REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Hillary's Power - A Fable

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 20:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1427
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, July 9, 2016 2:16 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 9, 2016 2:33 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



There's a difference between being caught in a lie and being convicted. Hillary was caught in MANY lies.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/27/ap-fact-check-clinton-misstates-k
ey-facts-in-email-episode
/

CLINTON: “The system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.” — March 2015 press conference.

THE REPORT: Evidence emerged of hacking attempts, though it’s unclear whether they were successful.

On Jan. 9, 2011, an adviser to former President Bill Clinton notified the State Department’s deputy chief of staff for operations that he had to shut down the server because he suspected “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt (sic) want to let them have the chance to.”

Later that day, he sent another note. “We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min.”

The following day the deputy chief emailed top Clinton aides and instructed them not to email the secretary “anything sensitive.”

Also in May 2011, Clinton told aides that someone was “hacking into her email,” after she received a message with a suspicious link, the new audit report said.

The Associated Press has previously reported that, according to detailed records compiled in 2012, Clinton’s server was connected to the internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. It appeared to allow users to connect openly over the internet to control it remotely.

Moreover, it’s unclear what protection her email system might have achieved from having the Secret Service guard the property. Digital security breaches tend to come from computer networks, not over a fence.

___

CLINTON: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.” — AP interview, September.

THE REPORT: “No evidence” that Clinton asked for or received approval to conduct official government business on a personal email account run through a private server in her New York home. According to top State Department officials interviewed for the investigation, the departments that oversee security “did not — and would not — approve” her use of a personal account because of security concerns.

Clinton has changed her account since the report came out. On Thursday, she told CNN “I thought it was allowed. I knew past secretaries of state used personal email.”

Colin Powell was the only secretary of state who used personal email for work, but not to the extent she did, and he did not use a private server.

___

CLINTON: “It was fully above board. Everybody in the government with whom I emailed knew that I was using a personal email.” — AP interview, September.

CLINTON: “The people in the government knew that I was using a personal account . the people I was emailing to on the dot gov system certainly knew and they would respond to me on my personal email.” — NBC News interview, September.

THE REPORT: According to the findings, it’s unclear how widespread knowledge was about Clinton’s use of a personal account. Though Clinton’s use of a private email was discussed with some in her agency, senior department officials who worked for her, including the undersecretary responsible for security, said they were not asked to approve or review the use of her private server.

The officials also said they were “unaware of the scope or extent” of her email practices, even though Clinton exchanged hundreds of thousands of messages with people in government from her personal account.

___

CLINTON: “In the fall, I think it was October of last year (2014), the State Department sent a letter to previous secretaries of state asking for help with their record-keeping, in part because of the technical problems that they knew they had to deal with. And they asked that we, all of us, go through our e-mails to determine what was work-related and to provide that for them.” — NBC News, September.

THE REPORT: While it’s true that the State Department requested records from former secretaries of state in November 2014, the report says the department raised concerns about Clinton’s compliance with federal record-keeping laws years earlier, and the attention did not appear welcome.

Two employees in the Office of Information Resources Management discussed concerns about her use of a personal email account in separate 2010 meetings. One of the employees stressed in one of the meetings that the information being transmitted needed to be preserved to satisfy federal records laws.

They were instructed by the director of the department “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again,” according to the report.

___

CLINTON: “I think last August I made it clear I’m more than ready to talk to anybody anytime. — CBS News interview in May.

THE REPORT: Clinton declined through her lawyer to be interviewed for the report. Four other secretaries of state participated: John Kerry, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. She now says: “everything I had to say was out there.”

But she has said she will speak to the FBI as part of a separate criminal investigation into possible security breaches related to her private server.

In October, she testified about the issue before the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks.




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 9, 2016 3:35 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Agreed, there is a difference between being caught in a lie and being prosecuted for that lie. If there's proof of her guilt, it will be revealed at some point and she will be tried. Until then, it is all speculation, rumor and innuendo. Has she lied, yes.

Now, the hard part.....charging and convicting her of a crime.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 9, 2016 3:50 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


The text of the post placed outside of RWED but blindly referenced in this thread OP, for those who do not desire to confuse RWED with other:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Just think, we are witnessing history in our lifetime. A woman so slippery, so powerful that she would get the FBI Director to lie for her. Both he and AG Lynch
would stake their reputations and legacies just to appease her. What hold does she
have over them. What relative of theirs does she have trussed up in her closet
that they would put their hands in the fire for her?

She lies. That's what everyone says, yet not one piece of proof has convicted her;
only rumors and innuendo. But maybe, just maybe this time she has slipped up and
gone done it. Fucked up her chances to become POTUS. Oh, I don't think she's going
to get away with it this time. Polish up the silverware Maude, the Trumps are
coming to the White House. Clean living and prosperity await every single American;
Blacks, Jews, Hispanics and Native Americans rejoice for your day is at hand. Not
to mention the lovely, lovely Muslims that Donald loves so much.

Finally, a leader worth his weight in GOLD, Trump GOLD!

The House republicans, stalwarts of American justice and fair play, will get to
the bottom of this outrage - the non-indictment. After all, it's been almost 90
years since a person has been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced because of mishandling government documents. But that case involved espionage. I did not get
to see the hearing, but I did get to see some highlights...very interesting.

Here's a NY Times article on that very topic, dated July 7:

http://www.nytimes.com/live/james-comey-testifies-before-congress/

Comey was steadfast in the face of allegations and innuendo hurled at him from
committee members. They nearly accused him of accepting a bribe (a la Trump).
Really disgusting and mudslinging accusations, fuck, and this after praising
him as he conducted the investigations. These guys were wringing their hands
and twirling their mustaches as you could almost hear them sneering in the
background "she's gonna get hers." They counted their chickens before they
hatched, but all they got was egg on their face. Hence the hearing. Rep. Gowdy
grilled Comey, but asked mainly yes or no questions:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-j
ames-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html


The above was edited to not include any testimony on the part of Comey aside
from answering the "yes or no" questions, an prosecuting attorney trick so as
not to reveal too much testimony that may favor the suspected law breaker.

But Comey has a checkered history as FBI director over the last 2 presidents.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/21/james-comey-fbi-
director-bush-history


Wire-tapping, water boarding, among the Top 10 hits of neocon behavior. How did this guy get such a reputation as being an upright citizen? Or am I mistaken and woefully ignorant. Still though, you gotta wonder why this man would defy Congress
and popular belief, that Clinton is innocent until proven guilty. She was not
sworn in to give testimony during her much-publicized interview with the Fumbling
Bumbling Idiots. Flanagan Banagan & Instavitch Inc. Could the FBI be considered
competent in this day and age?

Well, the other fumbling idiots are now up to bat. The House republicans, let's see
if they could turn up something that will stick, even if they have to lie, cheat and steal to get their man....Hillary. Based on their track record, the Benghazi
fiasco, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Maybe they should bring in Colin Powell to see how he did it. Maybe that will give
them some insight. After all, he got away with it.


SGG



And the RWED pre-dating the above referenced thread:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60663

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 9, 2016 7:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If there's proof of her guilt, it will be revealed at some point
The evidence of her guilt has already been revealed. You read it right here. Why are you depending on someone else to hand you the conclusions that you "should" be reaching? Use the common sense that you were born with. Read what she said, and compare it to what she did. Pretend you're on a jury, do a little research, and reach your own conclusions.


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 10, 2016 12:21 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Ha! You slay me G.

Funny thing though, the mudslingers get dirty as well, cause they're in the pig pen
as well.

I read somewhere that Gowdy also used a private server. "Oh what a tangled web
we weave, when we first practice to deceive."


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
"I did not... *pause for effect*... have sexual relations with those emails...."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 10, 2016 12:23 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Thanks for the public service, I mistakenly posted in General and tried to correct
by linking.

SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The text of the post placed outside of RWED but blindly referenced in this thread OP, for those who do not desire to confuse RWED with other:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Just think, we are witnessing history in our lifetime. A woman so slippery, so powerful that she would get the FBI Director to lie for her. Both he and AG Lynch
would stake their reputations and legacies just to appease her. What hold does she
have over them. What relative of theirs does she have trussed up in her closet
that they would put their hands in the fire for her?

She lies. That's what everyone says, yet not one piece of proof has convicted her;
only rumors and innuendo. But maybe, just maybe this time she has slipped up and
gone done it. Fucked up her chances to become POTUS. Oh, I don't think she's going
to get away with it this time. Polish up the silverware Maude, the Trumps are
coming to the White House. Clean living and prosperity await every single American;
Blacks, Jews, Hispanics and Native Americans rejoice for your day is at hand. Not
to mention the lovely, lovely Muslims that Donald loves so much.

Finally, a leader worth his weight in GOLD, Trump GOLD!

The House republicans, stalwarts of American justice and fair play, will get to
the bottom of this outrage - the non-indictment. After all, it's been almost 90
years since a person has been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced because of mishandling government documents. But that case involved espionage. I did not get
to see the hearing, but I did get to see some highlights...very interesting.

Here's a NY Times article on that very topic, dated July 7:

http://www.nytimes.com/live/james-comey-testifies-before-congress/

Comey was steadfast in the face of allegations and innuendo hurled at him from
committee members. They nearly accused him of accepting a bribe (a la Trump).
Really disgusting and mudslinging accusations, fuck, and this after praising
him as he conducted the investigations. These guys were wringing their hands
and twirling their mustaches as you could almost hear them sneering in the
background "she's gonna get hers." They counted their chickens before they
hatched, but all they got was egg on their face. Hence the hearing. Rep. Gowdy
grilled Comey, but asked mainly yes or no questions:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-j
ames-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html


The above was edited to not include any testimony on the part of Comey aside
from answering the "yes or no" questions, an prosecuting attorney trick so as
not to reveal too much testimony that may favor the suspected law breaker.

But Comey has a checkered history as FBI director over the last 2 presidents.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/21/james-comey-fbi-
director-bush-history


Wire-tapping, water boarding, among the Top 10 hits of neocon behavior. How did this guy get such a reputation as being an upright citizen? Or am I mistaken and woefully ignorant. Still though, you gotta wonder why this man would defy Congress
and popular belief, that Clinton is innocent until proven guilty. She was not
sworn in to give testimony during her much-publicized interview with the Fumbling
Bumbling Idiots. Flanagan Banagan & Instavitch Inc. Could the FBI be considered
competent in this day and age?

Well, the other fumbling idiots are now up to bat. The House republicans, let's see
if they could turn up something that will stick, even if they have to lie, cheat and steal to get their man....Hillary. Based on their track record, the Benghazi
fiasco, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Maybe they should bring in Colin Powell to see how he did it. Maybe that will give
them some insight. After all, he got away with it.


SGG



And the RWED pre-dating the above referenced thread:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60663


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 10, 2016 12:45 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Perhaps I mis-spoke. Do they, anyone, have evidence to arrest, prosecute and convict. Because, if they did, they The F-fucking B.I. would have recommended
pursuing prosecution. Please open your eyes and read my post carefully. It is
my take on the proceedings.

Comey did NOT recommend pursuing prosecution. That, and ONLY that is what I was
commenting on. It is not what YOU (the general you) what you think is going
on, but what these folks in power positions actually do. The action or non-action
of Congress, the FBI, the AG, the Justice Dept. And, once again, do not tell me what to do or think. If you don't agree with me FINE! I don't tell you that YOU SHOULD think as I do, or agree. I contribute my thoughts.......MY THOUGHTS, NOT
YOURS or anyone else's. If I agree, I say so. BUT I NEVER TELL ANYONE WHAT TO
THINK OR SAY.

The day that I say what someone tells me to say, is the day I kill myself.
Is that plain enough language for you. It is unbelievable to me that on this website, celebrating the freedom of spirit that is Firefly that anyone would have the unmitigated gall to presume telling a fellow human being what to say or think.
Make your argument, call me dumb, fine. I welcome free debate and discussion, but....well, I've said my piece.


SGG


Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

If there's proof of her guilt, it will be revealed at some point
The evidence of her guilt has already been revealed. You read it right here. Why are you depending on someone else to hand you the conclusions that you "should" be reaching? Use the common sense that you were born with. Read what she said, and compare it to what she did. Pretend you're on a jury, do a little research, and reach your own conclusions.


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 10, 2016 1:09 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


"Still though, you gotta wonder why this man would defy Congress
and popular belief, that Clinton is innocent until proven guilty."

I meant to say "GUILTY until proven innocent." I'm so used to writing it in the normal sense of that phrase, that I wrote it in just that way. I have to proof
much better in future.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 10, 2016 1:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If there's proof of her guilt, it will be revealed at some point- SGG

The evidence of her guilt has already been revealed. You read it right here. Why are you depending on someone else to hand you the conclusions that you "should" be reaching? Use the common sense that you were born with. Read what she said, and compare it to what she did. Pretend you're on a jury, do a little research, and reach your own conclusions.- SIGNY

Perhaps I mis-spoke. Do they, anyone, have evidence to arrest, prosecute and convict. Because, if they did, they The F-fucking B.I. would have recommended
pursuing prosecution
.- SGG

And you know this... how? Been sitting in on discussions with Comey that we don't know about? Or is this just an assumption on your part?

Quote:

Please open your eyes and read my post carefully. It is my take on the proceedings.-SGG
Well, maybe it's your assumption about the FBI.

Quote:

Comey did NOT recommend pursuing prosecution. That, and ONLY that is what I was
commenting on. It is not what YOU (the general you) what you think is going
on, but what these folks in power positions actually do. The action or non-action
of Congress, the FBI, the AG, the Justice Dept. And, once again, do not tell me what to do or think. If you don't agree with me FINE! I don't tell you that YOU SHOULD think as I do, or agree. I contribute my thoughts.......MY THOUGHTS, NOT YOURS or anyone else's. If I agree, I say so. BUT I NEVER TELL ANYONE WHAT TO THINK OR SAY.



SGG, you puzzle me. If this is about my post, all I said was: Think for yourself.. And now your saying No I won't! I dunno, I misunderstand you 99% of the time.

Quote:

The day that I say what someone tells me to say, is the day I kill myself. Is that plain enough language for you. It is unbelievable to me that on this website, celebrating the freedom of spirit that is Firefly that anyone would have the unmitigated gall to presume telling a fellow human being what to say or think. Make your argument, call me dumb, fine. I welcome free debate and discussion, but....well, I've said my piece.
Again .... huh???? I can understand that you would be offended by my insinuation that you're not thinking for yourself. Ok, you feel that you're an independent thinker, and that you already do. Got it!

But my point was Think for yourself and you end your post with No I won't! And I will never tell anyone what to think!.

What's going on here?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 10, 2016 2:02 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Ya know, Momma told me there'd be days like this. If I've learned one thing, it's
that Momma is always right.

She lies. They know she lied. They find proof of that lie. They pursue prosecution.
They try and convict. She goes to jail. No more presidential run.

Were I on the jury, and they show me proof that she lied.......bye, bye Hillary.
Next case.

Short simple and sweet.


SGG


Damn that was hard.



Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

If there's proof of her guilt, it will be revealed at some point- SGG

The evidence of her guilt has already been revealed. You read it right here. Why are you depending on someone else to hand you the conclusions that you "should" be reaching? Use the common sense that you were born with. Read what she said, and compare it to what she did. Pretend you're on a jury, do a little research, and reach your own conclusions.- SIGNY

Perhaps I mis-spoke. Do they, anyone, have evidence to arrest, prosecute and convict. Because, if they did, they The F-fucking B.I. would have recommended
pursuing prosecution
.- SGG

And you know this... how? Been sitting in on discussions with Comey that we don't know about? Or is this just an assumption on your part?

Quote:

Please open your eyes and read my post carefully. It is my take on the proceedings.-SGG
Well, maybe it's your assumption about the FBI.

Quote:

Comey did NOT recommend pursuing prosecution. That, and ONLY that is what I was
commenting on. It is not what YOU (the general you) what you think is going
on, but what these folks in power positions actually do. The action or non-action
of Congress, the FBI, the AG, the Justice Dept. And, once again, do not tell me what to do or think. If you don't agree with me FINE! I don't tell you that YOU SHOULD think as I do, or agree. I contribute my thoughts.......MY THOUGHTS, NOT YOURS or anyone else's. If I agree, I say so. BUT I NEVER TELL ANYONE WHAT TO THINK OR SAY.



SGG, you puzzle me. If this is about my post, all I said was: Think for yourself.. And now your saying No I won't! I dunno, I misunderstand you 99% of the time.

Quote:

The day that I say what someone tells me to say, is the day I kill myself. Is that plain enough language for you. It is unbelievable to me that on this website, celebrating the freedom of spirit that is Firefly that anyone would have the unmitigated gall to presume telling a fellow human being what to say or think. Make your argument, call me dumb, fine. I welcome free debate and discussion, but....well, I've said my piece.
Again .... huh???? I can understand that you would be offended by my insinuation that you're not thinking for yourself. Ok, you feel that you're an independent thinker, and that you already do. Got it!

But my point was Think for yourself and you end your post with No I won't! And I will never tell anyone what to think!.

What's going on here?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 10, 2016 3:19 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Let's take this point by point, shall we, Hmmmmmm.

And you know this... how? Been sitting in on discussions with Comey that we don't know about? Or is this just an assumption on your part?

I could have given a smart-ass answer (I can't believe I have to do this, but you do seem confused) based upon your smart-ass response. But, I won't do that. You do know
that the FBI conducted an investigation, right!? A year long. Ok. Then they
"interviewed" Hillary. FBI Director Comey, after reviewing the investigation, recommended no prosecution. Which pissed off the republicans in Congress. So they held a hearing so that he could explain himself, as to his recommendation. You with me so far!? He gave Congress his report on the investigation. She did lie according to his testimony, but not enough evidence (which is what attorneys use to prove
when someone commits a crime). to warrant prosecution.

I'm not going too fast am I?

Lawyers usually bring cases where they can point to evidence, solid evidence, that a crime was committed. They're funny that way. And, if I may be so bold, so are judges. It's a small thing really, but this is what they do. I believe, in his own
way, Comey made a point of just that very thing. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb schlub posting on a TV fan site. I'm not well versed in law, and apparently,
a bit dumb.

But I digress.

Years ago I worked on a case where a doctor had committed malpractice and fraud.
The attorney for the plaintiff knew this, but the question wasn't did he do this.
The question was how to prove he did it. We scoured boxes of documents, looking for
the "smoking gun" and, after a truly painstaking search found something that differed from his deposition. The attorney developed his plan of attack and proceeded to make the doctor say the words incriminating himself while on the witness stand. I felt like a million bucks because I caught it among the tons of paper we had to review. It was a good feeling. In this instance, the rich doctor
did not get away with it, as he had hoped.

I argue that Comey was sticking to the letter of the law. Call me crazy, but that's my take on it. If they pursue prosecution without the proverbial "smoking gun" and
she wriggles off the hook, they might not get another chance. Now, you say she lied, okay they must have the solid evidence whereby the lie will be integral to
the commission of a crime. What's obvious to the average person, may not be so obvious; strictly speaking in terms of the law. Comey knows this. He stated that
the best that Congress could hope for, in terms of punishment, is suspension, reprimand, etc. But a criminal charge was not going to happen, at least not with what they had in hand. It is all very technical, as you well know.

Innocent people go to jail all the time, and the guilty, especially rich guilty people, get away with murder - literally. You know this too. What possible motive
could Comey have for letting Hillary off the hook? Perhaps Congress could get her for lying to them. Who knows. But Hillary is an accomplished liar, as most politicians are. Convicting her will not be a cakewalk. I understand Comey's caution.

By the way, I could ask you the same question: Have you been sitting in on classified discussions with the FBI? Who do you know?

Well, maybe it's your assumption about the FBI.

I state as much in my post. It is an opinion, it is commentary based upon what I read, hear and see. How is that confusing?

Again .... huh???? I can understand that you would be offended by my insinuation that you're not thinking for yourself. Ok, you feel that you're an independent thinker, and that you already do. Got it!

But my point was Think for yourself and you end your post with No I won't! And I will never tell anyone what to think! .

What's going on here?


Where to begin. Well, my only comment/response is that you claim here that you understand that I might be offended by [your] "insinuation that you're not thinking for yourself." Then you say that your point was for me to think for myself, and that I was saying "No, I won't." I do not understand how you got that from me saying "I contribute my thoughts.......MY THOUGHTS, NOT YOURS or anyone else's. If I agree, I say so. BUT I NEVER TELL ANYONE WHAT TO THINK OR SAY."

It's pretty simple really.
My thoughts are my own. I chose to contribute or not. Me. If I read, see or hear something that I agree with, more often than not, I acknowledge it. Or better put,
I attribute it to the source, whether I read it, heard it or saw it somewhere. If
I catch a blurb on the internet or in a news article, but I don't recall the
source, I say so. Now, if you don't agree or accept my observation/response - fine.
I'm not so sensitive that I fall apart because you don't agree with my point of view. Healthy debate is about differing opinions and hearing out other points of view.

Here's one; all politicians lie. Hillary is one of them. Whether or not she'll be
prosecuted in this instance is up in the air. PERIOD. Comey did the right thing, but the republicans want desperately to put her away (mostly to save their own
skins, and profits) that they blindly forge ahead with reckless abandon, that they
forget that she's a skilled liar. That skill has been honed over the years and she
knows how to protect herself in the clinches. Comey knows this and he's no dummy.

That's what's going on here!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


nobody posting here in RWED?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Gun Violence Rocks Chicago as 8 are Shot in One Day
Thu, December 12, 2024 11:00 - 28 posts
Syria 2024
Thu, December 12, 2024 10:54 - 40 posts
Giant UFOs caught on videotape
Thu, December 12, 2024 10:46 - 10 posts
America's Dynasty and Royal Families DuPont, Bush, Clintons, Brown, Pelosi, Kardashian family, Saudi, British, Israeli, La Cosa Nostra, Udall family, Getty, Kennedy, Rothschilds, the Rockefeller family
Thu, December 12, 2024 10:40 - 9 posts
The Hill: Democrats and the lemmings of the left
Thu, December 12, 2024 10:35 - 14 posts
Is anyone else still slightly creeped out by the Japanese?
Thu, December 12, 2024 10:33 - 181 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, December 12, 2024 10:33 - 4933 posts
An American education: Classrooms reshaped by record migrant arrivals
Thu, December 12, 2024 10:31 - 5 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Thu, December 12, 2024 10:31 - 240 posts
What is "magical thinking"? And other philosphical confusions.
Thu, December 12, 2024 10:29 - 39 posts
Hungary's refugee-kicking camerawoman pondering move to Russia...
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:58 - 70 posts
The limits of free speech
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:50 - 47 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL