Clinton Refuses To Say Whether Or Not She Wiped The Server

[godlyitems]

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.

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.

[redandblack]

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.

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?

[KriszDev]

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

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.

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.

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.

[peterson33]

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]

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.

[peterson33]

"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]

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

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.

[peterson33]

Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins

Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to
gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each
of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the
positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of
answers to the question of when human life begins

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"

[peterson33]

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

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 ?

[godlyitems]

Well, you must have missed the entire George W Bush presidency. Welcome to the precedent set by that.

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

That just says it all.

[KriszDev]

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.

[godlyitems]

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.

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.

[godlyitems]

There is no Scientific consensus on "When human life begins".

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

[godlyitems]

You created 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?

[KriszDev]

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.

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

[godlyitems]

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.

[redandblack]

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

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.

[KriszDev]

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.

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."

[godlyitems]

I supported neither. I am in no quandary.

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.

[KriszDev]

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.

[peterson33]

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.

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

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.

[peterson33]

Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins

Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to
gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each
of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the
positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of
answers to the question of when human life begins

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.