• filter:
  • 1206207208209 210
  • Page
  • Previous 40
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
bighitter said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
riznick said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
Nice dodge of the question.  Here's the best explanation of Hillary's e-mails, from Seth Meyers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVEx7bNVpJc 

It's you people's BENGAZI! rant that's worn out, and it turns out Hillary wasn't being paranoid, Nixon style, but was right all along when she said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons. 


Even Bernie admits that the emails are a "very serious issue".
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/31/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-cl... 
  

Because of security issues, not because of what happened with BENGAZI!  The Republicans don't care about security issues (as Sanders does) or how Hillary handled BENGAZI! They only want a political issue.  

  Yahoo News, which typically leans left, reports:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday that John Kerry, when he was a senator, used a private email account to send information now deemed classified to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her personal server.  Spokesman John Kirby said then-Senator Kerry used a "non-official account" to send a May 19, 2011, message to Clinton and then-national security adviser Tom Donilon. Portions of the message were classified as "secret" last week and censored when it was released along with about another 1,000 of Clinton's emails on Friday. The non-redacted portions of the message in question refer to developments in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan."  

This "knowledge" of Hillary's private email server among Obama's top administration may well be the reason that Hillary isn't being prosecuted (at least not yet).    Quite a contrast, don't you think, larrymoecurley,  to the treatment General Petraeous received for his lack of discretion for

"... taking notes on top-secret matters in “black books” during his time as commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan. According to the indictment, he kept the books a secret from the Department of Defense and CIA and then shared them with Broadwell (his lover) and then lied to a Department of Defense official about the matter. In April 2013, FBI agents seized the books from an unlocked desk drawer at Petraeus’ residence under a search warrant. Petreaus went on to cut a plea deal and was sentenced to two years' probation and a $100,000 fine in April. In January, U.S. Attorney Jill Westmoreland Rose had said Broadwell was still being investigated  for her involvement  Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell-investigation-218697#ixzz3zAS8DTkg  "

  The difference being people knew about Hilary's server, but no one apparently knew about Petraeus's books except his lover. Well that and the adultery itself, which is punishable under the UCMJ, a punishment being reaffirmed by Executive Order in 2002 :"k. Paragraph 62c is amended to read as follows:"c. Explanation."(1) Nature of offense. Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member."

rated:
kamalktk said:   
Actually those votes weren't caught until after they happened.

They were only caught after the fact, much like we only look for and find murderers after the fact.... Since you used the murder analogy, perhaps we should have a program to set up some sort of person or team of people to check Murder ID of people entering/exiting buildings and at all outdoor locations. That would allow us to identify murderers (after they murdered of course, it wouldn't actually stop the murders). A lot more people get murdered than commit Voter ID fraud, and the consequences are a lot greater (none of the Voter ID fraud changed any election results). How important is the Murder ID program and how much should we spend on that? We don't do that because it's ludicrous. We assume people aren't generally out there murdering, so we don't have to do that. We can assume (based on the percentage) the same thing about Voter ID fraud.

Voter ID fraud only happens that much because that's likely about how much it happens (the sample sizes in both studies were huge, making the error range very small). Impersonation voter fraud is extremely inefficient. You need to look for systemic fraud (that newspaper endorsed Hilary by the way), a single case of systemic fraud affects a lot more votes than all the voter ID fraud of both studies put together.

 


Remind me of your position on the futility of prevention when we talk about gun control.

rated:
kamalktk said:   larrymoencurly said:   
riznick said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
Nice dodge of the question.  Here's the best explanation of Hillary's e-mails, from Seth Meyers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVEx7bNVpJc 

It's you people's BENGAZI! rant that's worn out, and it turns out Hillary wasn't being paranoid, Nixon style, but was right all along when she said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons. 


Even Bernie admits that the emails are a "very serious issue".
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/31/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-cl... 
  

Because of security issues, not because of what happened with BENGAZI!  The Republicans don't care about security issues (as Sanders does) or how Hillary handled BENGAZI! They only want a political issue.  

Both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also used personal email for State Department stuff. link And those emails are classified.

/ I anxiously await the Congressional Hearings.



You know what you get when you tell the cop that pulled you over for running a stop sign "the 2 people in front of me also ran it"?

That's right a ticket.

rated:
kamalktk said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
riznick said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
Nice dodge of the question.  Here's the best explanation of Hillary's e-mails, from Seth Meyers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVEx7bNVpJc 

It's you people's BENGAZI! rant that's worn out, and it turns out Hillary wasn't being paranoid, Nixon style, but was right all along when she said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons. 


Even Bernie admits that the emails are a "very serious issue".
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/31/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-cl... 
  

Because of security issues, not because of what happened with BENGAZI!  The Republicans don't care about security issues (as Sanders does) or how Hillary handled BENGAZI! They only want a political issue.  

Both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also used personal email for State Department stuff. link And those emails are classified

/ I anxiously await the Congressional Hearings.

Do you also anxiously await the Congressional Hearings of IRS Lois Lerner (who targeted the tax returns of conservatives) ?.  Ms Lerner  also had a personal email (portion pasted below) or you can read complete article here

In my opinion, no politician (right or left) should be above the law.  And it should be troubling to all of us when the elected government officials only  apply the force of the law subjectively (to their subordinates.or to their adversaries)

A rumor on at least one news station (that I haven't been able to substantiate as credible yet) is that some of the FBI employees, let's call them the "subordinates", are threatening to quit unless Hillary is indicted for her violation of government email policy.  A policy which she admonished that her "subordinates" must follow when she was Secretary of State or risk firing and legal prosecution.

Obama IRS Breakthrough: JW Lawsuit Uncovers New Lois Lerner Email AccountThe Hillary Clinton email scandal cover-up evidently isn’t keeping the Obama administration’s lawyers busy enough.  This week, all of America learned, thanks to Judicial Watch, that the infamous former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS Lois Lerner had yet another email account that may contain documents about the Obama IRS scandal.  Our litigation forced the IRS to disclose this astonishing piece of news in a court filing earlier this week.  The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the IRS has filed a status report that provides us with some limited information about Lerner’s secretive email account:.  In the process of preparing this status report and for the August 24, 2015, release of Lerner communications, the undersigned attorneys learned that, in addition to emails to or from an email account denominated “Lois G. Lerner” or “Lois Home,” some emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s request may have been sent to or received from a personal email account denominated “Toby Miles.”  The undersigned attorneys contacted the Office of IRS Chief Counsel, and IRS Chief Counsel attorneys informed the undersigned attorneys that these denominations refer to a personal email account used by Lerner.
 

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
When a person makes a dumb and false statement like that, I don't assume that all Republicans are stupid liars.  

Yet, you brought it up with that sort of implication.
larrymoencurly said:   Whether European voter ID laws are racist or not depends on the intent, but in the US the intent is to reduce voting among blacks and hispanics.
Specifically blacks and hispanics?
larrymoencurly said:   Of course it's just a coincidence that they tend to vote more for Democrats and less for Republicans.
Well, sure... When people lie to them nonstop about how Republicans are trying to hold them down, they are going to start hating Republicans.
larrymoencurly said:    And it actually is often difficult for poor people (high correlation with race) to register because in some places the hours of registration are restricted from M-F, 9-5, or there are few registration locations (not due to budgetary reasons), requiring some residents to travel far to register, and $20 for an ID or birth certificate is a burden on them.
A high correlation of race isn't directly targeting a race. Yes, I do realize that it isn't convenient for the poor to vote.
larrymoencurly said:    But I guess those poor people, who typically just happen to be less affluent than average, just don't want to put in the effort and just don't value their right to vote -- nothing racist about that.
They need ID for many more things than just voting. But they still manage to get an ID, don't they?

I lived in a very poor area with the highest unemployment in the state. Everyone I knew managed to get ID's.  Anecdotal?  Yes, but it also makes me doubt the claims of how difficult it is to get an ID.
larrymoencurly said:   And if only black people thought and acted exactly like white people...
I'm not sure where this comment comes from, but I believe you are talking about culture. How do you improve the culture so that it has a more positive impact? Is it right to try to change the culture?


  

rated:
kamalktk said:   Both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also used personal email for State Department stuff. link And those emails are classified

/ I anxiously await the Congressional Hearings.

  
Did they have the same email requirements back then? If so, then why did the FBI not investigate?  I don't know.  I do know that Clinton has the spotlight on her. 

rated:
If requiring an ID is racist why do all you damn liberals require id for welfare?

rated:
scrouds said:   
kamalktk said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
riznick said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
Nice dodge of the question.  Here's the best explanation of Hillary's e-mails, from Seth Meyers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVEx7bNVpJc 

It's you people's BENGAZI! rant that's worn out, and it turns out Hillary wasn't being paranoid, Nixon style, but was right all along when she said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons. 


Even Bernie admits that the emails are a "very serious issue".
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/31/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-cl... 
  

Because of security issues, not because of what happened with BENGAZI!  The Republicans don't care about security issues (as Sanders does) or how Hillary handled BENGAZI! They only want a political issue.  

Both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also used personal email for State Department stuff. link And those emails are classified

/ I anxiously await the Congressional Hearings.



You know what you get when you tell the cop that pulled you over for running a stop sign "the 2 people in front of me also ran it"?

That's right a ticket.

  I thought we went after people who broke the law. You know, tracked down murderers and such.

rated:
scrouds said:   
kamalktk said:   
Actually those votes weren't caught until after they happened.

They were only caught after the fact, much like we only look for and find murderers after the fact.... Since you used the murder analogy, perhaps we should have a program to set up some sort of person or team of people to check Murder ID of people entering/exiting buildings and at all outdoor locations. That would allow us to identify murderers (after they murdered of course, it wouldn't actually stop the murders). A lot more people get murdered than commit Voter ID fraud, and the consequences are a lot greater (none of the Voter ID fraud changed any election results). How important is the Murder ID program and how much should we spend on that? We don't do that because it's ludicrous. We assume people aren't generally out there murdering, so we don't have to do that. We can assume (based on the percentage) the same thing about Voter ID fraud.

Voter ID fraud only happens that much because that's likely about how much it happens (the sample sizes in both studies were huge, making the error range very small). Impersonation voter fraud is extremely inefficient. You need to look for systemic fraud (that newspaper endorsed Hilary by the way), a single case of systemic fraud affects a lot more votes than all the voter ID fraud of both studies put together.

 


Remind me of your position on the futility of prevention when we talk about gun control.

My position is based on how much of it happens and the severity. In the case of Voter ID fraud, it's zero (well, it's .000006%) and zero (no changed election results). In murder, it's 450 times greater than Voter ID fraud (14,196 murders vs Voter ID fraud numbers ), and not zero (14,000+ dead people).

If we want Voter ID, for logical consistency we should support the Murder ID Act checking Murder ID everywhere we go, it's crime that happens 450 times as often, with a more severe outcome. I take it you don't support the Murder ID Act? If not, why not?

rated:
bighitter said:   
kamalktk said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
riznick said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
Nice dodge of the question.  Here's the best explanation of Hillary's e-mails, from Seth Meyers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVEx7bNVpJc 

It's you people's BENGAZI! rant that's worn out, and it turns out Hillary wasn't being paranoid, Nixon style, but was right all along when she said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons. 


Even Bernie admits that the emails are a "very serious issue".
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/31/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-cl... 
  

Because of security issues, not because of what happened with BENGAZI!  The Republicans don't care about security issues (as Sanders does) or how Hillary handled BENGAZI! They only want a political issue.  

Both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also used personal email for State Department stuff. link And those emails are classified

/ I anxiously await the Congressional Hearings.

Do you also anxiously await the Congressional Hearings of IRS Lois Lerner (who targeted the tax returns of conservatives) ?.
 

Yes. But you are conflating two issues that are only related because they involve email. Use of personal email when you shouldn't be is not the same thing as targetting a political group. Lerner's emails were on official computers/servers, it's not a question of her using personal email when she should not have.

Unrelated, targetting a political group is bad? Let me check in with what people are saying about "Voter ID will deliver the state to Romney" guy regarding political targetting....

rated:
riznick said:   
kamalktk said:   Both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also used personal email for State Department stuff. link And those emails are classified

/ I anxiously await the Congressional Hearings.

  
Did they have the same email requirements back then? If so, then why did the FBI not investigate?  I don't know.  I do know that Clinton has the spotlight on her. 

  Justice is supposed to be blind. So "why did the FBI not investigate" indeed.

rated:
TrusTed. Not sure his campaign thought that all the way through. Rectal probings for everyone!

/Sounds suspiciously like universal health care if you ask me.
//then again he's Canadian, they have that.

rated:
That just hurts by reading it.

rated:
kamalktk said:   scrouds said:   
kamalktk said:   
Actually those votes weren't caught until after they happened.

They were only caught after the fact, much like we only look for and find murderers after the fact.... Since you used the murder analogy, perhaps we should have a program to set up some sort of person or team of people to check Murder ID of people entering/exiting buildings and at all outdoor locations. That would allow us to identify murderers (after they murdered of course, it wouldn't actually stop the murders). A lot more people get murdered than commit Voter ID fraud, and the consequences are a lot greater (none of the Voter ID fraud changed any election results). How important is the Murder ID program and how much should we spend on that? We don't do that because it's ludicrous. We assume people aren't generally out there murdering, so we don't have to do that. We can assume (based on the percentage) the same thing about Voter ID fraud.

Voter ID fraud only happens that much because that's likely about how much it happens (the sample sizes in both studies were huge, making the error range very small). Impersonation voter fraud is extremely inefficient. You need to look for systemic fraud (that newspaper endorsed Hilary by the way), a single case of systemic fraud affects a lot more votes than all the voter ID fraud of both studies put together.

 


Remind me of your position on the futility of prevention when we talk about gun control.

My position is based on how much of it happens and the severity. In the case of Voter ID fraud, it's zero (well, it's .000006%) and zero (no changed election results). In murder, it's 450 times greater than Voter ID fraud (14,196 murders vs Voter ID fraud numbers ), and not zero (14,000+ dead people).

If we want Voter ID, for logical consistency we should support the Murder ID Act checking Murder ID everywhere we go, it's crime that happens 450 times as often, with a more severe outcome. I take it you don't support the Murder ID Act? If not, why not?


Card the Easter bunny while you're at it.

rated:
kamalktk said:   riznick said:   
kamalktk said:   Both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also used personal email for State Department stuff. link And those emails are classified

/ I anxiously await the Congressional Hearings.

  
Did they have the same email requirements back then? If so, then why did the FBI not investigate?  I don't know.  I do know that Clinton has the spotlight on her. 

  Justice is supposed to be blind. So "why did the FBI not investigate" indeed.


If I had a nickel for every time you said look over here when someone brought attention over there, I'd have big Mac money by now.

rated:
kamalktk said:   
  Justice is supposed to be blind. So "why did the FBI not investigate" indeed.


Were the rules exactly the same back then?  If so, then that's a question for the FBI.

rated:
I just need a reality check here. I've been operating under some assumptions that may not be shared with everyone, so let me know if you don't believe these things to be true:

1. a person, being imperfect as all people are, owns their own actions. If they committed a crime due to their own actions, then they committed a crime.

2. if someone else committed the same or a similar crime, they've committed their own crime independent of other crimes.

3. laws must be just and fair. Since laws ar created by imperfect people, they may not always be just or fair.

4. unjust or unfair laws should be sought to be changed, removed or corrected.

5. the government has the duty to uphold the law, investigate potential crimes and seek convictions for those that have committed crimes.

6. the government, being made up of imperfect people, sometimes fail to uphold the law, sometimes fail to investigate potential crimes, and sometimes fail to seek convictions for crimes that were investigated.

7. people may choose to disobey laws they consider unfair on unjust, but they do so at the peril of their freedom.

8. just because the government may not have fulfilled their duties to investigate and see convictions of crimes, doesn't mean that other, similar crimes should not be investigated or tried for a conviction.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.
  • 1206207208209 210
  • Page
  • Previous 40


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2016