Bitcoin Forum

Just unbelievable and again she mocks our intelligence.

It was HER OFFICIAL server over which SHE had sole custody and SHE has sole responsibility for it's security the information on it and it's disposition. And get the part about a State Department official oversaw the sorting of the emails and guess what SHE was the government official She acts as if HER personal emails were more important the our national secrets. And the the " let's play dumb act" about wiping it, it is HER legal responsibility as to what happened to that server and she plays dumb.

And you leftist are going to try as hard as you can to elect her to the HIGHEST position of the public trust and protector of our national security. I woman who believes that as President it would be OK to have ALL and EVERY email sent to her as President go to a server in some little IT company operating out of a loft apartment and the server in a bathroom closet?

REALLY

https://youtu.be/T2OJwsit0WY

The useless idiots attempted to trivialize the issue as irrelevant when the story first broke. Now it might very well cost Clinton her chance at the Presidency.

Single smoking-gun email that should bury Hillary (http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/single-smoking-gun-email-that-should-bury-hillary/)

"The email from Hillary to Mills has only three words in the subject line: “May I borrow.” And only four words are in the body of the email: “SEND by David Shipley?”"

http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/08/HIllary_email2.jpg


"The email seems absolutely benign and almost worthy of deletion, right? It does until one unfolds more about the content and its recipient.

The full title of the book that Hillary requests is: “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe. The book pledges to give “essential strategies to help … manage the ever-increasing number of emails you receive and improve the ones you send.”

Hillary doesn’t explain why she wanted the book, but the fact that she requested it from Mills reveals that there was a point of discussion about the book prior to the email and that it was in Mills’ presence. Mills likely recommended something in the book, otherwise Hillary wouldn’t have asked for it.

Her reason for asking Mills to bring her the book, which she did the very next day in their personal meeting, becomes readily apparent once one opens its chapter contents. It is a course of actions that reads like Hillary’s playbook to duck-n-dodge email culpability with the U.S. State Department confidential correspondence.

ABC News highlighted Hillary’s Pandora’s box by referring to Chapter Six: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter contains a sub-section entitled: “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”"

"Like with a cloth?"

Nice to see the dems only candidate thinks this is all a joke.

Won't harm her chances because integrity is a non-issue for them.

Might very well is the correct way to put it. We do not know what the final outcome will be. Remember it is Obama's FBI and DOJ that are conducting the investigation. I would feel better if an independent council or investigator was appointed to oversee the investigation. The DOJ has seen its job as protecting and defending anyone in the administration instead of seeking justice and investigating wrong doing. Time will tell about the FBI, but...

They view it as a strength. Integrity, consistency, honesty, and other qualities like these can be liabilities in the quest to advance left-wing politics, so they are leaner, meaner, and more nimble in certain situations.

If there is an investigation pending, isn't she not supposed to discuss things like that? Most people can't in such situations.

After watching the video, she says she turned over all work-related emails, but not personal ones. I don't get the outrage here. Seems she answered the question.

AS far as her being president, well, I'd rather we got out of the dynasty thing.

"My personal emails are my personal business. Right?"

No, you incredibly ugly old hag. They were on government property. That makes them the property of the government. Translated, that means they belong to me since I'm one of We, the People.

Good God, that orange suit! Who dresses that ugly thing, anyway?

And yes, I've worked on government equipment and I know that you do not, under any circumstances conduct personal business on government equipment.

Depends on whether or not you consider her ties to foreign dignitaries and heads of state depositing money in her personal foundation for influence in US policy under her jurisdiction "personal emails" now doesn't it? I guess we will just have to take her at her word as she (*)(*)(*)(*)ing scrubbed the drives once congress asked her to turn it over... won't we?

Accuse me of manufactured outrage from this pillar of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) again. I dare you.

I'm sorry, but what proof do you have of these claims? The same might be said of Netanyahu, and the stunt the GOP pulled. Seems to me that many politicians have ties to foreign dignitaries in order to influence policy. I doubt you had any "outrage" over that. Just wait it that one gets used against the GOP, and I suspect at some point it will.

That's because the only time she serves is when she is sitting on the can.

:)

Good grief, I'm just a lowly teacher and *I* know personal e-mails sent using either a school computer OR using the schools ISP - or BOTH - gives me NO right to privacy and that the district can at any time go thru my e-mails. And THIS incredibly stupid idiot thinks she can run the country without the knowledge my own students have on net security?

In a perfect world, she's still be wearing an orange suit, just a different brand. Maybe she subconsciously knows she's toast.

Worst thing for the right is for Hillary to withdraw . Sanders and Biden will then win. Either of the two have a better chance than Hilly in a general election IMO.

Id like to see a show of hands from any forum members who after watching this will still admit they support her. That will be hilarious.

Actually, I think many people here would rather have a different Dem candidate (myself included), but that has nothing to do with this video.

I'd still vote for her over any GOP candidate, because they are all jokes at this point.

Too bad Judy Baar Topinka is dead. I'd vote for her. And yes, she was a Republican. I voted for her every time she ran in Illinois. Great lady. I wish she had beaten that idiot Blagojevich for governor. That guy was embarrassing. She would have been much better. Yes, I voted for her for governor.

I think it would be a disgrace to America that this bag of sh&* is allowed to even participate any further. Id prefer the gaffe maker to have his shot.

Thanks. Exactly what I was looking for. Sorted 1. Whos next?

You missed my caveat.

I would not go that far but, who on the right is not worse ?

Hillary could be caught in bed with a dead man OR a live child, and the lowlifes would still eat a mile of her (*)(*)(*)(*) just to see where it is coming from.

We got #2.

You either support her or you don't. You said you would still vote for her over any GOP candidate. That is all I need to know for my sort box.

I sure would. Bet on it.

Until we get a decent GOP candidate, you're damn right. And I have and do vote for some GOP candidates, as I showed you earlier.

That says far more about the GOP, than it does Clinton.

If we could get another Judy Baar Topinka in the GOP race, I'd be all over that candidate. Here in Illinois, solidly blue- she won most of her elections. The only one she did not was governor, to our detriment. I wish she had.

Why? That lady worked for everybody, not just her core. She worked for all of us, and dammit, we need more like her in both parties.

"Worst thing" ? You don't get it. It is always just stupid politics with the libs.

Let me explain. Hillary is bad for the country. Worse than Biden or Sanders. If she is out of the race America is automatically better off, regardless of who wins.

It fascinates me to see people refuse to accept reality. I am asking because based on the hard core left we have on the forum and seeing how many of them double down to support Hillary and how many are like.......ummmm maybe its time to pull out Biden we can extrapolate how long before Hillary collapses into her own supermassive black hole.
Even more fascinating the same posters think GOP candidates are jokes but not the felon they are rah rah cheerleading for.

No, you're missing something. It's not about being hardcore left. It's about not wanting the hardcore right, which is quite frankly, horrifying and a joke all at the same time. Donald Trump, Rick Santorum? Need I go on? It's bad, man. Why can't the GOP come up with a decent candidate that does not insult everyone's intelligence?

Yes but I asked about Hillary. You support her. We have your answer. You even "damn righted" it.
Thanks.

You seem to agree with my claim that either Biden or Sanders have a better chance than Hilly.

That said, as much as I dislike Hillary she is better than any in the Republican clown car. I would prefer "none of the above" to be honest as both Red and Blue are trampling on individual rights and freedoms like crazy and supporting the Oligopoly fused with Bureaucracy monster that is ruining this country.

The raging masses unfortunately have so far been blissfully ignorant of what is going on and so they will continue like sheep towards their own slaughter.

One ray of hope is Sanders but some of his overly left policies are tough to stomach. He does seem to support individual rights and freedoms, which I can not say for any other candidate.

He also seems to want to fight the Oligopoly monster but, not sure if he gets that "Bureaucracy" is part of this nasty beast and the two can not be separated.

Says the Obama voter.
Gee I don't know, why cant you guys elect someone who isn't a traitor?

Wrong, I would rather have her than anyone in the GOP pack. That does not mean I think she's great. It means I think she's mediocre at best and the GOP candidates flat out suck. That's not a fun choice to make.

You'll have to ask the whole country that. And I don't think Obama is terrible. He did the best with a bad situation. I can give you list of things I like that Obama has done if you like. And some that I did not like. But no one person will please anyone all of the time.

Anda traitor? Oh please. Let's stay in reality.

So you would support a criminal democrat over a sucky republican?

She's getting used to her prison outfit a bit early ahead of schedule

I missed the part where Clinton was convicted of any crimes.

Anyway, I tried to show you an example of how the GOP can win my vote. Maybe you should focus on that. We might get somewhere.

She will be, this has past the point of sweeping it under the rug. She exposed possibly hundreds of classified emails, who knows how much information. She also sold secrets to the Russians for diplomatic favor, etc. She basically WAY outdid Snowden. I don't even know why Clinton hasn't been suponea'd yet.

I mean, if this isn't the definition of Espieonage, then what is? You trust someone with that LACK of core ethics with the Presidency? You trust her not to press the button? Frankly, I don't.

HILLARY CLINTON PARODY: Scandal In The Wind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR4ivVy6gz0

Question to Hillary.
"Did you wipe your servers?"

Hillary,
"You mean with a cloth or something?"

What's up with that?

I damn righted it because the GOP candidates are basically insane. That's not much of a "gotcha".

If she gets convicted of a crime, she won't be a candidate.

And I don't see anyone in the GOP lineup with any ethics above hers. And quite frankly, she had the chance to push the button before.

Again, why can't the GOP come up with a decent candidate? Why do I have to choose between bad and truly scary?

She shouldn't have to be convicted for you to know she's bat(*)(*)(*)(*) insane, and it'd be bat(*)(*)(*)(*) insane to trust her with that ability to push it.

And if we don't like the Dems/GOP. Go Third Party. I know one Dems can throw their hat around: The Green Party. I mean, Dems are pro-environmental right? Why not throw your weight around the Greens, and for the first time get someone truly NEW into Washington. Not just the POTUS, but the congressional seats. Real major change.

I said criminal democrat. You equated that to Hillary not me. I was just asking a valid question based on your previous responses.

Ben Carson is insane?

Lets see some kind...any kind...of evidence against John Kasich...suggesting he was involved in a scandal of any kind. Are you remotely familiar with his record and accomplishments in Ohio? How dare you question his ethics without any knowledge of the man or his record? What ethical improprieties has Carly Fiorina committed? She layed people off at HP? Sometimes, as sad as it is to do, it has to be done. HP was struggling in a changing market before she took the helm. How about Marco Rubio? How is he ethically challenged? How about Ben Carson? One of him is worth more than 1000 of you...or Hillary...and you have the gall to compare him to her?

If you are going to question the integrity of the entire republican candidate pool, especially comparing them to the scandalous Clinton, you better have some specific links to examples.

"basically insane" there is a difference. That Carson is a loony bird is a demonstrable fact.

The state must have a compelling interest, like public safety, to violate her privacy rights. All citizens have the right for their personal information to not be publicly scrutinized without a very good reason.

Please demonstrate. We will wait.

She is free to talk about whatever she wants to talk about including all the lies she has told about it.

Oh well THAT settles it then doesn't. She say so so be it end of story. You are joking aren't you? Let's a government official is supposed to oversee her turning over her official documents and separate the personal from the official to make sure ALL official documents are turned and guess what.......SHE is the official who oversaw HER process. My how coosy.

I prefer someone who dosn't engage in malfeasance and threatens our national security to hid their corrupt behavior. But then that's just me.

A neurosurgeon that can't figure out that a single human cell is not a living human ?

A person that can't figure out the difference between having a religious belief, and forcing that belief on others by the age of 60 should not even be allowed to vote never mind electing this dude into office.

But doesn't that video pretty much seal the deal? If not why not?

She allowed our national secrets to be transferred to a private server in a bathroom in an loft apartment, and then when her activities as SecState came under proper Congressional oversight she destroy that government property over which she was the custodian she didn't just deletion the information that was already under Congressional scrutiny she had it professional wiped in an attempt to hide what is on it from federal investigation.

And you would STILL vote for her?

Well she isn't but you do have several well qualified accomplished Repbulicans running so why not just hold your nose and let's rid the executive branch of the corruption that has been rearing it's ugly head there. Time for a Nixonian washing out.

Why would he do that when science and embryology says otherwise and he is certainly more qualified than you on the matter says.

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html)

What a great thread...

 :D

This heir of the clinton dynasty will probably get away with wiping that hard drive. If one of us wiped our hard drive you can be our ass would be in jail.

Um, you might want to rethink that. 

This woman can't be trusted with a security clearance.   

She's not someone you want to be defending.  Remember it was a Romanian hacker who told us about her little private evade-the-rules scheme.

just a thought got no proof or youtube vids to show :D but here goes

what if its all a lie and the reason is if you can look at hillary clintons emails the government can now look at any ones emails..
because they want to have the right to check on emails when ever they feel like without reason ;) ;)
hillary could be just doing all this so the government can spy on any one without cause..
its a thought but i could be on the right track tho
plus if no charges are made and she wins the election hmmm i think i could be spot on in my thinking

what you think chaps am i talking poo or what :D :D

OK let's go with the science as was taught to me when I took my embryology classes oh so long ago using texts such as those above in current usage.

It begins at conception in spite of you pro-abortion desperate need for it to start at some other unable to determine time just as long as it is past the time you choose to kill it.

But there is another abortion discussion going on the Planned Parenthood thread.

Let's not divert to Republican candidates.

This is about Hillary and that cell door getting closer and closer everyday and angry responses to any questions about it and more and more inane excuses as the last one goes out the window and when are the Democrats going to shove her out the door.

John Kasich, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, yes even Bush, Pataki even. Forina is head and shoulders over Hillary even without the scandals.............all would make great Presidents in my mind and you have to admit decent even if you oppose most of their polices.

This compare to electing someone you KNOW is corrupt and puts their own self interest before the countries and our national security.

Like all libs, Hillary can't take the heat. So she gets out of the kitchen in a hurry !!

What a loser.

What do you mean violate HER rights, she CHOOSE to put them on her government server which by law is under the control of the government and anything on it is government property. Yes there is good reason, so the person cannot destroy any government property and any classified emails are properly clear off it. That is why there are procedures to separate any private from official and it is done by a third party official NOT THE PERSON THEMSELVES.

Please don't tell me you are falling for her story.

I as a teacher don't have this right to privacy if I'm using a school computer, a school-provided net, or school-provided resources both online or off. They can investigate anything I type or use. Same with my students. We all sign an internet usage form dictating the rules and we know this going in.

It is truly incredible how liberals will bend like pretzels defending Hilla. You'd think the Secretary of State would have MORE responsibilities than an ordinary teacher, but it seems it's not the case. Heck, an ordinary 11-year old has more responsibility in following the rules than Hilla. Heck, where IS this right to privacy anyway? Why doesn't it apply to me or my students?

Well, you must have missed the entire George W Bush presidency. Welcome to the precedent set by that. Let's look at the lives cost by that, shall we?

Oh wait, war time president, lives lost do not matter, right? Even if it were for no reason? Even if all the reasons were lies? Hey, no problem.

I'll tell you something right now- I have had friends and loved ones lost in W's pointless war. That resulted in tens of thousands of lives lost. For what?

And you cry about a few diplomats? I have words for you, and they are not kind. Regardless of what happened in your imagination of Benghazi, GW Bush sent many Americans to their deaths for NOTHING. NOTHING about Iraq was true, not one damn thing.

That should (*)(*)(*)(*) you off, but it doesn't. You know why? POLITICS. And the fact that your side was wrong. You're more interested in winning than the truth. That cost a lot of families their loved ones.

I am damn sick and tired of this Benghazi crap from the right. I put people in their graves because of the stupid Iraq war. It was pointless and stupid, and I lost folks for nothing.

You start complaining about the Iraq war stupidity, then we can talk Benghazi. Until then, **** off.

Embryology is not the "Domain Science". Regardless if "ANY" scientist or textbook wants to claim that the zygote is a living human then they need to give an explanation of why this is so.

The above quote does no such thing.

Further .. saying "the development of a human being begins here" does not mean a living human exists at that point.

Being in a phase of product development does not mean that the product exists.

Regardless. There is no "WHY" this claim is true given. No reasons. It is a naked claim.

This quote does not claim the zygote is a living human.

Nothing in the rest of your list gives and explanation of why or how they came to their conclusions nor do they bother to refute claims to the contrary.

As such these are "Naked Claims". Science does not work that way. Science backs up its claims. All you have done is made a fallacious appeal to authority.

Here is what Biology - The Domain Science has to say. https://www.franklincollege.edu/science_courses/bioethics/When%20does%20human%20life%20begin.pdf (https://www.franklincollege.edu/science_courses/bioethics/When%20does%20human%20life%20begin.pdf)

The question of "when does human life begin" is addressed. 5 main perspectives are discussed giving arguments for and against each perspective.

The Genetic perspective agrees that human life begins at conception. The other 4 do not.

There is no Scientific consensus on "When human life begins". Even if one agrees with the Genetic Perspective. "When human life begins" is a separate question from " does a living human exist"

What science. You have not presented any. I took Biology and there was a "why" given for stuff that was claimed.

A Homo sapiens is classified as such in relation to various characteristics. The zygote simply does not have the requisite characteristic to make it into that club. Not even close.

If the zygote is not classified as a Homo sapiens then how can it be a living human ? You know about this classification system Kingdom, Domain, Phylum and so on. Why do you pretend such ignorance ?

You repeat the same old fallacy over and over again. I respond to that fallay asking "where is the rational behind the claim?" and you never have an answer. Nor do you have an answer for the real Science I present in relation to the topic.

Taxonomy is the domain science for classification of "what is a Homo sapiens". Clearly the zygote does not fit.

I am willing to accept other explanations for "WHY" you, or anyone else thinks, the zygote should be classified as such but you never give the "Why".

Naked Claims are not worth much. It does not matter if it is the worlds foremost braniac. If they do not back up their claim with reasons showing why their claim is true then that claim is fallacy. "Assumed premise".

What is so difficult to understand about this ?

Oh geez is that really the best defense of her you have?....BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH.

That just says it all.

You created it. Live with the results. At least thousands did not die.

You hold Bush accountable for thousands of lives, and we will hold Hillary accountable for a few. Deal?

Otherwise, you have no leg to stand on.

ROFL well when it comes to this subject yes it is and the science dictates that life begins at conception when the two haploid organism each produced by a another human being join together and a new life is created at that moment. You don't get to change the science to make your position on abortion more palatable.

It's never been in doubt, all the rest is just jumping through hoops and tying ones self in knots to get around it.

No that was purely your attempt at a weak diversion. And BTW Hillary was one of the most ardent, vocal and unequivocal supporters of using our military force to remove Saddam so you attempt falls on it's own face.

So why would you trust her again to make such decisions?

Who was president and who made the decisions? Was Hillary the Commander in Chief? Did I miss that? 

Who unequivocally lobby for passage making one of the more noteworthy speeches of support on the Senate floor and then proudly cast her vote?

And hey I supported the war and the decisions Bush made along with Hillary's vote.

You're the one in the quandary here not me.

To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, "If you're discussing Bush and his military misadventures in a thread about Hillary and her server issues - You just might be a Thread Derailer."

Mind you, I'm also not sure about how abortion got in here either.

I supported neither. I am in no quandary.

BTW, how old were you during 9/11? I was 34 years old on my way to work on the train in Chicago.

At the time, planes were rumored to be headed for the Sears Tower. I did not know what was going on til I got downtown. People were running up the train platforms.

I got to my office and found out one of the towers was down. Right after that, we saw the second one go down online.

That happened under GWB. NOTHING even close has happened under Obama. But yet, we are told by you GOP faithful, that nothing like that would happen under your watch. Sorry, don't believe you. You need fear to sell your ideology. You would let it happen again if it meant giving you more power. I have no doubt. 9/11 was the best thing to ever happen to GWB. He was useless before that.

Then magically, we went to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. A friend of mine who was a 20 year vet, quit the army. His quote? "I am not here to make money for Cheney on the backs of our kids. I am a proud veteran, but I will not be used. This is not a war to protect our people. This is disgusting."

Your trying to defend Hillary by attempting to inject Bush's roll in the war. I just reminded you Hillary's was the same.

And I was 48 years old pulling into my office when the first reports came over the radio, not that it has to do with anything about Hillary looking at some felony counts here.

And where were you at that time? You're 62 now, right?

BTW, Hillary and Bill warned Bush about Al qaeda

But where were you on 9/11? I was panicking, trying to find out if loved ones were alive on Manhattan


And yes it does have to do with felony counts, whenBush tried to blame 9/11 on Iraq. Actually it's worse than a felony. He lied about Iraq being involved. There is no doubt about that now. We know Iraq was not involved.

And yet, we sent our own over there to die for nothing. That makes me sick. It should make you sick too. We had no business in Iraq. And now look at it. Look what we did. And now we have more terrorists who hate us.

And you are seriously upset about Benghazi? Wow. Not sure what to say at this point.

You have never presented any science that explains why "Science dictates life begins at conception". Naked claims repeated over and over again to not count as a scientific explanation.

You can not even get the terminology correct "Human Life" would be the term you are looking for.

This summary gives 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins.

https://www.franklincollege.edu/science_courses/bioethics/When%20does%20human%20life%20begin.pdf (https://www.franklincollege.edu/science_courses/bioethics/When%20does%20human%20life%20begin.pdf)

This is from a developmental Biology Textbook and not some biased pro life website.

Unlike our short little quotes which lack context and explanation or rational for claims made. This summary goes into detail about the various arguments.

The summary goes through 5 different current scientific perspectives on when life begins giving arguments for and against each perspective.

Your claim that "Science dictates human life begins at conception" is patently false.

You are a denier of science and a propagator of fallacy.

The dems are in full panic mode...lolz!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrQ7YnQFFloXrgvouRnCzonxQu0QF-T7OSCGlx6SxlpqsEGx1K

....but what difference does it make?

I'm very upset about an overall trend, which includes Benghazi and the email problem.

I have handled classified documents and been in charge of DOD computer systems which held such material.

If I had mishandled such documents, men with guns would have came for me.

Please don't pull the "Bush" card.

I'd support her over any of the clown car nut jobs you people have trotted out.
And your hypocritical partisan outrage is laughable as usual.

Yes tell us the facts you used to determine the renowned brain surgeon is a loony bird. Also there is no such thing as basically insane. You are either insane or you arent. Now that weve established that backtrack....perhaps you could give us your looney facts.

Great thanks for raising your hand. You are #3. This whole beat the puppy to death with a bag of kittens on live tv thing is fascinating. So do you think Hillary committed a crime?

Proof? Clinton history---they are not known for honesty-----take a trip down memory lane at ALL of the Clinton scandals. How did he get the name "Slick Willie"? Truth telling is not one of their strong suits. They are cut from the same cloth.

Ummmm...mmkaay..Hillary voted for the Iraq war.

"That decision is made by an official. I was that official. I made the decision."

And dems can't see the problem?

They should be in straight jackets. They're a danger to themselves as well as society in general.


If you think Presidents make that decision, it's far, far, far, far worse than I thought.

Explains a lot, though.

I'm glad I don't have to read a constant stream of such nonsense. Thank God for forum features.

Amazing so its some down to the Support Hilary no matter what because George Bush ( both of them) were horrible Presidents. /facepalm

There are many shades of grey in relation to insanity. Also, you might want to check on the definition of colloquialism. Never too late to upgrade ones reading comprehension !

A neurosurgeon that can't figure out that a single human cell is not a living human ? Is a loony bird.

A person that can't figure out the difference between having a religious belief, and forcing that belief on others by the age of 60 should not even be allowed to vote never mind electing this dude into office.

Dodges noted, getting a little tough to defend Hillary I see. If you want to make phony claims about Bush and 9/11 start a thread on it.

This is being "upset" that Hillary Clinton more and more looks like she committed a felony in the handling of classified information. You aren't?

Yes I have and gave you a link to the thread where it is being discuss further along with other such citations.

But your desperate need to divert here is noted, getting hard to defend Hillary isn't it.

And more diversions.

Now focus like a laser here, this thread is about Hillary not Carson.


Yes note the attempts to divert to Bush and abortion here.

Love the Nixon meme. She has little threat from either side sadly.

Did Dr.Carson ever claim that a single human cell is a living human? A single cell? No. So why did you claim he had?

Apparently the GOP wants to run against sanders. I hope they get to do just that. They will get BERNED.

So Obama was the only president to ever inherit problems? I'm guessing when Iran nukes someone after Obama leaves office Obama's hands will be clean, correct?

I think they and others just want to keep a corrupt lying individual out of the office of the highest public trust.

So to sum up your stance...the guy who can operate on a human brain...remove half of it and save the patients life ......is the looney one and the guy who is buddies with a bona fide nail bomb making terrorist is your hero...correct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jliQdtWaxEc&feature=youtu.be

Imagine how bad Obama is to win liar of the year with Hillery around. Dems must be so proud.

Do you know what logical fallacy is ? You have committed:

1) Strawman - misrepresenting my position in order to attack it. - I never said anyone was my hero and what difference does it make who my hero is to whether or not Carson is a nut job ? Add False Dichotomy to the mix.

2) Appeal to Authority - Who cares what the clown does for a living ? What someone does for a living has nothing to do with whether or not his ideas are flawed. Add Non Sequitur to the list as well "It does not follow that because someone is a Neurosurgeon that his social ideas are not loony"

Avoidance and denial - you asked me for my reasons why I think Carson is loony and when I gave them you completely ignored my comments and went into a fallacious rant .. one fallacy after another.

Did Dr.Carson ever claim that a single human cell is a living human? A single cell? No. So why did you claim he had?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html)

You mean proof that any or all of these donations duribg her tenure were to buy influence?

No... she destroyed all the evidence when congress demanded she turn it over... this is the point. What dont you get?

He is 100% pro life. That is the pro life claim. That is what the legislation they are trying to pass claims.

Go read the Sanctity of Life Act. It claims the zygote is a Homo sapien/ Person = living human such that it should have the same rights as citizens.

Carson is against abortion ... not just abortion after the second trimester or some reasonable position where a legitimate argument can be made that indeed it is a person.

The proof is simple. It is proven beyond any doubt she exercised inexcusably bad judgement. That is disqualifying to all save the Alinski KoolAid Krowd.

We also have her totally caught in several inarguable lies. But that's only par when you're talking about any Clinton.

Is a zygote a single cell? No. Why are you pretending it is? Can't support your lie? Go to a dictionary and look up "single".

Just in time for Christmas.

RNC Selling Hillary-branded 'Secret Server Wiper'

The Republican National Committee is selling a special, "Hillary-Clinton"-branded wipe cloth.

"Do you have a secret server you need to wipe clean?" reads the product description. "Having trouble clearing out those pesky Top Secret emails? Well Hillary's got just the thing: the Secret Server Wiper."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rnc-selling-hillary-branded-secret-server-wiper_1014763.html# (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rnc-selling-hillary-branded-secret-server-wiper_1014763.html#)

Right.  That's why you are being hounded to discuss Ben Carson and zygotes.  Because they think if they get you on the defense about zygotes, you'll forget about the Hillary problem.  Because they think you're stupid.

Married to the slipperiest man alive, she's pulling her own version of "What is is?"

This coming from Slate no less:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html