FBI interviews Abedin as part of email probe....abedin is reported to have said

SmarterthanYou said:
why would I bother weighing in on a thread of total absurdity? especially if it's a thread where legion is involved?
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out to you the way people prioritize based on their personal interests. I don't think anybody, liberal or conservative, disagrees that what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy. Yet we have plenty of tragedies right here in the US that get overlooked such as the one about guns getting into the hands of babies. You don't think that's horrible?

The fact is that more babies killed with guns here in the US than militants killed at the consulate in Benghazi. And people like me care about both those things.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm pointing out to you the way people prioritize based on their personal interests. I don't think anybody, liberal or conservative, disagrees that what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy. Yet we have plenty of tragedies right here in the US that get overlooked such as the one about guns getting into the hands of babies. You don't think that's horrible?

The fact is that more babies killed with guns here in the US than militants killed at the consulate in Benghazi. And people like me care about both those things.
Click to expand...

it is horrible, but your remedy is bullshit. you punish the parent for losing control of their weapon, you don't make it more difficult for others to have weapons 'just in case'.
 
Jarod said:
If you break the law, yes. However, you must have intent to do the thing that is against the law and their are prohibitions against imposing laws ex post facto (the thing you did must have been against the law at the time you did it, not later because of a status change). You can look it up and see how it applies here but for those two reasons, anyone, not just Clinton would be found to not have broken the law here as I understand the facts.
Click to expand...

So possession of stolen property only holds true if you had the INTENTION of possessing stolen property??
Your car CAN'T be impounded, if you're stopped and your passenger is found to be in possession of drugs; seeing as how everyone says it's your responsibility to make sure your passenger AREN'T carrying drugs?

You're insane.
 
Celticguy said:
She installed the system expressly to circumvent the law.
This is one thing she learned in the white house.
Click to expand...
You know when I hear people keep on harping about this inane bit of obvious partisan political hackery it makes me want to see Clinton win just to watch your heads explode. Why do you keep trying to insult our intelligence with this utter nonsense? And it is nonsense.
 
evince said:
this is nothing
just like whitewater, Benghazi and all the other lies your corporate media liars help you proffer
Click to expand...
No. it's definately something -wanton disregard for procedure ( afterall she had ONLY the private server) She corresponded regularly with Blumenthal
despite his being banned by Obama.

She made no attempt to use State's Level2 server (classified) which was never hacked ( unlike level 1) - + plus the big thing
is her inability or disregard to see what what innately classified " so called born classified" which as Sec.of State she could do and understand.

You have gross neglect here. Is it criminal? It's surely wanton disregard for security -using her Blackberry on Mahogany Row..when officials specifically told her not to use her Email there
Black*Berry was digitally tethered to a private email server in the basement of her family home, some 260 miles to the north in Chappaqua, N.Y., documents and interviews show.
Click to expand...

If all this isn't criminal, it's right upto the line, only saved by intent.
But Democrats would vote for her if she made a deal with the devil for POTUS..She's still calling it a security review. Sanders still won't touch it..
She's a pathetic arrogance of power, corporatist, warmonger, and failure as Sec of State..wall street lackey.

*barf* - I'd vote for Trump over her if pushed - but he's so crappy it's a Hobson's choice
 
Jarod said:
If you break the law, yes. However, you must have intent to do the thing that is against the law and their are prohibitions against imposing laws ex post facto (the thing you did must have been against the law at the time you did it, not later because of a status change). You can look it up and see how it applies here but for those two reasons, anyone, not just Clinton would be found to not have broken the law here as I understand the facts.
Click to expand...

Using your knowledge of the law, illegal alien, Francisco Sanchez, cannot be held responsible for the killing a San Francisco woman in front of her father in San Francisco because he had no intention of killing the women.....in his pending trial, what do you think he will be charged with ?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You know when I hear people keep on harping about this inane bit of obvious partisan political hackery it makes me want to see Clinton win just to watch your heads explode.
Click to expand...


Nearly half of American voters who support either Hillary or Trump said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The poll asked likely voters about the primary motivation driving their support of Trump or Clinton.

About 47% of Trump supporters said they backed him because they don't want Clinton to win, while 6% said they liked him personally.

About 46% of Clinton backers said they would vote for her because they don’t want to see a Trump presidency, while 11% said they liked her personally.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, said, “This phenomenon is called negative partisanship. If we were trying to maximize the effect, we couldn't have found better nominees than Trump and Clinton.”


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/plan-vote-hillary-trump-block-article-1.2627255
 
BLABO said:
Using your knowledge of the law, illegal alien, Francisco Sanchez, cannot be held responsible for the killing a San Francisco woman in front of her father in San Francisco because he had no intention of killing the women.....in his pending trial, what do you think he will be charged with ?
Click to expand...

Are you seeking a free consultation with the Counselor because you cannot afford an attorney?

Poor Blabo.
 
NOVA said:
Using your knowledge of the law, illegal alien, Francisco Sanchez, cannot be held responsible for the killing a San Francisco woman in front of her father in San Francisco because he had no intention of killing the women.....in his pending trial, what do you think he will be charged with ?
Click to expand...

You need a rubber room visit.
 
Legion Troll said:
Nearly half of American voters who support either Hillary or Trump said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The poll asked likely voters about the primary motivation driving their support of Trump or Clinton.

About 47% of Trump supporters said they backed him because they don't want Clinton to win, while 6% said they liked him personally.

About 46% of Clinton backers said they would vote for her because they don’t want to see a Trump presidency, while 11% said they liked her personally.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, said, “This phenomenon is called negative partisanship. If we were trying to maximize the effect, we couldn't have found better nominees than Trump and Clinton.”


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/plan-vote-hillary-trump-block-article-1.2627255
Click to expand...
we need a *barf* emoticon..

EDIT: :barf:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top