is, the emails can be compared to the break-in at Watergate. And this type of thinking is caused by political tactics and right out bald face lying by the Democrats."Benghazi has had more hearings, more documents produced, more investigative effort than the entire Iraq War." Claire McCaskil And now it looks like congress will be on its way to do the same with emails. Hillary MUST BE the essence of evil and the cause of all of America's problems, we just have to keep delving into it, more than we delved in to 9/11 or the fiasco of the Iraq war, as those sorts of things pale in comparison, to what MUST BE Hillary's ultimate evil. If we can only find it. (In case anyone did not recognize it, this last statement is sarcasm.)
There is a bad smell coming from the Benghazi attack stories from our government. We just want to see what is so rotten. What we have is no transparency. As Obama’s Justice Department, has lost all credibility with the people. It is taking tens of millions of dollars of legal costs and years to try and get a peek in Obama’s transparency government and find out what is going on in his departments. The Democratic Party today is not about what is good for America any more. It is about what it takes to buy the Democratic vote. At this point of the Republican's back of the mind thinking is, the emails can be compared to the break-in at Watergate. And this type of thinking is caused by political tactics and right out bald face lying by the Democrats."Benghazi has had more hearings, more documents produced, more investigative effort than the entire Iraq War." Claire McCaskil And now it looks like congress will be on its way to do the same with emails. Hillary MUST BE the essence of evil and the cause of all of America's problems, we just have to keep delving into it, more than we delved in to 9/11 or the fiasco of the Iraq war, as those sorts of things pale in comparison, to what MUST BE Hillary's ultimate evil. If we can only find it. (In case anyone did not recognize it, this last statement is sarcasm.) I know Benghazi, IRS, emails. There is definitely a pattern developing here. What would you estimate that 95% the time has been taken by the democratic stonewalling of information? Once the Republicans take control expect to see the investigations move forward quickly and special prosecutors assigned to handle the investigations. That will put an end to the stonewalling and give us transparency.
There is a bad smell coming from the Benghazi attack stories from our government. We just want to see what is so rotten. What we have is no transparency. As Obama’s Justice Department, has lost all credibility with the people. It is taking tens of millions of dollars of legal costs and years to try and get a peek in Obama’s transparency government and find out what is going on in his departments. The Democratic Party today is not about what is good for America any more. It is about what it takes to buy the Democratic vote. At this point of the Republican's back of the mind thinking is, the emails can be compared to the break-in at Watergate. And this type of thinking is caused by political tactics and right out bald face lying by the Democrats."Benghazi has had more hearings, more documents produced, more investigative effort than the entire Iraq War." Claire McCaskil And now it looks like congress will be on its way to do the same with emails. Hillary MUST BE the essence of evil and the cause of all of America's problems, we just have to keep delving into it, more than we delved in to 9/11 or the fiasco of the Iraq war, as those sorts of things pale in comparison, to what MUST BE Hillary's ultimate evil. If we can only find it. (In case anyone did not recognize it, this last statement is sarcasm.) I know Benghazi, IRS, emails. There is definitely a pattern developing here. What would you estimate that 95% the time has been taken by the democratic stonewalling of information? Once the Republicans take control expect to see the investigations move forward quickly and special prosecutors assigned to handle the investigations. That will put an end to the stonewalling and give us transparency.Nothing will change. Remember when Obama decided to support the Libyan rebels and the Republicans claimed that it was illegal? You notice that they didn't do anything to actually bring the power of law against Obama. Do you know why? Because they knew that if they did, the next time a Republican President did something similar, the Democrats would do the same to them. Bush didn't pursue any charges against Clinton once he took office, even though there were any number of investigations against Bill when he was President. Its all for show. After 2000, Hillary promised she'd push for a Constitutional Amendment to do away with the electorial college, but she never did. Most of what we see of politics, whether it be done by a Republican or a Democrat, is political theater, and completely meaningless.
There is a bad smell coming from the Benghazi attack stories from our government. We just want to see what is so rotten. What we have is no transparency. As Obama’s Justice Department, has lost all credibility with the people. It is taking tens of millions of dollars of legal costs and years to try and get a peek in Obama’s transparency government and find out what is going on in his departments. The Democratic Party today is not about what is good for America any more. It is about what it takes to buy the Democratic vote. At this point of the Republican's back of the mind thinking is, the emails can be compared to the break-in at Watergate. And this type of thinking is caused by political tactics and right out bald face lying by the Democrats."Benghazi has had more hearings, more documents produced, more investigative effort than the entire Iraq War." Claire McCaskil And now it looks like congress will be on its way to do the same with emails. Hillary MUST BE the essence of evil and the cause of all of America's problems, we just have to keep delving into it, more than we delved in to 9/11 or the fiasco of the Iraq war, as those sorts of things pale in comparison, to what MUST BE Hillary's ultimate evil. If we can only find it. (In case anyone did not recognize it, this last statement is sarcasm.) I know Benghazi, IRS, emails. There is definitely a pattern developing here. What would you estimate that 95% the time has been taken by the democratic stonewalling of information? Once the Republicans take control expect to see the investigations move forward quickly and special prosecutors assigned to handle the investigations. That will put an end to the stonewalling and give us transparency.Nothing will change. Remember when Obama decided to support the Libyan rebels and the Republicans claimed that it was illegal? You notice that they didn't do anything to actually bring the power of law against Obama. Do you know why? Because they knew that if they did, the next time a Republican President did something similar, the Democrats would do the same to them. Bush didn't pursue any charges against Clinton once he took office, even though there were any number of investigations against Bill when he was President. Its all for show. After 2000, Hillary promised she'd push for a Constitutional Amendment to do away with the electorial college, but she never did. Most of what we see of politics, whether it be done by a Republican or a Democrat, is political theater, and completely meaningless. You got that right, I totally agree with you.
So, besides Taiwan, and the Shah of Iran, can you name any of these "secret" actions? We know what a PAC is, and we know that they don't have to reveal where their money comes from, but I'm not familiar with them working with secret government departments. If they're secret, I guess that would explain why I don't know, but how do you know, Mike? This is a Center for Inquiry, we kinda prefer seeing some evidence.Lausten, I know of people who work for these department and because projects I have been involved in. We have 17 spy agencies that are collective known as the intelligence community. And if you follow what is going on in the election and the news today you will understand that the inspector general for these 17 spy agencies is the person who now has Hillary’s emails. And he is the one who informed Congress that there was top secret and sensitive information in a sampling of the emails. I have a friend who believes soul-travel is real, that marijuana cures cancer, and quantum computers should be available at Best Buy but "they" are suppressing the technology. You sound exactly like him. You use the exact same type of argumentation with just a few words changed. The only thing he doesn't do is claim to have inside information in the government like you do. The most evil thing he does is say "do your own research", just like you say "follow what is going on". Of course if I ever present any of the research that I find, he dismisses it as me accepting some authority that I shouldn't. I don't bother discussing anything with him anymore, I just occasionally tell him he's not in the relative ballpark of whatever he's talking about.
So, besides Taiwan, and the Shah of Iran, can you name any of these "secret" actions? We know what a PAC is, and we know that they don't have to reveal where their money comes from, but I'm not familiar with them working with secret government departments. If they're secret, I guess that would explain why I don't know, but how do you know, Mike? This is a Center for Inquiry, we kinda prefer seeing some evidence.Read Shock Doctrine and Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It's all right there. Really? Even "Confessions" talks about the World Bank and USAID, not any actual government insiders. The guy's a crank. "This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." MallabyThere you go. They've got you right where they want you. You dismiss anything they've gotten labeled a conspiracy. And BTW, if you read shock Doctrine, you'd see that the World Bank, IMF, etc are the exact tools used by the cabal to control things. Of course none of that matters to you since what you see on network TV is the truth, and all else "tin foil hat" conspiracy. This is a completely circular argument and I'm not falling into that trap. Define "conspiracy" and "labeled". Conspiracies actually do happen. The US conspired to put the Shah in Iran and it eventually came back to bite us for example. We can of course "conspire" to bring about world peace, but I think we're talking here about something that benefits an elite and although they might think it's good for the rest of us, we don't. Perkins does not meet my standard of evidence, so he's got a "theory", and not the scientific kind. I came to CFI from the Skeptic Forum to get away from people using terms like "cabal". But you guys are everywhere now. Uh-oh, I just discovered your conspiracy!
I know Benghazi, IRS, emails. There is definitely a pattern developing here...You left out Whitewater. The pattern that you see is an intentional and sustained conspiracy by Democrats to hide Hillary's supposed nefarious activities. As I see it, the pattern is of an intentional and sustained loose conspiracy by Republicans to discredit Hillary by making unsubstantiated claims over and over and over and over and over, etc., about one thing which they hang onto like a starving dog with a bone, until the bone crumbles to nothingness. Then they go on to the next bone, etc. And ultimately, there is no substance to any of it, other than the whole process's efficacy of leading some people to believe that Hillary must be horribly guilty of SOMETHING. The repubs are effective in this endeavor, in part, because of the News Entertainment industry's propensity for putting anything (baseless or not) on the air if it might get some upward fluctuations in ratings. Right wingers will watch any story that disparages Hillary and left wingers will, as well, out of concern for her. Middle of the roader's will pay little attention, but will have enough awareness that the stories exist and persist, and some of these non-partisans, if not most, will eventually conclude that she must have done SOMETHING wrong. The other part of their strategy is to get Hillary under oath as often as possible until they can maneuver her in to lying under oath about something-anything and then to convict her for lying under oath. In that case, they would finally have contrived some meat to chew on instead of just crumbling empty bones.
90 minutes in Iowa with Donald Trump.]
With a golf cart containing a few state police in front, shouting people out of the way, Trump headed toward Gate 7. People stopped to watch him pass, yelling his name and cheering him on.
Except one young mother, who declined to give her name. “You’re crazy!” she yelled. “I’d take him over the president we have now,” she explained when asked. “I think there are better options – but he’s entertaining.”
90 minutes in Iowa with Donald Trump.]So she thinks the best qualification for president is the ability to entertain. Unfortunately people like her have a vote. LoisWith a golf cart containing a few state police in front, shouting people out of the way, Trump headed toward Gate 7. People stopped to watch him pass, yelling his name and cheering him on. Except one young mother, who declined to give her name. "You're crazy!" she yelled. "I'd take him over the president we have now," she explained when asked. "I think there are better options -- but he's entertaining."
It seems to me that emails, emails, emails is just a continuation of Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, which is just a continuation of whatever, her opponents latched on to, to try to discredit her, prior to that. I think that there is and has been, since she has been in the public eye, something about her that has been threatening to conservatives. And I believe that has motivated an unending series of accusations, generally with little foundation, if any, that are kept in the public consciousness to the extent that her opponents are able to do so. These attacks, in isolation of each other, have never resulted in anything substantial, but the steady drip over the decades HAVE resulted in a reputation for Hillary of being untrustworthy. So is she any more, particularly, untrustworthy than anyone else? Or is it that her opponents, in their persistence, have had success in painting her to the public as untrustworthy?Every candidate for president and quite a few more will always be deemed untrustworthy by his or her opponents. That's politics. If one thing doesn't fly, they'll think up another one. Lois The difference with Hillary is that she has been a non-stop target since, as 1st Lady, in Bill's 1st term, she promoted a national health care program. Yes, what could be worse than that? What a scurrilous thing to do! She should be annihilated, which is what Republicans are trying their best to do. Lois