What is it with Liberals and their email accounts?
They are obviously inspired by the 22 million emails the Bush Administration "accidentally deleted."
Nixon missing 18 minutes of tape helped him force to resign.
A server scrub(Clinton) that had every communication the whole time she was secretary of the state is no big deal?
The IRS missing emails and then saying they can't be found but that turned out to be a lie. no big deal?
The unjustice department refusing to investigate the irs and refuse to call for a special prosecutor, no big deal?
The IRS just saying they will not seek charges against lois lerner , no big deal?
If as you say there are 22 million emails from the bush admin then find them and if there is something to prosecute then prosecute. But don't tell me this is ok it isn't
If the country puts up with this and doesn't demand accountability then we will get what we deserve and no one is going to win we will all lose. So stop insulting us and saying this is an old story and move on , No f-ing way!!!!
So here we are in 2018.....
President Hillary signs the $600 Billion Infrastructure Renovation Act (IRA). Areas of need are being identified, the bidding process begins, contractors and laborers are being put into place and everything seems to be ramping up on schedule.....
But alas, the Transportation Department has some alarming news to report. A little over $70 Billion is missing! Gone, vanished, simply can't be accounted for. How could this be? Citizens and politicians are upset and searching for answers. Certain projects are sailing in hot water. The media is actually looking into it.
Oh no, not again. You'll never guess. Turns out a lot of documentation is missing! There appeared to be some problems with the hard drives, but nobody is quite sure. Officials with answers are refusing to testify in hearings over the matter. Hillary found out about the whole thing on the news, so she's out of the loop. Establishing a money trail is next to impossible.
After a month or so of hand wringing it becomes "old news" and is replaced by a brand new news cycle. This kind of thing has happened before, so what the hell, everybody does it so where was the outrage then? The taxpayers are out another $70 Billion, but only the extremist wackos care about it anymore.
On the Allman Brothers Whipping Post, they're telling alloak41 to quit talking about it. No big deal, old news, nothing to see here......
So here we are in 2018.....
and Butch is still bitching about Dickey.
Yes, if it was Dick Cheney destroying government documents it would be nothing, right? Doubt it.
Remember that fire in Cheney's office? The one that started in a closet and burned up his files? That murderous reptile was covering up his reprehensible dealings. He had a fire that just burned up his documents. Where was the outrage?
[Edited on 4/2/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
What is it with Liberals and their email accounts?
They are obviously inspired by the 22 million emails the Bush Administration "accidentally deleted."
I forgot. "Everybody does it." My bad.
Seriously, you're using the pathetic and hapless Bush administration as a measuring stick? Try not to shoot so high with your comparisons.
Yes, if it was Dick Cheney destroying government documents it would be nothing, right? Doubt it.
Remember that fire in Cheney's office? The one that started in a closet and burned up his files? That murderous reptile was covering up his reprehensible dealings. He had a fire that just burned up his documents. Where was the outrage?
[Edited on 4/2/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
I'll say it again. If this turkey had anything to do with it, throw him in jail for 25 years. Dead serious, this sh!t has got to stop. Soon it will be time to replace the Stars and Stripes with a Chiquita sticker.
You have to defend her, I understand that. You have no other choice.
It's time to move past the Clintons.
Hillary does not need me to defend her as she is leading in all the polls so evidently the GOP does not have anybody better to offer at this time. Maybe someone will appear on the radar in the next year but so far none of the GOP candidates seems to have much appeal.
There has been no proof that she committed a crime here. If it was that serious don't you think the GOP would be more passionate in their attack against her? Even they realize this is non issue and time to move on and look for something tangible.
This is old news Alloak, nothing to see here and time to move on.
1. It would be hard not to be leading in the polls when you have no challenger.
2. Is that the measuring stick? Whether she could be brought to trial an convicted of a crime? Something tells me that wouldn't even be enough. No. It's that there is a clear attempt being made to avoid accountability. What is it with Liberals and their email accounts? First it was Lerner at the IRS, hard drives frying all over the place and "losing" files and documents, now this. I just feel that we deserve better and I don't think I'm alone. The government is a cesspool.
3. I've already got people here telling me not to talk about it any more. One more isn't going to make a difference.
1. She is leading all the leading GOP candidates as well Alloak so I would say this "scandal" seems to be a non issue with voters polled.
2. I will say it again if this was such a big issue the GOP would be all over her like a rabid dog. Sure they have squawked about it but I don't see much outrage or energy being expended by the GOP pursuing this "scandal".
I never said you can't post about it Alloak but your obsession with this just seems curious to me. You seem like someone who is desperate to find a reason Hillary will not get elected and are clinging to any dirt that surfaces on her in hopes it will derail her.
But don't let me pee in your cornflakes. Carry on if it gives you pleasure.
What is it with Liberals and their email accounts?
They are obviously inspired by the 22 million emails the Bush Administration "accidentally deleted."
I forgot. "Everybody does it." My bad.
Those damn liberals keep on breathing and using up all the oxygen. The nerve.
Yes, if it was Dick Cheney destroying government documents it would be nothing, right? Doubt it.
Remember that fire in Cheney's office? The one that started in a closet and burned up his files? That murderous reptile was covering up his reprehensible dealings. He had a fire that just burned up his documents. Where was the outrage?
[Edited on 4/2/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
I'll say it again. If this turkey had anything to do with it, throw him in jail for 25 years. Dead serious, this sh!t has got to stop. Soon it will be time to replace the Stars and Stripes with a Chiquita sticker.
Interesting that you said "if". When it comes to HRC (and pretty much anyone with a D next to their name), there is no "if" at all, but as soon as someone mentions anyone with an R next to their name (even this turkey), they get the benefit of the doubt.
[Edited on 4/2/2015 by gondicar]
What is it with Liberals and their email accounts?
They are obviously inspired by the 22 million emails the Bush Administration "accidentally deleted."
I forgot. "Everybody does it." My bad.
Seriously, you're using the pathetic and hapless Bush administration as a measuring stick? Try not to shoot so high with your comparisons.
You're the one that keeps shapeshifting from Devout Defender Of All Things Republican to "they all suck" as it suits you. Just playing along.
Wonder if we could get a 45 page thread on the Republican alternative to the ACA?
If as you say there are 22 million emails from the bush admin then find them and if there is something to prosecute then prosecute. But don't tell me this is ok it isn't
How can the Right be taken seriously when you practice this kind of hypocrisy?
FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug
Blog ››› March 10, 2015 11:36 AM EDT ››› ERIC BOEHLERTEven for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush's sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.
The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.
As the Washington Post reported, "Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations." But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.
The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday's Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC's This Week.)
By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton's "email" or "emails" were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage.
Indeed, the commentary for the last week truly has been relentless, with the Beltway press barely pausing to catch its breath before unloading yet another round of "analysis," most of which provides little insight but does allow journalists to vent about the Clintons.
What has become clear over the last eight days however is that the Clinton email story isn't about lawbreaking. "Experts have said it doesn't appear Clinton violated federal laws," CNN conceded. "But that hasn't stemmed the issue that has become more about bad optics and politics than any actual wrongdoing." The National Law Journal agreed, noting that while the story has created a political furor, "any legal consequences are likely to prove negligible."
Still, the scandal machine churns on determined to the treat the story as a political blockbuster, even though early polling indicates the kerfuffle will not damage Clinton's standing.
Looking back, it's curious how the D.C. scandal machine could barely get out of first gear when the Bush email story broke in 2007. I'm not suggesting the press ignored the Rove email debacle, because the story was clearly covered at the time. But triggering a firestorm (a guttural roar) that raged for days and consumed the Beltway chattering class the way the D.C. media has become obsessed with the Clinton email story? Absolutely not. Not even close.
Instead, the millions of missing Bush White House emails were treated as a 24-hour or 48-hour story. It was a subject that was dutifully noted, and then the media pack quickly moved on.
How did the Washington Post and New York Times commentators deal with the Bush email scandal in the week following the confirmation of the missing messages? In his April 17, 2007 column, Post columnist Eugene Robinson hit the White House hard. But he was the only Post columnist to do so. On the editorial page, the Post cautioned that the story of millions of missing White House emails might not really be a "scandal." Instead, it was possible, the Post suggested, that Rove and others simply received "sloppy guidance" regarding email protocol.
There's been no such Post inclination to give Clinton any sort of benefit of the doubt regarding email use as the paper piles up endless attacks on her. Dana Milbank: "Clinton made a whopper of an error." Ruth Marcus: "This has the distinct odor of hogwash."
As for The New York Times, here's the entirety of the newspaper's commentary on the Bush White House email story in the week following the revelation, according to Nexis:
Last week, the Republican National Committee threw up another roadblock, claiming it had lost four years' worth of e-mail messages by Karl Rove that were sent on a Republican Party account. Those messages, officials admitted, could include some about the United States attorneys. It is virtually impossible to erase e-mail messages fully, and the claims that they are gone are not credible.
Three sentences from a single, unsigned editorial. That's it. No Times columnists addressed the topic. By comparison, in the week since the Clinton story broke, the Times has published one editorial dedicated solely to the subject, and no less than five opinion columns addressing the controversy.
Just to repeat: In 2007, the story was about millions of missing White House emails that were sought in connection to a Congressional investigation. Yet somehow the archiving of Clinton's emails today requires exponentially more coverage, and exceedingly more critical coverage.
Of course, back in 2007 Fox News seemed utterly uninterested in the Bush email story days after the news broke. A search of Fox archives locates only one panel discussion about the story and it featured two guests accusing Democrats of engineering a "fishing expedition."
From then-Fox co-host, Fred Barnes: "I mean, deleted e-mails, who cares?"
Indeed.
Yes, if it was Dick Cheney destroying government documents it would be nothing, right? Doubt it.
Remember that fire in Cheney's office? The one that started in a closet and burned up his files? That murderous reptile was covering up his reprehensible dealings. He had a fire that just burned up his documents. Where was the outrage?
[Edited on 4/2/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
I'll say it again. If this turkey had anything to do with it, throw him in jail for 25 years. Dead serious, this sh!t has got to stop. Soon it will be time to replace the Stars and Stripes with a Chiquita sticker.
Interesting that you said "if". When it comes to HRC (and pretty much anyone with a D next to their name), there is no "if" at all, but as soon as someone mentions anyone with an R next to their name (even this turkey), they get the benefit of the doubt.
[Edited on 4/2/2015 by gondicar]
I haven't said one time that Hillary should go to jail, though. And if I had, my statement would read the same. It would include the word "if" in her case as well, IF she was found guilty of something that called for a jail sentence. Again though, I have yet to mention Hillary and jail in the same sentence. Nice try.
Man, you're something else.
Yes, if it was Dick Cheney destroying government documents it would be nothing, right? Doubt it.
Remember that fire in Cheney's office? The one that started in a closet and burned up his files? That murderous reptile was covering up his reprehensible dealings. He had a fire that just burned up his documents. Where was the outrage?
[Edited on 4/2/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
I'll say it again. If this turkey had anything to do with it, throw him in jail for 25 years. Dead serious, this sh!t has got to stop. Soon it will be time to replace the Stars and Stripes with a Chiquita sticker.
Interesting that you said "if". When it comes to HRC (and pretty much anyone with a D next to their name), there is no "if" at all, but as soon as someone mentions anyone with an R next to their name (even this turkey), they get the benefit of the doubt.
[Edited on 4/2/2015 by gondicar]
I haven't said one time that Hillary should go to jail, though. And if I had, my statement would read the same. It would include the word "if" in her case as well, IF she was found guilty of something that called for a jail sentence. Again though, I have yet to mention Hillary and jail in the same sentence. Nice try.
Man, you're something else.
You have been calling this email situation as something that violates the law. If someone violates the law, should they go to prison? You said if Cheney violated the law he should get 25 years, so...
I will say it again if this was such a big issue the GOP would be all over her like a rabid dog. Sure they have squawked about it but I don't see much outrage or energy being expended by the GOP pursuing this "scandal".
I never said you can't post about it Alloak but your obsession with this just seems curious to me. You seem like someone who is desperate to find a reason Hillary will not get elected and are clinging to any dirt that surfaces on her in hopes it will derail her.
But don't let me pee in your cornflakes. Carry on if it gives you pleasure.
1. Pursuing what angle exactly? There's really not much they can do about it. It would be a little like trying to charge somebody in a legal sense for adultery. Everyone knows it's not right, but it's not illegal. Just as questionable character traits are not illegal.
2. Correct. I don't want Hillary to be elected. We can do better. We deserve better, and it's time we grow past the Clintons. That's my opinion.
3. Thanks for the go-ahead.
I will say it again if this was such a big issue the GOP would be all over her like a rabid dog. Sure they have squawked about it but I don't see much outrage or energy being expended by the GOP pursuing this "scandal".
I never said you can't post about it Alloak but your obsession with this just seems curious to me. You seem like someone who is desperate to find a reason Hillary will not get elected and are clinging to any dirt that surfaces on her in hopes it will derail her.
But don't let me pee in your cornflakes. Carry on if it gives you pleasure.
1. Pursuing what angle exactly? There's really not much they can do about it. It would be a little like trying to charge somebody in a legal sense for adultery. Everyone knows it's not right, but it's not illegal. Just as questionable character traits are not illegal.
2. Correct. I don't want Hillary to be elected. We can do better. We deserve better, and it's time we grow past the Clintons. That's my opinion.
3. Thanks for the go-ahead.
Re: your Point 2. "Correct. I don't want Hillary to be elected. We can do better. We deserve better, and it's time we grow past the Clintons. That's my opinion."
Everybody who isn't suppressed from voting gets an opportunity to vote. The voters will decide if your opinion is correct or just overstated hundreds of times on a music website.
I will say it again if this was such a big issue the GOP would be all over her like a rabid dog. Sure they have squawked about it but I don't see much outrage or energy being expended by the GOP pursuing this "scandal".
I never said you can't post about it Alloak but your obsession with this just seems curious to me. You seem like someone who is desperate to find a reason Hillary will not get elected and are clinging to any dirt that surfaces on her in hopes it will derail her.
But don't let me pee in your cornflakes. Carry on if it gives you pleasure.
1. Pursuing what angle exactly? There's really not much they can do about it. It would be a little like trying to charge somebody in a legal sense for adultery. Everyone knows it's not right, but it's not illegal. Just as questionable character traits are not illegal.
2. Correct. I don't want Hillary to be elected. We can do better. We deserve better, and it's time we grow past the Clintons. That's my opinion.
3. Thanks for the go-ahead.
Re: your Point 2. "Correct. I don't want Hillary to be elected. We can do better. We deserve better, and it's time we grow past the Clintons. That's my opinion."
Everybody who isn't suppressed from voting gets an opportunity to vote. The voters will decide if your opinion is correct or just overstated hundreds of times on a music website.
Glad we got that straight, whatever it was.
2. Correct. I don't want Hillary to be elected. We can do better. We deserve better, and it's time we grow past the Clintons. That's my opinion.
Didn't you say Bill Clinton did a good job as President? Is it just the news stories about alleged wrong doing that bother you? Or the idea of a dynasty? By now it is pretty clear that the majority of the stuff Hillary has been accused of was disproven. Right? Go through the list...
Shady Real Estate deals - nothing.
Murder - nothing.
Benghazi - no wrong doing.
Secret debilitating health problems - not there.
Enabling Bill's amorous misadventures - really?
What else has she been accused?
The hits just keep coming.
2. Correct. I don't want Hillary to be elected. We can do better. We deserve better, and it's time we grow past the Clintons. That's my opinion.
Didn't you say Bill Clinton did a good job as President? Is it just the news stories about alleged wrong doing that bother you? Or the idea of a dynasty? By now it is pretty clear that the majority of the stuff Hillary has been accused of was disproven. Right? Go through the list...
Shady Real Estate deals - nothing.
Murder - nothing.
Benghazi - no wrong doing.
Secret debilitating health problems - not there.
Enabling Bill's amorous misadventures - really?What else has she been accused?
The hits just keep coming.
Not sure if this is a question, statement, or exactly what. Needless to say, puzzled by what point you're trying to make or what you're trying to tell me.
2. Correct. I don't want Hillary to be elected. We can do better. We deserve better, and it's time we grow past the Clintons. That's my opinion.
Didn't you say Bill Clinton did a good job as President? Is it just the news stories about alleged wrong doing that bother you? Or the idea of a dynasty? By now it is pretty clear that the majority of the stuff Hillary has been accused of was disproven. Right? Go through the list...
Shady Real Estate deals - nothing.
Murder - nothing.
Benghazi - no wrong doing.
Secret debilitating health problems - not there.
Enabling Bill's amorous misadventures - really?What else has she been accused?
The hits just keep coming.
Not sure if this is a question, statement, or exactly what. Needless to say, puzzled by what point you're trying to make or what you're trying to tell me.
Let me help you understand. The things that you and others accuse Hillary of doing have no basis in fact or were not illegal. In other words, your personal smear campaign has failed. Now do you understand?
She's leading all the leading GOP candidates as well Alloak so I would say this "scandal" seems to be a non issue with voters polled.
Not according to Politico. It's almost hard to cite poll data 20 months out with a straight face, but I'll play.
How's she doing in the key swing States, (Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania), where in reality this thing will be decided?
Not so good. Behind in two and losing ground fast in the third since the fake scandal broke.
😉
She's leading all the leading GOP candidates as well Alloak so I would say this "scandal" seems to be a non issue with voters polled.
Not according to Politico. It's almost hard to cite poll data 20 months out with a straight face, but I'll play.
How's she doing in the key swing States, (Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania), where in reality this thing will be decided?
Not so good. Behind in two and losing ground fast in the third since the fake scandal broke.
Nice job cherry picking one poll, posted on a right leaning website, to try to make you feel better that Hillary is in trouble.
How about we look at all the major polls Alloak
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Guess what? Hillary is leading all the major candidates in just about every poll including one by Fox News.
She leads the next Democratic candidate by over 40 points in all the polls.
BTW your guy Bn Carson is not looking too good in most of the polls for the GOP Nomination. Maybe time to back another horse.
Even the GOP has pretty much given up on beating this dead horse and the newspapers I read everyday are not even reporting on this anymore as they realize it is a dead story.
Guess the world ending scandal is not quite having the effect you claim and hoped but keep on wishing.
[Edited on 4/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 4/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Not according to Politico. It's almost hard to cite poll data 20 months out with a straight face, but I'll play.
Like I said, I'd rather wait a while before assigning much significance to poll data. Like, say 16-17 months?
Not according to Politico. It's almost hard to cite poll data 20 months out with a straight face, but I'll play.
Do you have a link to whatever IS according to politico (seems I always have to ask)?
Here is the only recent polls I found about the 2016 general election on politico.com:
http://www.politico.com/p/polls/latest/2016-election#.VR6hs-Hp9-8
Let me help you understand. The things that you and others accuse Hillary of doing have no basis in fact or were not illegal. In other words, your personal smear campaign has failed. Now do you understand?
Personal smear campaign? On a band website. REALLY... Please taking yourself so seriously, I doubt anyone else is.
If you are going to parse every post I make, at least try to get the context it was intended in. Your constant need to attack people here just reveals you to be nothing more than an uneducated troll.
What I want to know is will either Hillary or Jeb go to lunch at Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana?
That is, once they re-open.
Let me help you understand. The things that you and others accuse Hillary of doing have no basis in fact or were not illegal. In other words, your personal smear campaign has failed. Now do you understand?
Personal smear campaign? On a band website. REALLY... Please taking yourself so seriously, I doubt anyone else is.
If you are going to parse every post I make, at least try to get the context it was intended in. Your constant need to attack people here just reveals you to be nothing more than an uneducated troll.
If you think I'm having trouble keeping up with you... think again.
"parse"
What a dork. 😛
Good response, Percy. But the word "dork" is someone dated. But, as you are an internet troll, I guess you don't get out much as you feel the need to spend your time following people around on the internet. So, keep up the good work. I enjoy your lame attempts at being disruptive.
Not according to Politico. It's almost hard to cite poll data 20 months out with a straight face, but I'll play.
Like I said, I'd rather wait a while before assigning much significance to poll data. Like, say 16-17 months?
We'll wait until the first Monday in November 2015. That gives your plenty of lead time to step up to the plate.
