The Growth of government is the biggest threat to this country not rich people. You are obviously advocating for the political class, lobbiest, and the crony capitalist that steal from the honest american worker. They must be thanking you.

Yup. You got me. BillyBlastoff champion of the lifetime politician, advocate for the crony capitalist, and defender of the lobbyist. Heheheheh.

Wait till I tell Arlo.

And as far as government we do not need the size of a federal government that we have now , not even close to what is now draining the system with it's sell out to all the special interest groups . Drain the pond.

The "special interest groups" are made up of what type of people of what financial status? 😉

Hey Bhawk! Thank you for the relevant facts. Look at the bracket in between $100k & $200k. That tax rate has stayed pretty steady. The chart is adjusted for inflation so I'm guessing that is middle class.

The tax rate for over a million disappeared in 1971. Now if you make $440,000 a year you are taxed at the same rate as if you made $500,000,000 a year. That's Howard Stern and Judge Judy money. There are plenty of people who make a lot more than Howard and Judge Judy.

Alloak do you still not see that taxing "a few" rich people would take a substantial burden off the middle class?

Hey Bhawk! Thank you for the relevant facts. Look at the bracket in between $100k & $200k. That tax rate has stayed pretty steady. The chart is adjusted for inflation so I'm guessing that is middle class.

The tax rate for over a million disappeared in 1971. Now if you make $440,000 a year you are taxed at the same rate as if you made $500,000,000 a year. That's Howard Stern and Judge Judy money. There are plenty of people who make a lot more than Howard and Judge Judy.

Alloak do you still not see that taxing "a few" rich people would take a substantial burden off the middle class?

_______________________________________________________________

Wrong.
President Bush cut the taxes for all working people and the result was a surge in tax revenue.

Increasing taxes has never had a good result for anyone.

Wrong.
President Bush cut the taxes for all working people and the result was a surge in tax revenue.

Increasing taxes has never had a good result for anyone.

Is that what gave us that great Bush economy? It was a surge in tax revenue that destroyed the Clinton surplus and created the Bush deficit?

I did not know that. It seems to me that a surge in tax revenue would add to a surplus.

Silly me.

Wow. The hits just keep on coming.

Hey Bhawk! Thank you for the relevant facts. Look at the bracket in between $100k & $200k. That tax rate has stayed pretty steady. The chart is adjusted for inflation so I'm guessing that is middle class.

The tax rate for over a million disappeared in 1971. Now if you make $440,000 a year you are taxed at the same rate as if you made $500,000,000 a year. That's Howard Stern and Judge Judy money. There are plenty of people who make a lot more than Howard and Judge Judy.

Alloak do you still not see that taxing "a few" rich people would take a substantial burden off the middle class?

Sounds great, but do you really believe they would pass that revenue off to the middle class? Enough to make a meaningful difference in people's lives? Dream on. That money would be spent the second it was collected.

And I'm talking about a tax CUT, a cut in actual middle class tax RATES. If they were ever serious about a real middle class tax cut, they would simply cut the tax rates and be done with it. Supposed "tax cuts" are passed out in the form of tax credits and/or deductions that benefit chosen groups only, not the whole middle class.

But back to the original question about TDE. If full employment and 6-7% GDP growth in the 80's is proof of something "not working" (especially when compared to the conditions immediately prior to Reagan's election) we need a lot more of what "doesn't work" ASAP.

Back to the topic. HILLARY CLINTON says TDE doesn't work................And she also said businesses and corporations don't create jobs.

No need to say much more than that.

Hillary’s email scandal continues to heat up:

Hackers, probing Clinton server, cite security lapses

By James Rosen - Published March 12, 2015 - FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/12/hackers-probing-clinton-server-cite-security-lapses/

What State Dept. guidelines did Hillary Clinton violate?

Stirred by the controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state, a determined band of hackers, IT bloggers, and systems analysts have trained their specialized talents and state-of-the-art software on clintonemail.com, the domain under which Clinton established multiple private email accounts, and uncovered serious lapses in security, according to data shared with Fox News.

The findings call into question Clinton’s confident declaration, at a hastily arranged news conference in New York on Tuesday, that “there were no security breaches” in her use of a private server. One prominent figure in the hacker community, bolstered by long experience in the U.S. intelligence community, has undertaken to build a virtual “replica” of Clinton’s server configuration in a cyberlab, and has begun testing it with tools designed to probe security defenses. This individual has shared details of the Clinton system not disclosed publicly but legally obtainable.

Among other things, outside experts have managed to trace the most recent location of Clinton’s server – something she did not specify during her news conference and a subject of much speculation, as the server’s physical placement would provide early clues about whether the data stored on it was adequately secured against compromise by private-sector hackers and foreign intelligence services.

Fox News has previously reported that, with the aid of software named Maltego, experts had established that the server is up and running, receiving connectivity to the Internet through an Atlanta-based firm called Internap Network Services Corporation. Clinton’s stern insistence at her news conference that her server “will remain private” would appear to rest, then, at least in part, on the inviolability of Internap.

Now, working with publicly available tools that map network connectivity, experts have established that the last “hop” before the mail server’s Internet Protocol, or IP, address (listed as 64.94.172.146) is Internap’s aggregator in Manhattan (listed as 216.52.95.10).
“This is a very strong indication that the clintonemail.com server is in Manhattan,” the source told Fox News.

By entering the IP address for the Internap aggregator into existing databases, the experts obtained the exact geolocation coordinates for the aggregator – revealed to be on lower Broadway, at the intersection with Chambers Street, some two blocks north of City Hall. This in turn suggests that the Clinton server itself lies within close proximity – most likely former President Clinton’s Harlem office, and not as far away as the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

That outside experts could so swiftly unearth such information left them convinced that the server remains, as presently configured, highly “vulnerable” to unauthorized intrusion – even if, as most observers suspect, the server, with so much publicity now attendant on it, is no longer in active use. The hackers further concluded that Clinton’s email operation was likely not much better secured when she was secretary of state.

To test that proposition, they took the relatively simple step of examining the source code on the front page of clintonemail.com. This yielded the discovery, sources told Fox News, that the Clintons have not been using the latest version of Microsoft Outlook Web Application (OWA) to send and receive emails. The most recent version of OWA is listed as 14.3.224.2, whereas tests show clintonemail.com to be using the older 14.2.390.1.
“[It’s] an indication they’re not keeping up with software upgrades,” one hacker told Fox News. “If I were a bad guy, I'd start looking for any vulnerabilities in that older version they're using.”

Work on the “replica” of the Clinton system also determined that the certificate for its TLS, or Transport Layer Security, is invalid – a lapse that “makes the site less secure,” the source said. A screen-grab provided to Fox News and shown here, illustrating the results of this test, showed the word “FAIL” appearing twice in a multifaceted stress-test for the security defenses of clintonemail.com.

Perhaps most concerning, private analysts determined that clintonemail.com has been running an older model of Microsoft Internet Information Services, or IIS – specifically version 7.5, which has been documented to leave users exposed on multiple fronts. The website CVEDetails.com, which bills itself as “the ultimate security vulnerability datasource,” is awash with descriptions of serious security vulnerabilities associated with version 7.5, including “memory corruption,” “password disclosure vulnerability,” and the enabling of “remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service.”

The cyberlab technician who discovered the Clintons’ use of version 7.5 marveled at “the vulnerabilities the Clintons are ignoring” in an email to Fox News. “This is a big deal and just the thing real-world hackers look for in a target and will exploit to the max,” the source said.
“Several of these vulnerabilities have been known since 2010 and yet HRC is running official State comms through it.”

Coupled with the earlier disclosure, first reported by Bloomberg, that the Clinton system used a commercial encryption product with “a default encryption certificate, instead of one purchased specifically for Ms. Clinton’s service,” these latest revelations suggest a complacent approach to server security on the part of the secretary and her aides.

Representatives for Clinton have not responded to multiple requests for comment.

Spokesman Nick Merrill has released a FAQ document stating that “robust protections were put in place” on the server, with “upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.” Merrill added that “there is no evidence” that the server was ever hacked, and said there was never an unauthorized intrusion into the secretary’s email.

The Merrill document stated that Clinton’s server “was physically located on her property, which is protected by U.S. Secret Service,” but did not address its present location.
Just the original decision to use a private email account, with Clinton’s own surname embedded in it, has baffled the hacker community. The analyst with experience in the intelligence community, a “white hat” hacker -- the kind corporate firms retain to conduct “penetration testing” that exposes businesses’ cybersecurity lapses -- told Fox News: “If we learned that the foreign minister of a major foreign country was using her own private server to send and receive emails, and was relying on outdated commercial software to operate and protect it, that’d be a hallelujah moment for us.”

Now if you make $440,000 a year you are taxed at the same rate as if you made $500,000,000 a year. That's Howard Stern and Judge Judy money. There are plenty of people who make a lot more than Howard and Judge Judy.

"Plenty of people" that make a lot more than half a Billion a year? C'mon, now.

Wrong.
President Bush cut the taxes for all working people and the result was a surge in tax revenue.

Increasing taxes has never had a good result for anyone.

Is that what gave us that great Bush economy? It was a surge in tax revenue that destroyed the Clinton surplus and created the Bush deficit?

I did not know that. It seems to me that a surge in tax revenue would add to a surplus.

Silly me.

Wow. The hits just keep on coming.

But back to the original question about TDE. If full employment and 6-7% GDP growth in the 80's is proof of something "not working" (especially when compared to the conditions immediately prior to Reagan's election) we need a lot more of what "doesn't work" ASAP.

Actually, things got really bad 1980-1984. Unemployment in 1982 and 1983 were 9.7 and 9.6 respectively. Interest rates on a 30-year fixed first hit double-digits in November of 1978 (10.11%), but ultimately peaked at 18.45% in 1981. Aside from a few dips into the 9s in the late 80s, that interest rate didn't stabilize under double-digits until February of 1990.

Back to employment, if one wishes to accept the unemployment rate as a benchmark, the unemployment rate from the Reagan years (let's say 1980-1988) were:

7.1
7.6
9.7
9.6
7.5
7.2
7.0
6.2
5.5

But...since this is a thread about a Clinton, unemployment from 1992-2000:

7.5
6.9
6.1
5.6
5.4
4.9
4.5
4.2
4.0

Hmmmmm. 😛

Back to the topic.

This thread appears to be about a lot of things.

But back to the original question about TDE. If full employment and 6-7% GDP growth in the 80's is proof of something "not working" (especially when compared to the conditions immediately prior to Reagan's election) we need a lot more of what "doesn't work" ASAP.

Actually, things got really bad 1980-1984. Unemployment in 1982 and 1983 were 9.7 and 9.6 respectively. Interest rates on a 30-year fixed first hit double-digits in November of 1978 (10.11%), but ultimately peaked at 18.45% in 1981. Aside from a few dips into the 9s in the late 80s, that interest rate didn't stabilize under double-digits until February of 1990.

Back to employment, if one wishes to accept the unemployment rate as a benchmark, the unemployment rate from the Reagan years (let's say 1980-1988) were:

7.1
7.6
9.7
9.6
7.5
7.2
7.0
6.2
5.5

But...since this is a thread about a Clinton, unemployment from 1992-2000:

7.5
6.9
6.1
5.6
5.4
4.9
4.5
4.2
4.0

Hmmmmm. 😛

I don't think Reagan or his team ever promised anything miraculous would happen overnight. One thing is for sure, they left Clinton with a much better situation than they inherited.

But back to the original question about TDE. If full employment and 6-7% GDP growth in the 80's is proof of something "not working" (especially when compared to the conditions immediately prior to Reagan's election) we need a lot more of what "doesn't work" ASAP.

Actually, things got really bad 1980-1984. Unemployment in 1982 and 1983 were 9.7 and 9.6 respectively. Interest rates on a 30-year fixed first hit double-digits in November of 1978 (10.11%), but ultimately peaked at 18.45% in 1981. Aside from a few dips into the 9s in the late 80s, that interest rate didn't stabilize under double-digits until February of 1990.

Back to employment, if one wishes to accept the unemployment rate as a benchmark, the unemployment rate from the Reagan years (let's say 1980-1988) were:

7.1
7.6
9.7
9.6
7.5
7.2
7.0
6.2
5.5

But...since this is a thread about a Clinton, unemployment from 1992-2000:

7.5
6.9
6.1
5.6
5.4
4.9
4.5
4.2
4.0

Hmmmmm. 😛

I don't think Reagan or his team ever promised anything miraculous would happen overnight. One thing is for sure, they left Clinton with a much better situation than they inherited.

What kind of situation did George W. Bush leave for Barack Obama to inherit?

Can't believe you walked right into that one.

But back to the original question about TDE. If full employment and 6-7% GDP growth in the 80's is proof of something "not working" (especially when compared to the conditions immediately prior to Reagan's election) we need a lot more of what "doesn't work" ASAP.

Actually, things got really bad 1980-1984. Unemployment in 1982 and 1983 were 9.7 and 9.6 respectively. Interest rates on a 30-year fixed first hit double-digits in November of 1978 (10.11%), but ultimately peaked at 18.45% in 1981. Aside from a few dips into the 9s in the late 80s, that interest rate didn't stabilize under double-digits until February of 1990.

Back to employment, if one wishes to accept the unemployment rate as a benchmark, the unemployment rate from the Reagan years (let's say 1980-1988) were:

7.1
7.6
9.7
9.6
7.5
7.2
7.0
6.2
5.5

But...since this is a thread about a Clinton, unemployment from 1992-2000:

7.5
6.9
6.1
5.6
5.4
4.9
4.5
4.2
4.0

Hmmmmm. 😛

I don't think Reagan or his team ever promised anything miraculous would happen overnight. One thing is for sure, they left Clinton with a much better situation than they inherited.

Another thing is for sure, Obama will leave the next President in a MUCH better situation than what he inherited!!!

Can't believe you walked right into that one.

LOL! You beat me to the punch on that one Jerry!

"Plenty of people" that make a lot more than half a Billion a year? C'mon, now.

There are enough to make a difference in the revenue.

Suppose there are 100 people in a room. It is Winter. The temperature is well below freezing. It is so cold that, in order for anyone to survive, 100 logs are needed to fuel the fire. Of those 100 people 99 folks have 49 logs. One guy has 51 logs.

You don't think that guy should pony up all his logs so everyone can survive?

Admittedly that is a drastic example. Wealth is only a life or death situation if you don't have any. But the illustration is accurate in that 1% of the population own more than half the world's wealth.

You don't think they should pay anymore taxes. I do. It is like that weird dress. You see white and gold, I see blue and black.

One thing for sure, average life span is only 22,000 days. No matter how many of those days we devote to arguing nothing is going to change. Scream all you want about "fair taxes" and changing the tax code, and trickle down economics... your lot is cast. Those folks up on the hill don't come down to the valley. There ain't a rich Republican who is worried about your plight alloak.

He was a movie star turned president, not like Eisenhower or DeNiro
But, I think you know what I mean
Tried to convince us he was heaven sent
With that carny smile and a missile in his sleeve

He says -feed the poor- yeah, feed 'em to the lions
We're screaming -even up the score
He's screaming back, now, -we're number one, and we ain't even trying
And, now, ain't you proud to be part of the American dream
Well, not exactly - I think you know what I mean
I think you know what I mean
I think you know what I mean

- Gov't Mule

At least baseball season is right around the corner. Between the Nationals and the Birchmere I ought to be able to busy myself until the apocalypse.

"22,000 Days"

Even tho' I know it's only
Me and my dreams
That drive me so let me go please
Let me go onto tomorrow
One day at a time
Now I know the only foe is time

22,000 days, 22,000 days it's not alot,
It's all you got 22,000 days
22,000 nights, 22,000 nights, it's all you know
So start the show and this time
Feel the flow and get it right

Now the time when I first saw you is over and gone
Then I knew my life with you would go on
Knowing you so much longer
I've change in mind change for you
You have changed to mine

22,000 days, 22,000 days it's not alot,
It's all you got 22,000 days
22,000 nights, 22,000 nights, it's all you know
So start the show and this time
Feel the flow and get it right

Everybody knows, it always shows
Wasting time's an aggravation
Got no time for confrontation
You want to take a lot
By love by law or stealth
Time's the only real wealth you have got

Even tho' I know it's only me and my dreams
That drive me so let me go please
Let me go onto tomorrow
One day at a time
Now I know the only foe is time

22,000 days, 22,000 days it's not alot,
It's all you got 22,000 days
22,000 nights, 22,000 nights, it's all you know
So start the show 22,000 days

22,000 days, 22,000 days it's not alot,
It's all you got 22,000 days
22,000 nights, 22,000 nights, it's all you know
So start the show 22,000 ways

- Moody Blues

And back on the actual thread topic:

Top Clinton WH FOIA Expert: Hillary Email Explanation ‘Laughable’
AP - 12 Mar 2015

The senior most freedom-of-information official in Bill Clinton’s White House said Hillary Clinton’s explanation for deleting nearly 30,000 emails she alone determined were “personal” is “laughable.”

Daniel Metcalfe told the Canadian Press that “there is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act.”

“Her suggestion that government employees can unilaterally determine which of their records are personal and which are official, even in the face of a FOIA request, is laughable,” he said. “You can’t have the secretary of state do that; that’s just a prescription for the circumvention of the FOIA. Plus, fundamentally, there’s no way the people at the archives should permit that if you tell them over there.”‘

According to the Canadian Press, Metcalfe was the “senior-most freedom-of-information official in the executive branch of the United States government for over a quarter-century” and his job “was to help four administrations — including the Clinton White House — interpret the Freedom of Information Act, offer advice, and testify before Congress on their behalf.” He also was “the founding director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, which advised the rest of the administration on how to comply with the law”–he “ran the office from 1981 to 2007.”

Metcalfe is hardly an anti-Clinton partisan. In fact, “he’s a registered Democrat,” and, according to the Press, he left government to teach at American University. He added that if someone had tried to do what Clinton did while he was advising administrations, he would have said, “You’ve gotta be kidding me.”

I don't think Reagan or his team ever promised anything miraculous would happen overnight. One thing is for sure, they left Clinton with a much better situation than they inherited.

Another thing is for sure, Obama will leave the next President in a MUCH better situation than what he inherited!!!

It would be hard not to.

And back on the actual thread topic:

Top Clinton WH FOIA Expert: Hillary Email Explanation ‘Laughable’
AP - 12 Mar 2015

The senior most freedom-of-information official in Bill Clinton’s White House said Hillary Clinton’s explanation for deleting nearly 30,000 emails she alone determined were “personal” is “laughable.”

Daniel Metcalfe told the Canadian Press that “there is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act.”

“Her suggestion that government employees can unilaterally determine which of their records are personal and which are official, even in the face of a FOIA request, is laughable,” he said. “You can’t have the secretary of state do that; that’s just a prescription for the circumvention of the FOIA. Plus, fundamentally, there’s no way the people at the archives should permit that if you tell them over there.”‘

According to the Canadian Press, Metcalfe was the “senior-most freedom-of-information official in the executive branch of the United States government for over a quarter-century” and his job “was to help four administrations — including the Clinton White House — interpret the Freedom of Information Act, offer advice, and testify before Congress on their behalf.” He also was “the founding director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, which advised the rest of the administration on how to comply with the law”–he “ran the office from 1981 to 2007.”

Metcalfe is hardly an anti-Clinton partisan. In fact, “he’s a registered Democrat,” and, according to the Press, he left government to teach at American University. He added that if someone had tried to do what Clinton did while he was advising administrations, he would have said, “You’ve gotta be kidding me.”

Mule likes to attack others for their sources and then he always tries to hide his. I wonder why? Anyway, that piece again is not from the AP. It is from Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/12/top-clinton-wh-foia-expert-hillary-email-explanation-laughable/

Why are you ashamed of using Breibart? Do you feel they lack credibility?

I don't think Reagan or his team ever promised anything miraculous would happen overnight. One thing is for sure, they left Clinton with a much better situation than they inherited.

Another thing is for sure, Obama will leave the next President in a MUCH better situation than what he inherited!!!

It would be hard not to.

How hard was it to take the booming economy of the 90's and turn it into the recession of 2008?

And back on the actual thread topic:

Top Clinton WH FOIA Expert: Hillary Email Explanation ‘Laughable’
AP - 12 Mar 2015

The senior most freedom-of-information official in Bill Clinton’s White House said Hillary Clinton’s explanation for deleting nearly 30,000 emails she alone determined were “personal” is “laughable.”

Daniel Metcalfe told the Canadian Press that “there is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act.”

“Her suggestion that government employees can unilaterally determine which of their records are personal and which are official, even in the face of a FOIA request, is laughable,” he said. “You can’t have the secretary of state do that; that’s just a prescription for the circumvention of the FOIA. Plus, fundamentally, there’s no way the people at the archives should permit that if you tell them over there.”‘

According to the Canadian Press, Metcalfe was the “senior-most freedom-of-information official in the executive branch of the United States government for over a quarter-century” and his job “was to help four administrations — including the Clinton White House — interpret the Freedom of Information Act, offer advice, and testify before Congress on their behalf.” He also was “the founding director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, which advised the rest of the administration on how to comply with the law”–he “ran the office from 1981 to 2007.”

Metcalfe is hardly an anti-Clinton partisan. In fact, “he’s a registered Democrat,” and, according to the Press, he left government to teach at American University. He added that if someone had tried to do what Clinton did while he was advising administrations, he would have said, “You’ve gotta be kidding me.”

Mule likes to attack others for their sources and then he always tries to hide his. I wonder why? Anyway, that piece again is not from the AP. It is from Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/12/top-clinton-wh-foia-expert-hillary-email-explanation-laughable/

Why are you ashamed of using Breibart? Do you feel they lack credibility?

__________________________________________________

Not at all.
The article is fact and also out on the A/P wire service.

The liberals are going into denial again.

This entire hillary email scandal is completely self-inflicted.
Your idol's campaign is circling the drain before it ever got started.

And back on the actual thread topic:

Top Clinton WH FOIA Expert: Hillary Email Explanation ‘Laughable’
AP - 12 Mar 2015

The senior most freedom-of-information official in Bill Clinton’s White House said Hillary Clinton’s explanation for deleting nearly 30,000 emails she alone determined were “personal” is “laughable.”

Daniel Metcalfe told the Canadian Press that “there is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act.”

“Her suggestion that government employees can unilaterally determine which of their records are personal and which are official, even in the face of a FOIA request, is laughable,” he said. “You can’t have the secretary of state do that; that’s just a prescription for the circumvention of the FOIA. Plus, fundamentally, there’s no way the people at the archives should permit that if you tell them over there.”‘

According to the Canadian Press, Metcalfe was the “senior-most freedom-of-information official in the executive branch of the United States government for over a quarter-century” and his job “was to help four administrations — including the Clinton White House — interpret the Freedom of Information Act, offer advice, and testify before Congress on their behalf.” He also was “the founding director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, which advised the rest of the administration on how to comply with the law”–he “ran the office from 1981 to 2007.”

Metcalfe is hardly an anti-Clinton partisan. In fact, “he’s a registered Democrat,” and, according to the Press, he left government to teach at American University. He added that if someone had tried to do what Clinton did while he was advising administrations, he would have said, “You’ve gotta be kidding me.”

Mule likes to attack others for their sources and then he always tries to hide his. I wonder why? Anyway, that piece again is not from the AP. It is from Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/12/top-clinton-wh-foia-expert-hillary-email-explanation-laughable/

Why are you ashamed of using Breibart? Do you feel they lack credibility?

__________________________________________________

Not at all.
The article is fact and also out on the A/P wire service.

The liberals are going into denial again.

This entire hillary email scandal is completely self-inflicted.
Your idol's campaign is circling the drain before it ever got started.

The AP did not pick up that story. You quoted it from Breitbart who you apparently are ashamed of using.

Hillary isn't my idol. Whether I vote for her pr not would depend on who the GOP nominates. So far, I haven't seen anyone with any fresh ideas that have any practicality. But, there are 20 months to go. a lot can happen.

Who do you like in 2016? You never seem to say anything about that, you just attack Clinton. One would think you are afraid of her. Now come back with one of your stupid insults. 😛

And back on the actual thread topic:

Top Clinton WH FOIA Expert: Hillary Email Explanation ‘Laughable’
AP - 12 Mar 2015

The senior most freedom-of-information official in Bill Clinton’s White House said Hillary Clinton’s explanation for deleting nearly 30,000 emails she alone determined were “personal” is “laughable.”

Daniel Metcalfe told the Canadian Press that “there is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act.”

“Her suggestion that government employees can unilaterally determine which of their records are personal and which are official, even in the face of a FOIA request, is laughable,” he said. “You can’t have the secretary of state do that; that’s just a prescription for the circumvention of the FOIA. Plus, fundamentally, there’s no way the people at the archives should permit that if you tell them over there.”‘

According to the Canadian Press, Metcalfe was the “senior-most freedom-of-information official in the executive branch of the United States government for over a quarter-century” and his job “was to help four administrations — including the Clinton White House — interpret the Freedom of Information Act, offer advice, and testify before Congress on their behalf.” He also was “the founding director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, which advised the rest of the administration on how to comply with the law”–he “ran the office from 1981 to 2007.”

Metcalfe is hardly an anti-Clinton partisan. In fact, “he’s a registered Democrat,” and, according to the Press, he left government to teach at American University. He added that if someone had tried to do what Clinton did while he was advising administrations, he would have said, “You’ve gotta be kidding me.”

Mule likes to attack others for their sources and then he always tries to hide his. I wonder why? Anyway, that piece again is not from the AP. It is from Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/12/top-clinton-wh-foia-expert-hillary-email-explanation-laughable/

Why are you ashamed of using Breibart? Do you feel they lack credibility?

__________________________________________________

Not at all.
The article is fact and also out on the A/P wire service.

The liberals are going into denial again.

This entire hillary email scandal is completely self-inflicted.
Your idol's campaign is circling the drain before it ever got started.

The AP did not pick up that story. You quoted it from Breitbart who you apparently are ashamed of using.

Hillary isn't my idol. Whether I vote for her pr not would depend on who the GOP nominates. So far, I haven't seen anyone with any fresh ideas that have any practicality. But, there are 20 months to go. a lot can happen.

Who do you like in 2016? You never seem to say anything about that, you just attack Clinton. One would think you are afraid of her. Now come back with one of your stupid insults. 😛

______________________________________________________________________

The AP did not pick up that story. You quoted it from Breitbart who you apparently are ashamed of using.

Hillary isn't my idol. Whether I vote for her pr not would depend on who the GOP nominates. So far, I haven't seen anyone with any fresh ideas that have any practicality. But, there are 20 months to go. a lot can happen.

Who do you like in 2016? You never seem to say anything about that, you just attack Clinton. One would think you are afraid of her. Now come back with one of your stupid insults.
_______________________________________________________________

The story has been out on the A/P wire service which is also the news service most media uses as did Breitbart.
Your line “The AP did not pick up that story” is your lie.

So, you vote against someone and not for someone.
That just shows your inability to work for an agenda or policy position while you will be against whoever your liberal elites tell you to hate.

My 2016 pick?
As I have said many times before it is way too early to make a choice. Republicans want to hear from many potential candidates. We want to hear what their positions are on a variety of issues important to our country.
We have had three major public meetings where the potential candidates have stated their positions and took questions directly from us.

The democrats have had no public meetings, no one has made a policy statement and they do not take questions from anyone.

The democrats are all for Hillary but that support is waning fast. The DNC is in a real state right now because their populist pick Hillary has a long list of scandals and corruption along with no professional experience. Their principle PAC and their chief financier George Soros want Liz Warren. They all want Debbie Wasserman Shultz out as DNC Chair but obama wants her to stay.
Trouble in the democrat ranks.

For a guy who is clearly obsessed with the Left and hate, you sure spend lots of time "researching" and talking about them. If you are never going to vote that way then why waste your time? It is all about bitter hatred with you. Sad.

Find a hobby or paint the house. Far more useful way to spend your time and energy. Or try using the other hand for a change and it might seem like it is someone else.

For a guy who is clearly obsessed with the Left and hate, you sure spend lots of time "researching" and talking about them. If you are never going to vote that way then why waste your time? It is all about bitter hatred with you. Sad.

Find a hobby or paint the house. Far more useful way to spend your time and energy. Or try using the other hand for a change and it might seem like it is someone else.

_______________________________________________________________________

I am entitled to my opinion as is everyone else.
You however have nothing to contribute to the tread but seem to feel a need to lie about me.

That is what is sad.

I know liberals are all for free speech as long as that speech agrees with your opinion.
Let me give you a hint, our First Amendment Right doesn’t work that way.

That is what is really sad.

Do you liberals have anything to offer?

[Edited on 3/13/2015 by Muleman1994]

For a guy who is clearly obsessed with the Left and hate, you sure spend lots of time "researching" and talking about them. If you are never going to vote that way then why waste your time? It is all about bitter hatred with you. Sad.

Find a hobby or paint the house. Far more useful way to spend your time and energy. Or try using the other hand for a change and it might seem like it is someone else.

_______________________________________________________________________

I am entitled to my opinion as is everyone else.
You however have nothing to contribute to the tread but seem to feel a need to lie about me.

That is what is sad.

I know liberals are all for free speech as long as that speech agrees with your opinion.
Let me give you a hint, our First Amendment Right doesn’t work that way.

That is what is really sad.

Do you liberals have anything to offer?

[Edited on 3/13/2015 by Muleman1994]

You sure like to accuse others of lying. I don't see anyone lying as much as you do. We both know that so don't deny it. Hell, everyone knows it, your denying only makes you look foolish.

Let me tell you something about the First Amendment. If that meant you could say whatever you want to whenever you want to, there would be no such things as libel and slander. But they are legal terms that, in a civil court, can cost you plenty. Remember that when you throw the lying and racist accusations around. Besides being disingenuous, combined with your own words, they paint a very poor picture of you and your thoughts.

For a guy who is clearly obsessed with the Left and hate, you sure spend lots of time "researching" and talking about them. If you are never going to vote that way then why waste your time? It is all about bitter hatred with you. Sad.

Find a hobby or paint the house. Far more useful way to spend your time and energy. Or try using the other hand for a change and it might seem like it is someone else.

_______________________________________________________________________

I am entitled to my opinion as is everyone else.
You however have nothing to contribute to the tread but seem to feel a need to lie about me.

That is what is sad.

I know liberals are all for free speech as long as that speech agrees with your opinion.
Let me give you a hint, our First Amendment Right doesn’t work that way.

That is what is really sad.

Do you liberals have anything to offer?

[Edited on 3/13/2015 by Muleman1994]

Funny how you accuse liberals of lying but when we prove you are lying you either ignore us or change the subject.

Still waiting for your citation on all of Obama's executive action that were overturned by 9-0 decisions by the Supreme Court or is that just another one of your lies? 😉

I'm just amazed that people think all liberals are the same. Reading the Whipping Post it sounds like we are on the verge of another Civil War.

What's really crazy is that this web site should target "like minded" people. At least people that have the common factor of digging the Allman Brothers Band. Yet to read these posts you'd think we are in opposite trenches lobbing canisters of mustard gas at each other.

I'm as guilty as the next mustard gas slinger and often ashamed at my reactions to the written word. I've gone back and deleted stuff more than once because I realized I was being an unkind and reprehensible excuse for a human.

Human kind is a weird tribe. We are strange animals.