If you took a tumble off a ladder or roof the aggregate intelligence of the world population would be a tiny bit higher and of course there would be one less leftist knob sucking up the oxygen.
Its the little things that count in life.
Hillary trails 3 repubs in swing states
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
If you took a tumble off a ladder or roof the aggregate intelligence of the world population would be a tiny bit higher and of course there would be one less leftist knob sucking up the oxygen.
Its the little things that count in life.
Accounts from acquaintances, law enforcement officials and court records portrayed Mr. Houser, 59, of Phenix City, Ala., who also took his own life, as a man with a diffuse collection of troubles and grievances — personal, political and social — who had a particular anger for women, liberals, the government and a changing world.
^Describes nearly all righties. Not only you.
Yes fc, anyone who disagrees is a nutter and anyone who agrees is a compassionate person.
You don't know what you don't know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
No . . . thank your wife , she dresses me , she even massages my dick before enveloping it between her lips.:eek:.
lol. . . its the little things that count?
so why does each of your pink cars have their own little elevators and their own little bunkers ,
huh ? . ?
Last edited:
Oh man Hillary is going down.
The IG request to the DOJ for criminal investigation of Hillary's breach of federal law and her security violations was leaked by...wait for it... Valerie Jarrett.
LOL.
That means Obama has decided that Hillary will not be President. He is King Maker. He doesn't like Elizabeth either so look for Bernie to be the nominee. He would probably really like to see Joe follow him into office but even the United States is not stupid enough to elect Joe Biden.
She will be able to plead out or go to trial. If she goes to trial the government can cite any other criminal activity in the recovered email traffic, like Hillary soliciting and receiving gigantic contributions to her "foundation" for favorable treatment on ITAR import/export restrictions and dozens of other deals made with foreign countries for profit.
Is she going to prison? That isn't clear and she may dodge some of the security violations (but will never hold a clearance for the remainder of her life) but the Document Retention violations are impossible to dismiss and those are going to probably result in convictions and suspended prison sentence so basically 5 years probation, loss of voting rights, loss of firearms privileges and lifetime ban on holding public office.
Apparently she crossed a line with Obama with comments she has made on the Iran Nuclear fiasco basically suggesting Kerry was snookered by Iran. Obama sure was quick to pull the trigger here. There may have been some back-channel communication that went awry. He didn't like her move to the middle. She tried recently to run back out towards the left but I think Obama already realized she would savage his legacy during her campaign in the General Election.
Frankly Obama is doing the right thing here. This woman is the most arrogant, dishonest and corrupt person to ever be considered for higher office in the modern era.
If Hillary did wind up in prison (unlikely, her legal team would have to make a specific series of errors for that to happen) I'm sure Bill will remain on his best behavior while she is in the hoosegow.
The IG request to the DOJ for criminal investigation of Hillary's breach of federal law and her security violations was leaked by...wait for it... Valerie Jarrett.
LOL.
That means Obama has decided that Hillary will not be President. He is King Maker. He doesn't like Elizabeth either so look for Bernie to be the nominee. He would probably really like to see Joe follow him into office but even the United States is not stupid enough to elect Joe Biden.
She will be able to plead out or go to trial. If she goes to trial the government can cite any other criminal activity in the recovered email traffic, like Hillary soliciting and receiving gigantic contributions to her "foundation" for favorable treatment on ITAR import/export restrictions and dozens of other deals made with foreign countries for profit.
Is she going to prison? That isn't clear and she may dodge some of the security violations (but will never hold a clearance for the remainder of her life) but the Document Retention violations are impossible to dismiss and those are going to probably result in convictions and suspended prison sentence so basically 5 years probation, loss of voting rights, loss of firearms privileges and lifetime ban on holding public office.
Apparently she crossed a line with Obama with comments she has made on the Iran Nuclear fiasco basically suggesting Kerry was snookered by Iran. Obama sure was quick to pull the trigger here. There may have been some back-channel communication that went awry. He didn't like her move to the middle. She tried recently to run back out towards the left but I think Obama already realized she would savage his legacy during her campaign in the General Election.
Frankly Obama is doing the right thing here. This woman is the most arrogant, dishonest and corrupt person to ever be considered for higher office in the modern era.
If Hillary did wind up in prison (unlikely, her legal team would have to make a specific series of errors for that to happen) I'm sure Bill will remain on his best behavior while she is in the hoosegow.
Last edited:
Add this to the lengthy list of reasons of why Hillary will never be President...
She believes in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Climate Change Fantasy.
Hillary Clinton Calls Out GOP Climate Change Deniers in New 'Stand With Reality' Video
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hill...limate-change-deniers-stand/story?id=32701430
She believes in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Climate Change Fantasy.
Hillary Clinton Calls Out GOP Climate Change Deniers in New 'Stand With Reality' Video
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hill...limate-change-deniers-stand/story?id=32701430
New York Times tries to set record straight on botched Clinton email story
By Charles Riley
"Four days after a major error in a story about Hillary Clinton's emails, the New York Times has published an editors' note laying out what went wrong.
"The note, published late Monday night, said The Times' initial story was based on "multiple high-level government sources," but acknowledged that as the paper walked back its reporting, corrections were slow to materialize, and substantial alterations "may have left readers with a confused picture."
"The original story was published Thursday night. It initially claimed federal inspectors general had requested a criminal investigation into Clinton's email use during her tenure at the State Department.
"Over the next few days, the story had numerous changes, including that the investigation request was for a "security" referral, which is far short of a criminal investigation. In addition, Clinton was no longer named as a target.
"The Times wrote a new article on Friday afternoon, which clarified the nature of the investigation. But the original story was not fully corrected in a timely manner.
"The original article ... was not altered online until Saturday morning to take account of the change in description of the referral from 'criminal' to 'security.' Editors should have added a correction sooner to note that change," the editors' note said.
"The Times quickly came under intense scrutiny for both getting the story wrong and failing to indicate changes had been made.
"Earlier Monday, Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet acknowledged that readers had been "whipsawed" by the changes. "We should have explained to our readers right away what happened here, as soon as we knew it," he said.
"But Baquet stopped short of blaming the reporters or editors involved.
"You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral," he said. "I'm not sure what they could have done differently on that."
"The editors' note published Monday echoed that sentiment. On Friday, a Justice Department official confirmed to Times reporters that a "criminal investigation" had been requested, the note explains. Later in the day, when it became clear that information was faulty, officials "did not expand on why their earlier description was incorrect."
New York Times editor calls Clinton email coverage 'a mess'
"Public Editor Margaret Sullivan had a harsher view of the story's handling. Noting the use of anonymous sources, she wrote that, "continuing to develop it [the story] the next day would have been a wise play. Better yet: Waiting until the next day to publish anything at all."
"She also critiqued current trends in journalism that she said include the "rampant use of anonymous sources," and the hyper pace of journalism in the digital era.
"Sullivan said there is a "need to slow down and employ what might seem an excess of caution before publishing a political blockbuster based on shadowy sources.
"I'll summarize my prescription in four words: Less speed. More transparency," she said."
-- Ahiza Garcia contributed reporting.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/27/media/new-york-times-clinton-email/index.html
By Charles Riley
"Four days after a major error in a story about Hillary Clinton's emails, the New York Times has published an editors' note laying out what went wrong.
"The note, published late Monday night, said The Times' initial story was based on "multiple high-level government sources," but acknowledged that as the paper walked back its reporting, corrections were slow to materialize, and substantial alterations "may have left readers with a confused picture."
"The original story was published Thursday night. It initially claimed federal inspectors general had requested a criminal investigation into Clinton's email use during her tenure at the State Department.
"Over the next few days, the story had numerous changes, including that the investigation request was for a "security" referral, which is far short of a criminal investigation. In addition, Clinton was no longer named as a target.
"The Times wrote a new article on Friday afternoon, which clarified the nature of the investigation. But the original story was not fully corrected in a timely manner.
"The original article ... was not altered online until Saturday morning to take account of the change in description of the referral from 'criminal' to 'security.' Editors should have added a correction sooner to note that change," the editors' note said.
"The Times quickly came under intense scrutiny for both getting the story wrong and failing to indicate changes had been made.
"Earlier Monday, Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet acknowledged that readers had been "whipsawed" by the changes. "We should have explained to our readers right away what happened here, as soon as we knew it," he said.
"But Baquet stopped short of blaming the reporters or editors involved.
"You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral," he said. "I'm not sure what they could have done differently on that."
"The editors' note published Monday echoed that sentiment. On Friday, a Justice Department official confirmed to Times reporters that a "criminal investigation" had been requested, the note explains. Later in the day, when it became clear that information was faulty, officials "did not expand on why their earlier description was incorrect."
New York Times editor calls Clinton email coverage 'a mess'
"Public Editor Margaret Sullivan had a harsher view of the story's handling. Noting the use of anonymous sources, she wrote that, "continuing to develop it [the story] the next day would have been a wise play. Better yet: Waiting until the next day to publish anything at all."
"She also critiqued current trends in journalism that she said include the "rampant use of anonymous sources," and the hyper pace of journalism in the digital era.
"Sullivan said there is a "need to slow down and employ what might seem an excess of caution before publishing a political blockbuster based on shadowy sources.
"I'll summarize my prescription in four words: Less speed. More transparency," she said."
-- Ahiza Garcia contributed reporting.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/27/media/new-york-times-clinton-email/index.html