Once again what fabrications?
Do you understand what is going on here, or are you just being some adderall crazed liberal monstrosity?
You admit you dont know the limits of the discussion, but you somehow seem to know that this attourney general is the light in the darkness. A respected individual, who you believe under no circumstances would blatantly destroy her reputation.
Despite your entire arguement, we just agreed on everything
without all that negative nancy shit
All were waiting for now is a john cena meme
QUICKLY SOMEONE INSERT MY LITTLE PONIES THEME BEFORE HE TURNS
http://imgur.com/gallery/cDrseRN
I mean, you have to be incredibly naive or willfuly ignorant to not realize what's going on here.
Oh you mean the "Clinton Death List" I debunked earlier when someone stupid posted it on Facebook? http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp Sorry but posting something that has been debunked isn't going to help your case.
The likelihood of Obama "ordering a fix" is pretty miniscule IMO. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is I don't believe he personally likes Hillary enough to risk that for her. I think the most likely outcome is that this stupid, easily avoidable email nonsense is a legal/policy grey area whose outcome will satisfy neither side. I think someone linked an article earlier that had a decent summary of why this won't end in an indictment for her. I think some sort of grand conspiratorial"fix" is the least likely.
I'm sure she is furious with him. I'm also certain she's furious at him like 70% of the time anyway so...
I also think Lynch isn't pleased with him at all. I can only imagine what went through her mind when he walked into her plane.
- - - Updated - - -
Reporting of Ashe's death itself isn't what I'm referring to. Your choice of source is. Your half-assed "news" site, which you copy and pasted from, is.
- - - Updated - - -
We agree? So you're in agreement that your earlier incredulity in regards to the mere idea of proof being necessary was prettttttttty prettttttttttttyyy prrreeeeeeeeetttty pretty dumb?
We agree that your counter argument of "how about common sense" isn't a viable one to make? Here's what you said, in case you forgot:
"Proof? How about invoking some common sense. How many people do you know meet up in airports on private planes to talk about their grand children? I hear ignoring every form of communication is all the rage for the wealthy when discussing mundane things."
So yea, if you're in agreement that your own post was pretty dumb, then I'm cool with that.
Last edited by NYC17; 2016-07-03 at 12:43 PM.
And you are basing that on a organization which has it's own bias also. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-d-williamson when those organizations are run by people who have a tendency to favor one political party over another one, bias is bound to happen. So rather than auto accepting something from any source, make up your own mind based on the reporting.
Such as if they support something with a factual video of something one person said, you can be pretty sure they did. Otherwise we all will make up our own mind and our own bias will have a impact. It is human nature at work.
Um literally anything? You're making a specific accusation. It's the definition of baseless unless you actually have some information. Why play these retarded games?
- - - Updated - - -
Her predecessor, Rice, didn't use email. Powell before Rice, used his own nongovernment email. (All the Bush administration used their campaign emails instead of govt emails to keep them off govt servers so they didn't have to turn them in) and no sec. of state before that used email.
- - - Updated - - -
Pointing out an assertion is not the conclusion of a piece of information is the definition of debunking something.
- - - Updated - - -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...7b7_story.html
While you live, shine / Have no grief at all / Life exists only for a short while / And time demands its toll.
I have a list of five hundred(498) leading scientists who say the laws of physics prove that Hillary is the one for the job.
And then some psychologist says Donald Trump is crazy (even though it's a massive breach of ethics by the admission of the DSM that to even attempt a clinical diagnosis of a mental illness without actually being able to examine the subject in person).
The world is saved. Hillary is going to bring about change we can believe in. She will end all of the wars, and redistribute all of the wealth and ban AR-15s which are responsible for 99% of all deaths.
#SomethingsomethingHERyeahiknowwerenoteventryinganymore
Yeah its pretty obvious. The policy positions of the republicans are at odds with what a substantial majority of the population want. Ergo republicans can only win the presidency by fabricating and perpetuating conspiracies, and by convincing enough idiots that they are real. So Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim, Clinton had Vince Foster assassinated, and so on and so forth. You don't see similar things from democrats because they don't need nutjob conspiracy theories to win, they just campaign on the issues because their issue stances are what the majority want.
I'm just pointing out that it's never been a precedent. I guess Colon Powell used AOL for his unclassified email communication. That's fun. He also didn't back anything up, which is actually probably breaking a regulation, but it's not a big deal because its an unclassified email account and unless you're trying to create a witch hunt over nothing, it's not a big risk.
While you live, shine / Have no grief at all / Life exists only for a short while / And time demands its toll.
Well that's the thing, I don't think he'd be risking anything. There's no concept of mandatory prosecution. They have the discretionary power to choose what they want to prosecute. It happens all the time. As to why he would do it, I would agree that he probably doesn't like Hillary as much as most people would think, but he clearly wouldn't want a Republican to become president. They would repeal the ACA, they'd loosen controls over Wall Street, and scrap the Iranian nuke deal and the Paris global warming accords, not to mention turning over all of his executive orders and appointing 2 or more suprememe court judges. A huge part of his legacy depends on Hillary Clinton winning this election, and he risks nothing by telling Lynch not to prosecute.
RIght, lol.
There is a lot of with this statement. Jon Stewart made a similar comment many years ago and Politifact called him out as being false:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...news-are-most/
A few things, first many of the survey's that do this will ask very general questions, such as "Who is the secretary of state" or a question about politics in the UK. This doesn't take into account that some people are more interested in news on a local level, or in fact watch the news, but are less interested in certain subjects of it. That being said, the polls that Stewart cites in some cases do suggests that Fox news viewers are more informed on average than the typical news viewer, depending on which shows they watch (the O'Reilly factor rated very high), it's just that is not the case with every single Fox news program.