Chatham County Online BBS
February 23, 2018, 05:13:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Find a local business! Visit the Chatham Business Directory
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  





Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Marathon 11 hr grilling leaves Clinton Unscathed  (Read 3310 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 12:46:02 AM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,523



« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2015, 03:39:59 PM »

Indict Clinton and have a trial with actual evidence, cross-examination and forensic computer experts. I certainly don't condone the use of a private server or the deletion of evidence. I believe I've clearly stated that here previously. However, she would probably end up with a pardon if convicted, because that's how Washington works, alas.

"secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law" is also a part of that same Washington world, for decades.

1. So are you saying that there is NO actual evidence whatsoever being presented now?

2. I don't recall you saying anything about Hillary's email server here.  Perhaps you can point me to your previous post?

3. Also, that isn't how Washington works.  The reason nothing is happening is because Obama (remember him? you know, that guy you voted for twice) won't do anything about it.  So long as we keep electing government officials who won't hold each other accountable, we're never going to see anyone punished for their actions.  At least not the head of the snake that directed such action.  We might see an underling sacrificed, if we're lucky.

No, Obama doesn't really care.  He doesn't like Hillary, but she's still a Democrat and he's smart enough to know that she stands a very good chance of becoming the next President.  Besides, if he did take action then she might reveal that the deceit regarding Bengazi came from the White House.  And Obama wouldn't like that.  It's better for him to file away the political favor she will owe him and call in that marker at a later date.  Even if he thought he could somehow use the DOJ to ruin her chances of becoming President.  The most masterful maneuver would be for Hillary to select Obama as her VP.  But she won't do it because of the bad blood between them. 

4. I am curious about one thing, Yip.  You said you don't condone the use of a private server and deleting or withholding evidence.  That sounds good, but does that mean that Hillary doesn't have your vote?
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
natvrabit
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:36:40 PM
Date Registerd:March 08, 2008, 02:45:06 PM
Posts: 7,782


« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2015, 05:02:32 PM »

And the Trumpster was complaining about a 2 hr. 'debate' err. screaming match  HuhRoll Eyes
Logged
Axiomatic
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 21, 2018, 06:08:45 PM
Date Registerd:August 04, 2010, 09:27:19 PM
Posts: 3,404



« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2015, 06:31:10 PM »

And the Trumpster was complaining about a 2 hr. 'debate' err. screaming match  HuhRoll Eyes


I can see why you're so confused.
Logged

Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:January 25, 2018, 04:45:35 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,829



« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2015, 11:34:55 AM »

1. The point is that all the hearings, at this point, are a waste of time. File charges and have an actual trial.

2.
It's complete BS that any public official could conduct any work related communications from a private server. I believe Easley did the same thing here in NC. It is all wrong and I would support charges if the law supports such a finding. I'd kind of like some kind of charges either way, but I guess you do have to follow the law.

However, what did Silk Hope once say while discussing the various Palin shenanigans?

"If you dig deep enough we all are law breakers in one way or another."

In this case, it seems that the letter of the law may not have been broken, but there's no doubt the spirit was, and also no doubt that such laws on all levels of government need to be changed to improve transparency and trust.

3. Yes, that is exactly how Washington works. Each administration does what is best for their own administration and are protected by their supporters. The evidence in the past has been just as clear, if not more clear. Yet somehow, folks were pardoned or never charged. I agree it is bad and should be stopped, and would support charges against Hillary for the email stuff.

4. I have never been a Hillary supporter. I find her an opportunist and very fake, but clever. The thing about voting is that you always have to weigh that against the other person and their track record. If it was Hillary vs. Trump? I think Trump is even more of an opportunist, also fake, also a liar. It's actually hard to find anyone who is not a liar these days, unfortunately. It's kind of an illusion of choice anyway, with no real third party option. So is it the lying? Or the criminality? Was Bush not a documented liar before you voted for him in 2000?

For example, many people here love Reagan, even though he is a documented liar, who broke the law and who's own foreign policies resulted in the death of 200+ Marines right before he 'cut and run' from the scene. And they would love to vote for him again.

Logged
Silk_Hope
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 04:01:45 PM
Date Registerd:April 02, 2007, 08:29:04 PM
Posts: 10,506



« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2015, 11:58:37 AM »

1. The point is that all the hearings, at this point, are a waste of time. File charges and have an actual trial.

2.
It's complete BS that any public official could conduct any work related communications from a private server. I believe Easley did the same thing here in NC. It is all wrong and I would support charges if the law supports such a finding. I'd kind of like some kind of charges either way, but I guess you do have to follow the law.

However, what did Silk Hope once say while discussing the various Palin shenanigans?

"If you dig deep enough we all are law breakers in one way or another."

In this case, it seems that the letter of the law may not have been broken, but there's no doubt the spirit was, and also no doubt that such laws on all levels of government need to be changed to improve transparency and trust.

3. Yes, that is exactly how Washington works. Each administration does what is best for their own administration and are protected by their supporters. The evidence in the past has been just as clear, if not more clear. Yet somehow, folks were pardoned or never charged. I agree it is bad and should be stopped, and would support charges against Hillary for the email stuff.

4. I have never been a Hillary supporter. I find her an opportunist and very fake, but clever. The thing about voting is that you always have to weigh that against the other person and their track record. If it was Hillary vs. Trump? I think Trump is even more of an opportunist, also fake, also a liar. It's actually hard to find anyone who is not a liar these days, unfortunately. It's kind of an illusion of choice anyway, with no real third party option. So is it the lying? Or the criminality? Was Bush not a documented liar before you voted for him in 2000?

For example, many people here love Reagan, even though he is a documented liar, who broke the law and who's own foreign policies resulted in the death of 200+ Marines right before he 'cut and run' from the scene. And they would love to vote for him again.



So in other words you are a Clinton supporter.
Logged

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. -- Declaration of Independence
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 12:46:02 AM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,523



« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2015, 04:26:54 PM »

1. The point is that all the hearings, at this point, are a waste of time. File charges and have an actual trial.

2.
It's complete BS that any public official could conduct any work related communications from a private server. I believe Easley did the same thing here in NC. It is all wrong and I would support charges if the law supports such a finding. I'd kind of like some kind of charges either way, but I guess you do have to follow the law.

However, what did Silk Hope once say while discussing the various Palin shenanigans?

"If you dig deep enough we all are law breakers in one way or another."

In this case, it seems that the letter of the law may not have been broken, but there's no doubt the spirit was, and also no doubt that such laws on all levels of government need to be changed to improve transparency and trust.

3. Yes, that is exactly how Washington works. Each administration does what is best for their own administration and are protected by their supporters. The evidence in the past has been just as clear, if not more clear. Yet somehow, folks were pardoned or never charged. I agree it is bad and should be stopped, and would support charges against Hillary for the email stuff.

4. I have never been a Hillary supporter. I find her an opportunist and very fake, but clever. The thing about voting is that you always have to weigh that against the other person and their track record. If it was Hillary vs. Trump? I think Trump is even more of an opportunist, also fake, also a liar. It's actually hard to find anyone who is not a liar these days, unfortunately. It's kind of an illusion of choice anyway, with no real third party option. So is it the lying? Or the criminality? Was Bush not a documented liar before you voted for him in 2000?

For example, many people here love Reagan, even though he is a documented liar, who broke the law and who's own foreign policies resulted in the death of 200+ Marines right before he 'cut and run' from the scene. And they would love to vote for him again.



You think Bush, prior to 2000, had anywhere near the baggage that Hillary does now?  Talk about apples and oranges.

You want to compare Reagan to Obama as far as lying is concerned?  Ponder the fact that you voted for Obama again in 2012 over Romney.  As far as I'm concerned, you've proven that you don't vote for the better person.

And I agree that Trump is a bad choice.  But I also am willing to bet that there's not a single person on the Republican side that you'd vote for over a Democrat, no matter how lacking the Democrat's character is.

That's not the case for me personally.  I'm taking a hard look at Jim Webb, although your party would never give him the chance to run in the general election.  I might well be willing to vote for Webb over Jeb Bush.

Back to the point about Reagan.  Reagan was a flawed President.  There's absolutely no denying that.  Even those that still revere him are willing to admit that.  But I have a lot more admiration for Reagan than I do Obama.  Reagan did a lot of things I didn't like.  He has his own amnesty program.  But I will always be grateful to Reagan for how he handled the Soviets.  He made the right moves at the right time and it paid off. 

What bothers me the most about Obama is that despite the external threats that we face, he views those that disagree with him politically as his biggest enemies.  During the Reagan era, the enemy was the Communists.  Reagan was notorious for making fun of liberals.  But he never had the animosity that Obama has toward his political opposites.  I will never forgive Obama for directing the IRS to target tea party groups.  I believe the idea for that came from Valerie Jarret and Obama.  It is my opinion that the Democrats are actively engaged in trying to diminish individual freedoms in the interest of gaining more government control of the citizenry.  I believe there is plenty evidence for this.

The problem is that we can't count on the Republicans to counter it.  Look at what Richard Burr just pulled this past week.  That said, we cannot afford for a Democrat to get elected.  You can doubt the Democrat willingness to infringe upon the second amendment, but just wait until the left has 6 liberal justices in place.  I guess at that time you'll just shrug and say "sorry".  But your voting habits will have been directly responsible for it.

Your voting habits have also allowed your rights to be infringed.  Liberals like you lamented the Patriot Act, and are now strangely quiet about it.  I guess what I'm saying is that what we really need is some balance.  You guys have had 8 years of politically correct witch hunts, data collection, and using government agencies to push political agendas that are usually tasked with other things (like NASA).

Your guys are screwing up.  Time for them to go do something else for a while.  Maybe someone like Ted Cruz isn't ideal but he will reverse some of these things.  He'll probably make some mistakes along the way, but something's got to give.

So who would you vote for, if you had your pick of the Dems currently running?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2015, 05:00:42 PM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
noway2
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:April 22, 2016, 03:02:27 PM
Date Registerd:June 20, 2014, 01:36:40 PM
Posts: 555


« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2015, 09:12:43 AM »

Your guys are screwing up.  Time for them to go do something else for a while.  Maybe someone like Ted Cruz isn't ideal but he will reverse some of these things.  He'll probably make some mistakes along the way, but something's got to give.
Not that I disagree with you on this, because I don't, but this comment reminds me very much about the debate the is common in gun control when it comes down to incremental change such as elevated level permits to bypass GFZs, versus eliminating all gun control is constitutional.  There seems to be a lot of parallels in these subjects.
Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 12:46:02 AM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,523



« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2015, 11:28:00 AM »

Your guys are screwing up.  Time for them to go do something else for a while.  Maybe someone like Ted Cruz isn't ideal but he will reverse some of these things.  He'll probably make some mistakes along the way, but something's got to give.
Not that I disagree with you on this, because I don't, but this comment reminds me very much about the debate the is common in gun control when it comes down to incremental change such as elevated level permits to bypass GFZs, versus eliminating all gun control is constitutional.  There seems to be a lot of parallels in these subjects.

Can you expand on that a bit?  I don't understand.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
srvfan
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 21, 2018, 11:34:06 AM
Date Registerd:February 10, 2006, 03:21:51 PM
Posts: 1,681



« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2015, 12:13:59 PM »


Your guys are screwing up.  Time for them to go do something else for a while.  Maybe someone like Ted Cruz isn't ideal but he will reverse some of these things.  He'll probably make some mistakes along the way, but something's got to give.

not a Dem, hopefully that's obvious.  That's pretty much how I felt in 2000, cool the R's have the white house & congress we can see some change now and get this country pointed back in the right direction.  That didn't happen, some good stuff came about during GWB's term.  Tax relief, especially the marriage penalty, estate taxes, etc. spending & regulations skyrocketed and completely offset the good done by the tax relief.

Why should anyone believe that wouldn't happen again if the R's manage to get back in that situation?

I want to support the Republicans over Democrats, especially since so much of the popluation incorrectly feels that voting Libertarian is a wasted vote.  I hate to be apathetic, but dangit there isn't a reason to believe that we're not just as screwed with Bush, Cruz, etc. as we are with Hillary
Logged

"The government forces those who sell pharmaceutical drugs to list the possible side effects, even if only a few people will suffer those side effects. Unfortunately, the government itself never tells us about the bad side effects of the things it prescribes."- Thomas Sowell
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:January 25, 2018, 04:45:35 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,829



« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2015, 12:34:02 PM »

Quote
You think Bush, prior to 2000, had anywhere near the baggage that Hillary does now?  Talk about apples and oranges.

I think the Bush dynasty, as a whole, certainly did and that Bush himself had multiple documented lies and blatant examples of high level cronyism in Texas prior to his election. He also ran on a 'no nation building' foreign policy - and you all bought it, hook line & sinker. Then he got into office and proceeded with the real plan - the biggest nation building project in US history in Iraq, to the tune of trillions wasted. With all his sweetheart Texas deals (Harken, TX Rangers, etc) and you couldn't see that one coming? What about the widespread corruption in Texas politics under Bush? Come on now.  

Also, remember that Romney also used private email accounts to conduct state business while governor. Now, I think his actions were technically legal, but certainly did not follow the spirit of transparency laws. Romney also approved a huge purge of emails from the state government's computer servers, going so far as to physically remove hard drives and computers and destroy them. At the time, Romney's staff claimed that the governor's office was totally exempt from any public records requirements. It's obviously more serious as Sec of State, but the ethical line is nearly the same, and he clearly crossed it as well - with many of the exact same email purging actions.

Now, all that said, arrest Hillary and charge her with destroying evidence or whatever. That would be great to see.
 

Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 12:46:02 AM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,523



« Reply #40 on: November 02, 2015, 12:52:23 PM »

I hate to be apathetic, but dangit there isn't a reason to believe that we're not just as screwed with Bush, Cruz, etc. as we are with Hillary

Actually, there is.  What are the most important issues that we face?  Of course the economy is a big one.  It is probably unfixable at this point and we're on the inevitable slide to disaster and a depression (the likes of which we've never seen before).  But on the way down I would prefer not to have asset redistribution, which is another way of saying the government will confiscate and reallocate.  After they take a big cut, of course.

Outside of the economy, individual rights are the other extremely important item.  To me they are more important than the economy.  In a sufficiently free society, the economy will almost take care of itself.  

Well, the way I see it, Cruz has a number of benefits over Hillary:

1. His economic policy does not include wealth redistribution.  Hillary has moved toward the Bernie Sanders line on that topic.
2. Cruz was one of the sponsors of the USA Freedom Act, which would have curbed data collection by the NSA.  I believe that bulk data collection, even meta data collection, is a violation of our 4th Amendment rights.  So Cruz has at least shown some willingness to draw the line and end bulk data collection.  Hillary has been evasive on the topic.
3. 2nd Amendment.  There is little doubt that Cruz has more respect for the Bill of Rights than Hillary.
4. Then there's our national defense.  Do you actually trust Hillary to make the important decisions to defend us when they can't even manage their reaction to one of our embassies being overrun?

I don't agree with Cruz on some topics.  One would be the topic of same sex marriage.  The best course of action is to end government involvement in marriage.  Contractualize everything from a property ownership perspective.  End all tax benefits for married couples.  Everyone should get the same deal when it comes to taxation, regardless of marital status.  

Make no mistake, we are screwed either way due to economic realities that no elected official can fix.  But before we get to whatever fate awaits us, I'd like to keep as many freedoms as I can.  That's where Cruz is quite different from Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.  
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
noway2
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:April 22, 2016, 03:02:27 PM
Date Registerd:June 20, 2014, 01:36:40 PM
Posts: 555


« Reply #41 on: November 02, 2015, 01:06:18 PM »

Not that I disagree with you on this, because I don't, but this comment reminds me very much about the debate the is common in gun control when it comes down to incremental change such as elevated level permits to bypass GFZs, versus eliminating all gun control is constitutional.  There seems to be a lot of parallels in these subjects.
Can you expand on that a bit?  I don't understand.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be so obscure.  Basically, there seem to be two camps on the GC issue.  Those who think that we can, or should, work on incremental progress, i.e. reverse some of these (gun restrictions), versus those who think that we need to demand a complete restoration of the 2A under shall not be infringed in one fell swoop.  It is kind of like voting for Cruz (meaning incremental change) versus sending the entirety of the Federal govt packing their bags an replacing them with a constitutional convention.  While the latter more extreme approach may be what we really need, the incremental approach is more realistic in the present.


Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 12:46:02 AM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,523



« Reply #42 on: November 02, 2015, 02:11:15 PM »

Quote
You think Bush, prior to 2000, had anywhere near the baggage that Hillary does now?  Talk about apples and oranges.

I think the Bush dynasty, as a whole, certainly did and that Bush himself had multiple documented lies and blatant examples of high level cronyism in Texas prior to his election. He also ran on a 'no nation building' foreign policy - and you all bought it, hook line & sinker. Then he got into office and proceeded with the real plan - the biggest nation building project in US history in Iraq, to the tune of trillions wasted. With all his sweetheart Texas deals (Harken, TX Rangers, etc) and you couldn't see that one coming? What about the widespread corruption in Texas politics under Bush? Come on now.  

I see where you are coming from and I agree that Bush sucks.  What I'm talking about here is that we didn't have as much to go on with Bush prior to 200 as we do with Hillary.  That point I'm making is that we have the benefit of more information about Hillary with regard to how she governs than we had for Bush.  At least as far as the Executive Branch is concerned.  I believe Hillary has done more to prove herself untrustworthy than Bush did prior to his run in 2000.  After 2000...not sure there's a lot of difference except one is a bigger socialist than the other one.  

As far as the Bush dynasty is concerned, I think maybe your bias has led you to buy into negative things about Republicans that, if the same behavior was apparent in Democrats, you would refuse to believe.  In fact I'm inclined to say you might even defend said behavior.  That's not off base, considering that you attempted to defend Hillary in another thread and claimed that she hadn't "technically" broken the law.  I see you refrained from making that mistake in this thread.

There's no way I could have known that Bush would engage in nation building when I cast a vote in 2000.  I didn't know that 9/11 was going to happen.  What I thought, with regard to Iraq, is that Saddam wasn't complying with UN sanctions and there would be a UN action in Iraq.  The bulk of troops would be ours, no doubt.  But I think when 9/11 happened Bush pushed for action in Iraq based on "intel" that we had at the time.  Remember, I've been very critical of the way we collected intel just prior to 9/11.  If you've read the 9/11 Commission Report you know exactly what I'm talking about.  The blame for that rests on Clinton and to a lesser extent Bush.  

What would have happened, if 9/11 had not occurred, is that the UN would have made a resolution to go into Iraq. The cost for that would have been shouldered not just by us, but by many of our allies.  But, as a voter, I did not anticipate the extent of the nation building that happened.  I believe that some prominent members of the UN knew that the US would go it alone if need be, so they withheld support they would have given had the US not been so motivated to go to war with Iraq.  I'm speaking specifically of allies like France.  In the end, I think all our allies ended up contributing more than they imagined.  Destabilizing Iraq may have given the Iraqi people a chance at freedom.  But it appears that not all of them want freedom. 

Anyway, in 2004 I had the benefit of hindsight.  So did you in 2012.  What you and I each did with that information was different, wasn't it?


Also, remember that Romney also used private email accounts to conduct state business while governor. Now, I think his actions were technically legal, but certainly did not follow the spirit of transparency laws. Romney also approved a huge purge of emails from the state government's computer servers, going so far as to physically remove hard drives and computers and destroy them. At the time, Romney's staff claimed that the governor's office was totally exempt from any public records requirements. It's obviously more serious as Sec of State, but the ethical line is nearly the same, and he clearly crossed it as well - with many of the exact same email purging actions.

Now, all that said, arrest Hillary and charge her with destroying evidence or whatever. That would be great to see.

The ethical line is nearly the same, but not exactly the same.  For one thing, Romney was leaving office.  It wasn't as if there was an investigation and he was hiding evidence.  Clinton's email destruction was specifically done to hide evidence from an investigation.  So yeah, there's a difference.  

Remember that this thread started because a Democrat liked the fact that Hillary was able to avoid any consequences for her part in destroying evidence.  I asked you who you would vote for among the Dems that are currently running and you didn't answer.  Just curious, but why?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 02:18:05 PM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!