So today I got my annual piece of paper that I am required to sign, stating that I will protect all data within my reach.

It states that if I mishandle data in any way that I can be punished up to and including, loss of job and imprisonment.

Before I signed it I thought to myself, hmmmmm, WWHD???

Be careful what you say about HRC. You may be the next acquaintance of hers to end up dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Be careful, you may have unintentionally posted an item that is on your secure calendar, like General Petreaus did, and lost his job and barely missed imprisonment and lucky to get a 2 year suspended sentence / probation.

Now, if it is on your private email server in the cabinet over your bidet, you are OK.

/sarc

Be careful, you may have unintentionally posted an item that is on your secure calendar, like General Petreaus did, and lost his job and barely missed imprisonment and lucky to get a 2 year suspended sentence / probation.

Now, if it is on your private email server in the cabinet over your bidet, you are OK.

/sarc
Ummm, he knowingly and willingly disclosed classified information to his mistress. Big difference...

Ummm, he knowingly and willingly disclosed classified information to his mistress. Big difference...


Hillary knowingly and willingly stored tens of thousands of government related documents - some sensitive and some classified - in an insecure and illegal place. Far worse.

Ahhhhh, no big deal John, convenience is always more important than security....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She's just soooooo important......did you see this tidbit.....amazing.

http://www.networkworld.com/article/3088707/security/state-department-turned-off-spam-filters-for-hillary-clinton.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary knowingly and willingly stored tens of thousands of government related documents - some sensitive and some classified - in an insecure and illegal place. Far worse.
Your statement is simply not true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If he loses the word "Illegal"......it would then be spot on.

But there is still time for that word to be added later.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She's just soooooo important......did you see this tidbit.....amazing.

http://www.networkworld.com/article/3088707/security/state-department-turned-off-spam-filters-for-hillary-clinton.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your source of information says a lot... about yours and others Hillary obsession ... but the Donald calls for the return of waterboarding against Islamic State militants, saying: "I like it a lot." but all is :kewl:

Ms. Smith (not her real name) is a freelance writer and programmer with a special and somewhat personal interest in IT privacy and security issues. She focuses on the unique challenges of maintaining privacy and security, both for individuals and enterprises. She has worked as a journalist and has also penned many technical papers and guides covering various technologies. Smith is herself a self-described privacy and security freak.

your source of information says a lot... about yours and others Hillary obsession ... but the Donald calls for the return of waterboarding against Islamic State militants, saying: "I like it a lot." but all is :kewl:

Ms. Smith (not her real name) is a freelance writer and programmer with a special and somewhat personal interest in IT privacy and security issues. She focuses on the unique challenges of maintaining privacy and security, both for individuals and enterprises. She has worked as a journalist and has also penned many technical papers and guides covering various technologies. Smith is herself a self-described privacy and security freak.

Still trying to see what your point is? Network World a Right wing source of news???? She works in IT and is concerned about Security and Privacy issues so her article is invalid???

Maybe if Hillary was as obsessed with IT Security and Privacy, as the writer, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.

Is ABC news better?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-dept-appears-disabled-security-features-blocking-clintons/story?id=40078931

and I love how because I think Hillary is unfit to be president that I MUST be a Trump supporter.....I think he is equally unfit as well...just for different reasons.

If he loses the word "Illegal"......it would then be spot on.
Also need to lose the knowingly and willingly parts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Still trying to see what your point is? Network World a Right wing source of news???? She works in IT and is concerned about Security and Privacy issues so her article is invalid???

Maybe if Hillary was as obsessed with IT Security and Privacy, as the writer, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.

Is ABC news better?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-dept-appears-disabled-security-features-blocking-clintons/story?id=40078931

and I love how because I think Hillary is unfit to be president that I MUST be a Trump supporter.....I think he is equally unfit as well...just for different reasons.
Your ABC News article refutes your Network World article. To be honest I wish you'd fact check your own posts more often :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Also need to lose the knowingly and willingly parts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're saying that's another Checkmark in the "Too Stupid" column....

Your ABC News article refutes your Network World article. To be honest I wish you'd fact check your own posts more often :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe you should read the whole article.....

"Following much deliberation, the IT staffers at the State Department decided to temporarily disable at least one “anti-spam filter.” After the fixes were made, one staffer wrote, “We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it is not 100% full effective.”

im curious how much spence is getting paid by the hillbot campaign.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

im curious how much spence is getting paid by the hillbot campaign.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he's probably getting paid in nude polaroids and soiled panties....

Bills panties?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His aren't on long enough to get soiled

soiled panties....

Ewe....my first thought was lobster bait, but then a drift chute for a 60'er seemed more likely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but the Donald calls for the return of waterboarding against Islamic State militants, saying: "I like it a lot." but all is :kewl:

.

Well, when multiple former heads of CIA say that waterboarding produced actionable intelligence, is the POTUS supposed to ignore that?

Hilary has nothing to worry about, she sent her husband to meet secretly with the attorney general, whose FBI is investigating Hilary. That's not the least bit suspicious!

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meet-privately-in-phoenix

Hilary has nothing to worry about, she sent her husband to meet secretly with the attorney general, whose FBI is investigating Hilary. That's not the least bit suspicious!

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meet-privately-in-phoenix

I believe Hillary has to be President or the #^&#^&#^&#^& is going to hit the fan when the truth about her finally comes out. The arrogance and obvious psychosis reminds me of a villan in a James Bond movie . I can't for the life of me figure out why an intelligent person like Spence continues to defend her . But then again I can't figure out why the media defends her .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe Hillary has to be President or the #^&#^&#^&#^& is going to hit the fan when the truth about her finally comes out. The arrogance and obvious psychosis reminds me of a villan in a James Bond movie . I can't for the life of me figure out why an intelligent person like Spence continues to defend her . But then again I can't figure out why the media defends her .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My father is by far, he most decent man I ever knew. His integrity can only be measured in megaton quantities. He has long been a Deacon in the Catholic Church. And he will never, ever vote for someone who isn't a Democrat. To him, if your name is Kennedy or Clinton, you walk on water. It's very hard to explain.

I believe Hillary has to be President or the #^&#^&#^&#^& is going to hit the fan when the truth about her finally comes out. The arrogance and obvious psychosis reminds me of a villan in a James Bond movie . I can't for the life of me figure out why an intelligent person like Spence continues to defend her . But then again I can't figure out why the media defends her .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I remember in 2008, when Bill Clinton didn't know the cameras were on, he said to Ted Kennedy, something like "a few years ago, that guy (Obama) would be serving us coffee". And today, his approval rating among blacks is about 100%. Nobody holds them accountable for anything they do.

Now, now - lets not confuse Spence's desire to Baghdad Bob the Hillary Campaign for being a paid shill for them. Clearly he does it for free. And please no overly derisive comments.

your source of information says a lot... about yours and others Hillary obsession ... but the Donald calls for the return of waterboarding against Islamic State militants, saying: "I like it a lot." but all is :kewl:

Ms. Smith (not her real name) is a freelance writer and programmer with a special and somewhat personal interest in IT privacy and security issues. She focuses on the unique challenges of maintaining privacy and security, both for individuals and enterprises. She has worked as a journalist and has also penned many technical papers and guides covering various technologies. Smith is herself a self-described privacy and security freak.

NetworkWorld? A Bad source? It is an IT networking magazine around for 30 years - probably have a few hundred copies lying around between home and work, more in the landfill.

For an IT guy it is the equivalent to a magazine called PAINT for Painters, FOOD for a chef, and WORKERS SOLIDARITY for Bernie. A tool of the trade.

For the technical response it is scary because disabling the filters is different and significantly beyond merely whitelisting HRC's personal email server. There was also a fairly significant difference in Trend SMEX 8 and SMEX 10 (11 is the current version). Also, some of these systems use lookup services from other vendors and are admant about not letting things through from coming from "Known Spammers" or bad domains. So if her server or one of the client computers had been infected and was spamming viruses / malware and was being explicitly blocked, her email might not get through even if on a whitelist - requiring the State IT department to disable the ScanMail for Exchange system - basicaly the anti-virus / anti-malware scanning system for the state departments email.

If I did that I and compromised a client system would be fired. If my client told me to do that I woulld have them sign an AGA release (Against Geek Advice). If I did that at a .GOV I might go to jail.

Sounds to me like the IT guys had been beaten up by poli-weenies above them in the chain of command.

Still trying to see what your point is? Network World a Right wing source of news???? She works in IT and is concerned about Security and Privacy issues so her article is invalid???

Maybe if Hillary was as obsessed with IT Security and Privacy, as the writer, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.

Is ABC news better?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-dept-appears-disabled-security-features-blocking-clintons/story?id=40078931

and I love how because I think Hillary is unfit to be president that I MUST be a Trump supporter.....I think he is equally unfit as well...just for different reasons.

I wan't sure where you stood on him , I apologize for that assumption
my comparison was to highlight peoples outrage over an email server and her need for Jail time yet trumps support of torture and his willingness to use it.. which is clearly illegal and morally wrong many have no problem with him committing a defined Crime .. but feel, she has committed a crime with the server ??
not saying she wasn't wrong or Stupid or got poor advise but come on

my comparison was to highlight peoples outrage over an email server and her need for Jail time yet trumps support of torture and his willingness to use it.. which is clearly illegal and morally wrong many have no problem with him committing a defined Crime .. but feel, she has committed a crime with the server ??
not saying she wasn't wrong or Stupid or got poor advise but come on

Not sure where you are getting your info. The US Justice Department signed off on the use of waterboarding. That necessarily means it's not a crime. They said it was within the law, and they are the authority on that. When the lawyers for the Justice Dept tell you that something is legal, that means it's legal.

Hilary is being investigated for possibly breaking the law.

Apples and oranges.

People are free to decide whether or not to hold Trump or Hilary accountable for his support of waterboarding, or her belief that the rules don't apply to her.

I am no fan of Trump and do not think I will vote for him.

You are pilloring Trump for commenting on something he may do if elected President while whitewashing something Hillary DID do while SecState. You were in the service and did a tour over there, how would you feel if your team and your buddies were jeopardized due to the Secretary of State using an unsecure system so her emails would be not subject to FOIA requests?

Both parties and both administrations have sacrificed good men and women at the feet of effing Politics and Party. It is horrible.

How many times did someone in Washington or Tampa go and eff you guys over with the long screwdriver? Hillary, through her design to circumvent the system to protect her own ass DEGRADED the national security of this country. The Russians were reading the mail of arguably the second most important and influential national figure in the United States.

Spence will argue otherwise as he is want to do.

I am no fan of Trump and do not think I will vote for him.

You are pilloring Trump for commenting on something he may do if elected President while whitewashing something Hillary DID do while SecState. You were in the service and did a tour over there, how would you feel if your team and your buddies were jeopardized due to the Secretary of State using an unsecure system so her emails would be not subject to FOIA requests?

Both parties and both administrations have sacrificed good men and women at the feet of effing Politics and Party. It is horrible.

How many times did someone in Washington or Tampa go and eff you guys over with the long screwdriver? Hillary, through her design to circumvent the system to protect her own ass DEGRADED the national security of this country. The Russians were reading the mail of arguably the second most important and influential national figure in the United States.

Spence will argue otherwise as he is want to do.

in the world of of hypotheticals yes there is a very slim possibilities the email issue could have impacted operations on the ground .. but I know for a Fact that if Trump becomes POTUS he has definitely put every Service member at risk with his statement on torture even if he dosn't change the policy who or what countries are going to thinks thats True?

Hillarys emails even if hacked Dont forget our friend Israel. were stolen not given to or enemies by hillary unlike like Snowden who many who want her in jail hail him as a Hero..

I am no Fan of Hillary but i take issues with the GOP and there investigation after investigation and investigation hearing and hearing all in the hopes of finding something like in the Ken Star days and come up with Nada .. all while the infrastructure and bigger problem get little attention and Americans suffer for it .. but their base gets all the attention for votes its crazy

I found this and sums up it up better than I can ..

There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down.

Not sure where you are getting your info. The US Justice Department signed off on the use of waterboarding. That necessarily means it's not a crime. They said it was within the law, and they are the authority on that. When the lawyers for the Justice Dept tell you that something is legal, that means it's legal.

Hilary is being investigated for possibly breaking the law.

Apples and oranges.

People are free to decide whether or not to hold Trump or Hilary accountable for his support of waterboarding, or her belief that the rules don't apply to her.

Jim you just said what spence has been saying about the email thing ( if at the time it wasn't illegal how can it be Illegal now ) that seem to be your stance on the topic ... but currently it is not legal for the CIA or the Military .. to waterboard


Executive Order 13491, issued by Barack Obama on January 22, 2009 (two days after Obama's inauguration) revoked Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007. It restricted the CIA and other Executive Agencies to proceed with interrogations "strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations [Army Field Manual 2 22.3] prescribes".[9] Persons associated with the U.S. government were advised that they could rely on the manual, but could not rely upon "any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3,


you mean this guy

http://lawnewz.com/video/bush-doj-lawyer-who-actually-approved-waterboarding-says-trumps-policy-violates-federal-law/

Waterboarding is illegal, says US justice department official

Now, now - lets not confuse Spence's desire to Baghdad Bob the Hillary Campaign for being a paid shill for them. Clearly he does it for free. And please no overly derisive comments.



NetworkWorld? A Bad source? It is an IT networking magazine around for 30 years - probably have a few hundred copies lying around between home and work, more in the landfill.

For an IT guy it is the equivalent to a magazine called PAINT for Painters, FOOD for a chef, and WORKERS SOLIDARITY for Bernie. A tool of the trade.

For the technical response it is scary because disabling the filters is different and significantly beyond merely whitelisting HRC's personal email server. There was also a fairly significant difference in Trend SMEX 8 and SMEX 10 (11 is the current version). Also, some of these systems use lookup services from other vendors and are admant about not letting things through from coming from "Known Spammers" or bad domains. So if her server or one of the client computers had been infected and was spamming viruses / malware and was being explicitly blocked, her email might not get through even if on a whitelist - requiring the State IT department to disable the ScanMail for Exchange system - basicaly the anti-virus / anti-malware scanning system for the state departments email.

If I did that I and compromised a client system would be fired. If my client told me to do that I woulld have them sign an AGA release (Against Geek Advice). If I did that at a .GOV I might go to jail.

Sounds to me like the IT guys had been beaten up by poli-weenies above them in the chain of command.

My point was . if your not willing to attach your name to a story .. how is anyone to verify you know what you claim to know or even know what your talking about... thats all

Sounds to me like the IT guys had been beaten up by poli-weenies above them in the chain of command YOUR SPOT ON THERE :)

in the world of of hypotheticals yes there is a very slim possibilities the email issue could have impacted operations on the ground .. but I know for a Fact that if Trump becomes POTUS he has definitely put every Service member at risk with his statement on torture even if he dosn't change the policy who or what countries are going to thinks thats True?

Hillarys emails even if hacked Dont forget our friend Israel. were stolen not given to or enemies by hillary unlike like Snowden who many who want her in jail hail him as a Hero..

I am no Fan of Hillary but i take issues with the GOP and there investigation after investigation and investigation hearing and hearing all in the hopes of finding something like in the Ken Star days and come up with Nada .. all while the infrastructure and bigger problem get little attention and Americans suffer for it .. but their base gets all the attention for votes its crazy

I found this and sums up it up better than I can ..

There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down.


The Benghazi investigations and the Judicial Watch FOIA requests are what uncovered the Hillary email handling. And they had roadblock after road block put up in front of them.

The Benghazi commission raised some interesting points that would not have been raised otherwise. And yes, the did fairly well establish that the Obama Admin politicized the event (Hillary and Rice) to benefit Obama with an election just under 2 months away. To support their Narrative.

WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?

And it frankly doesn't matter whether Hillary gave emails or they were stolen because they WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

"
There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down."

THat you Spence :faga:

My point was . if your not willing to attach your name to a story .. how is anyone to verify you know what you claim to know or even know what your talking about... thats all

So that invalidates a well written (from an IT standpoint) article?

Sounds to me like the IT guys had been beaten up by poli-weenies above them in the chain of command YOUR SPOT ON THERE :)

Haha

The IT guys were freaking out about this - I don't know it for fact but every IT guy I know (that is not a Hillbot) would hate this

Not sure where you are getting your info. The US Justice Department signed off on the use of waterboarding. That necessarily means it's not a crime. They said it was within the law, and they are the authority on that. When the lawyers for the Justice Dept tell you that something is legal, that means it's legal.
Bush had a DOJ attorney write a memo asserting they felt waterboarding would be legal under the circumstances. That doesn't *make* it legal, but it gives the Admin some cover to justify their actions in the future if necessary.

The arrogance and obvious psychosis reminds me of a villan in a James Bond movie .
And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.

So that invalidates a well written (from an IT standpoint) article?

Does not invalidate.. nor Validates the article .. no name no skin in the game
[COLOR=Red]

Haha

The IT guys were freaking out about this - I don't know it for fact but every IT guy I know (that is not a Hillbot) would hate this
..

The Benghazi investigations and the Judicial Watch FOIA requests are what uncovered the Hillary email handling. And they had roadblock after road block put up in front of them.

The Benghazi commission raised some interesting points that would not have been raised otherwise. And yes, the did fairly well establish that the Obama Admin politicized the event (Hillary and Rice) to benefit Obama with an election just under 2 months away. To support their Narrative.

WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?

And it frankly doesn't matter whether Hillary gave emails or they were stolen because they WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

"
There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down."

THat you Spence :faga:

WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?

they are on the short list of potential Countries who got the supposed hacked emails

And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.

You have it backwards. She created the evil villain not I .
She voted for going to Iraq so actually she helped get us there .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim you just said what spence has been saying about the email thing ( if at the time it wasn't illegal how can it be Illegal now ) that seem to be your stance on the topic ... but currently it is not legal for the CIA or the Military .. to waterboard


Executive Order 13491, issued by Barack Obama on January 22, 2009 (two days after Obama's inauguration) revoked Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007. It restricted the CIA and other Executive Agencies to proceed with interrogations "strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations [Army Field Manual 2 22.3] prescribes".[9] Persons associated with the U.S. government were advised that they could rely on the manual, but could not rely upon "any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3,


you mean this guy

http://lawnewz.com/video/bush-doj-lawyer-who-actually-approved-waterboarding-says-trumps-policy-violates-federal-law/

Waterboarding is illegal, says US justice department official

The U.S. justice dept signed off on what bush did. Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has. If it was as simple as saying that what she did was legal at the time, why is obamas justice dept investigating?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.
If memory serves, she was a huge proponent of invading Iraq. Your criticism of the hawks seems, well, quite selective, does it not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If memory serves, she was a huge proponent of invading Iraq. Your criticism of the hawks seems, well, quite selective, does it not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Your memory fails you. Perhaps you never understood it to begin with?

Your memory fails you. Perhaps you never understood it to begin with?

Again, an insult with no facts, shocker. You're saying I'm wrong that supported the invasion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?

they are on the short list of potential Countries who got the supposed hacked emails


True: Russia, China, Iran, and Israel are all reported to have accessed her illegal server. Of those four, Israel is the only one that would consider us friendly, no matter how poor relations had gotten over the past 8 years*. I would also guess that they were both grinning ear to ear (friendly nation states do spy on friendly nation states) alternating with a lot of WTFs.

Suspected of having some access and for having told US Intelligence groups: Germany, UK, and a few other countries. I would assume Israeli contacts would say the same thing off the record to US intelligence folks over a beer.

Other reports (harder to verify) have it that the entire contents of her server - more than what the the FBI and State have - are available for sale on the darkweb.





* Currently reading Bob Gates: DUTY

Again, an insult with no facts, shocker. You're saying I'm wrong that supported the invasion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Don't you remember? She voted for it before she didn't vote for it.

Again - reading Gates: Duty (interesting book BTW) in a meeting with Obama and Hillary, they both admited to their stances on Iraq in the initial invasion and for Hillary, the Surge, as being political votes to keep happiness in their party, above the best interests of the country.

Personally - too many politicians from both sides play that game, putting our kids at risk for political gain. Just because politicians have been doing it for thousands of years does not make it right.

Again, an insult with no facts, shocker. You're saying I'm wrong that supported the invasion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."

She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.

If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.

I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."

She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.

If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.


The IAEA inspections were working? There was some agreement on the status of atomic research by the Iraqis but not on Chem or Bio, where they were being stonewalled.

The IAEA inspections were working? There was some agreement on the status of atomic research by the Iraqis but not on Chem or Bio, where they were being stonewalled.
There was certainly stonewalling on inspections but the IAEA said they could get the job done if given time. The sanctions absolutely were working...

That why they couldn't put it up for another UN vote, they couldn't make the case.

I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."

She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.

If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.

wow...that's an impressive steaming pile :rotf2:

There was certainly stonewalling on inspections but the IAEA said they could get the job done if given time. The sanctions absolutely were working...

That why they couldn't put it up for another UN vote, they couldn't make the case.

Maybe Bush just needed to draw a red line in the sand .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The U.S. justice dept signed off on what bush did. Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has. If it was as simple as saying that what she did was legal at the time, why is obamas justice dept investigating?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has.

So much for innocent until proven guilty .. and thats the issue your all ready convinced like Benghazi reguardless of the evidence presented

but you'll trust the DOJ with Waterboardering approval but anything less than hang her from the DOJ ion email and its Fixed :huh:

the new defense of the 21 or so Benghazi hearing and investigations is

Well we found out about the email server ..

thats like investigating someone for for murder and not getting a conviction but finding out they are stealing cable and hold that up as a success spending millions of dollars for a cable crime that may or may not be a punishable under the law

thats like investigating someone for for murder and not getting a conviction but finding out they are stealing cable and hold that up as a success spending millions of dollars for a cable crime that may or may not be a punishable under the law


No, it is not like stealing cable. The email issue and the security implications are actually worse than what may or may not have happened at Benghazi

I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."

She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.

If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.

"I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq"

Who said this...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction"

Who said that?

a) #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney
b) Atilla The Hun
c) Sean Hannity
d) Hilary Clinton

Now go to the Huffington Post and ask your fellow world travelers how to respond when you have backed yourself into a corner from which there is no escape.

"With conviction" means you are convinced that it needs to be done. That means you are not wishy-washy on the decision. It's the opposite of undecided.

Who said this...

Source?

I mean a credible one, not the made up quote you posted.

Source?

I mean a credible one, not the made up quote you posted.

Hillary: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQPZid18zcm6sK0Ae2Jt2jZ5UwwqMybIi
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry for your quandary, Kevin... But I would really appreciate getting back the 15 seconds I wasted figuring out who the hell H is.... I sure as hell aint going to waste anymore of my time reading dribble that has anything to do with her.... Please refrain from such in the future as life is precious to some of us,,,,,,:devil2:

Hillary: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQPZid18zcm6sK0Ae2Jt2jZ5UwwqMybIi
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He said a credible one 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Source?

I mean a credible one, not the made up quote you posted.

You might want to lie down before you watch this. Not merely a transcript, but a video of her speech. I suppose you'll tell us that this is actually Newt Gingrich impersonating her. You watch this, and tell me if I'm wrong that she believed the invasion was the right thing to do. No wiggle room there, Spence, you dug yourself into a deep, dark hole on this one. Looking forward to your reply...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

You might want to lie down before you watch this. Not merely a transcript, but a video of her speech. I suppose you'll tell us that this is actually Newt Gingrich impersonating her. You watch this, and tell me if I'm wrong that she believed the invasion was the right thing to do. No wiggle room there, Spence, you dug yourself into a deep, dark hole on this one. Looking forward to your reply...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0
I love it. An edited video.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry for your quandary, Kevin... But I would really appreciate getting back the 15 seconds I wasted figuring out who the hell H is.... I sure as hell aint going to waste anymore of my time reading dribble that has anything to do with her.... Please refrain from such in the future as life is precious to some of us,,,,,,:devil2:

Sorry Ross, I wish I didn't have to waste my time with her either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just call her Thunderbutt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it is not like stealing cable. The email issue and the security implications are actually worse than what may or may not have happened at Benghazi

there are no security implications the deed and any damage is already done and the policy has been changed and we know what did happen in Benghazi and what didn't happen .. or do we need another investigation

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I will wait for the outcome of the investigation on the emails and accept the findings
will others ?

we'll have to wait and see .. but if past history is any indicator I dont hold out much hope

I love it. An edited video.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are utterly incapable of rational thought on these matters. But you are precious.

there are no security implications the deed and any damage is already done and the policy has been changed and we know what did happen in Benghazi and what didn't happen .. or do we need another investigation

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I will wait for the outcome of the investigation on the emails and accept the findings
will others ?

we'll have to wait and see .. but if past history is any indicator I dont hold out much hope

On the emails, we need to see if she broke the law. Spence would be completely satisfied with her saying that she didn't do anything wrong, but there was enough evidence there for the FBI (who works for a Democrat) to launch an investigation. Is no laws were broken, let's say that and move on.

there are no security implications the deed and any damage is already done and the policy has been changed and we know what did happen in Benghazi and what didn't happen .. or do we need another investigation

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I will wait for the outcome of the investigation on the emails and accept the findings
will others ?

we'll have to wait and see .. but if past history is any indicator I dont hold out much hope

I love how all the Hillary fans hang their hats on it not being illegal (yet)..

Was it careless - yes
Was it irresponsible -yes
Was it self serving - yes
Was it illegal - TBD

Just the qualities I want in the next president.....a self-serving, careless, irresponsible person who likes to work the loopholes.....

What she did was wrong.....period. She bypassed safeguards for her own convenience.Doesn't matter what the FBI finds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are utterly incapable of rational thought on these matters. But you are precious.
Jesus Jim, they edit a video to manipulate her intent and you're like a moth to a flame.

I love how all the Hillary fans hang their hats on it not being illegal (yet)..
Well, to be fair to Hillary I haven't seen any evidence of illegal behavior on her part.

Well, to be fair to Hillary I haven't seen any evidence of illegal behavior on her part.

Perhaps, the FBI has seen some evidence. Or does the FBI investigate when there is no evidence for investigating?

I love how all the Hillary fans hang their hats on it not being illegal (yet)..

Was it careless - yes
Was it irresponsible -yes
Was it self serving - yes
Was it illegal - TBD

Just the qualities I want in the next president.....a self-serving, careless, irresponsible person who likes to work the loopholes.....

What she did was wrong.....period. She bypassed safeguards for her own convenience.Doesn't matter what the FBI finds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, it's amazing how not doing something "illegal" qualifies Hillary for President even though what she did was "wrong." Of course, when other past Presidents who were not of Hillary's political persuasions did wrong but not illegal stuff, that was sufficient to make them incompetent, unqualified, stupid, bad, and not worthy of the office.

But, we have to understand Progressive's use of Orwellian Newspeak. When applied to a Progressive, doing wrong is not wrong doing.

Or does the FBI investigate when there is no evidence for investigating?
The FBI didn't launch an investigation because they saw evidence of wrongdoing, the investigation was in response to a security referral by the IG over the potential for mishandling of information. That's an important distinction.

The FBI didn't launch an investigation because they saw evidence of wrongdoing, the investigation was in response to a security referral by the IG over the potential for mishandling of information. That's an important distinction.

I'm sure the 82 special agents are paying attention to that distinction .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, it's amazing how not doing something "illegal" qualifies Hillary for President even though what she did was "wrong." Of course, when other past Presidents who were not of Hillary's political persuasions did wrong but not illegal stuff, that was sufficient to make them incompetent, unqualified, stupid, bad, and not worthy of the office.
There are varying degrees of everything. Does being arrested disqualify someone for office? Didn't disqualify Bush.

Really I think one of the most important factors is intent. If Clinton was simply trying to perform under incredibly challenging circumstances people will largely give her a pass.

I'm sure the 82 special agents are paying attention to that distinction .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
There are not 82 special agents on this case, you got duped by a long since corrected piece of sloppy reporting.

Well, to be fair to Hillary I haven't seen any evidence of illegal behavior on her part.

nor would you ever :rolleyes:...blind partisanship

If Clinton was simply trying to perform under incredibly challenging circumstances people will largely give her a pass.

😂😂😂😂😂 That one will go down as a Spence Top Ten
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The FBI didn't launch an investigation because they saw evidence of wrongdoing, the investigation was in response to a security referral by the IG over the potential for mishandling of information. That's an important distinction.

Isn't "mishandling of information" doing something wrong?

😂😂😂😂😂 That one will go down as a Spence Top Ten
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's right, because she's a Bond villain. I had forgot about that.

That's right, because she's a Bond villain. I had forgot about that.

3.5 hour interview with the FBI today. I'm sure she lied somewhere during that interview . I don't think she could help her self
Good bye Clintons
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

3.5 hour interview with the FBI today. I'm sure she lied somewhere during that interview . I don't think she could help her self
Good bye Clintons
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes, because she's eeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllll lll...

Note she wasn't even subpoenaed. There's nothing there...

Yes, because she's eeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllll lll...

Note she wasn't even subpoenaed. There's nothing there...

When the FBI request an interview it's usually best to comply . Even if your name is Clinton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's right, because she's a Bond villain. I had forgot about that.

Actually, Bond villains are more transparent and honest than she is.

Yes, because she's eeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllll lll...

You are an extremist. Evil would have been sufficient.

The intent of having a private server that you can have control over is that you have the ability to wipe away emails instantly if needed. Think of it as the ultimate in paper shredding.

Illegal? Probably not.

Hillary is a snake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The intent of having a private server that you can have control over is that you have the ability to wipe away emails instantly if needed. Think of it as the ultimate in paper shredding.

I don't get this. You're communicating with people electronically. There will be a record of it somewhere...if the intent was to hide emails you'd never mix work and personal.

I don't get this. You're communicating with people electronically. There will be a record of it somewhere...if the intent was to hide emails you'd never mix work and personal.

Right there you just summed up why it was wrong for her to have her own server.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't get this. You're communicating with people electronically. There will be a record of it somewhere...

Which is why you keep all communications within a secure enclave, preferably encrypted. So that, at least, that record is only being viewed by people with a "Need to know"

if the intent was to hide emails you'd never mix work and personal.

The EXACT same thing can be said if you want to secure e-mails.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right there you just summed up why it was wrong for her to have her own server.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nobody, including Clinton has argued having her own server was the best thing to do.

Intent.

Well I guess that makes everything ok then....where do I cast my vote....that there is presidential material if ever I saw it :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well I guess that makes everything ok then....where do I cast my vote....that there is presidential material if ever I saw it :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This is a silly remark. Look at past presidents who have been regarded as successful and take inventory of their faults...

Nobody, including Clinton has argued having her own server was the best thing to do.

Intent.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Good, savvy, leaders avoid that road. Sloppy, incompetent, careless leaders often, if not usually, take us down that road.

Whether or not she broke some law may not be as important or telling in regards to her leadership ability as is her penchant for not choosing "the best thing to do." It is telling, as well, that you couch her mishaps in euphemisms such as her not arguing that something she did "was the best thing to do." You can't seem to be able to say that her blunders were stupid, careless, incompetent, or wrong. Nor can her media lackeys. Which is why it is necessary to have a gazillion hearings on Benghazi--each hearing uncovering what you consider an insignificant new thing, but, in your estimation, not worth the money spent, nor worth even talking about.

What is most useful in having more hearings is not letting what is important continuously be swept under the rug by a compliant media. Rather, it is to disable the media's spin and inattention which wipes away any thought or memory of the really important failure in policy. To keep hammering away at the obvious incompetence in leadership which needs to be the important "old news." To, eventually, force the media to recognize the flaws in her executive ability to lead this nation. All the hearings, even though they didn't convict her of doing something illegal, have plainly, but not explicitly, pointed out that Benghazi, under her leadership, was a failure. Foreign policy decisions, under her leadership, were flawed--wrong. And there was a pattern of failure as in the Russian reset--her support and push for the ousting of Qadaffi and Assad--her assessment of the so-called Arab Spring.

Foreign policy is one the most important responsibilities of POTUS. The media touts her accomplishments, her smartness, her Progressive bona fides. But it consistently overlooks or underplays her incompetence.

Each "investigation" chips away at her manufactured expertise. The overriding incompetence needs to be squeezed out of the information lock box in which the mainstream media hides and protects it. That is the important thing in this election year. Not whether she unintentionally broke some little law.

This is a silly remark. Look at past presidents who have been regarded as successful and take inventory of their faults...

Do you vet your kids babysitters with that same rationale.....meh, they all have their faults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a silly remark. Look at past presidents who have been regarded as successful and take inventory of their faults...

As you said: "There are varying degrees of everything." Getting a BJ in the oval office is not as disqualifying as a pattern of failed foreign policy decisions and wrong choices such as using the personal server. Nor are getting BJ's an indication of Presidential incompetence.

The proper time to take inventory of faults is before voting, not after one has already served.

But you don't even admit she has displayed serious faults. You choose to color them by seemingly harmless euphemisms such as not "the best thing to do."

Do you vet your kids babysitters with that same rationale.....meh, they all have their faults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What can happen if they wear condoms?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't get this. You're communicating with people electronically. There will be a record of it somewhere...if the intent was to hide emails you'd never mix work and personal.


Not everybody knows their deleted emails R out there some place floating around and the princess(hillary) is one of them....yes people do mix work and personals, they do it on FB.... and people R sometimes fired....:)

But you don't even admit she has displayed serious faults. You choose to color them by seemingly harmless euphemisms such as not "the best thing to do."
I've never said she's perfect, but I think he accomplishments far outweigh her flaws, even more so considering the alternatives.

I've never said she's perfect,

There you go again. The euphemistic way of hinting that she has little to no important flaw, even though her flaws are major as well as deadly and occurred while in political office.

but I think her accomplishments far outweigh her flaws,

That is ridiculous. But even if it were true, no matter if she had some nice accomplishments, her major incompetence in an important political office along with her chequered past and general untrustworthiness makes one wonder why she is the Democratic candidate. My guess is that her party and her followers want more of the same social disintegration, economic bankruptcy, and weak responses to real foreign threats to our existence.

even more so considering the alternatives.[/QUOTE]

Her demonstrated inability to properly execute leadership of the most powerful nation on earth has no alternative who is less dangerous than she is. As flawed as Trump is, he does not have the influence in his party to lead it into the same fiscal, social, and existential chaos that Hillary and her ultra-Progressive cohorts have in the Democrat Party.

And though both he and Hilary are narcissists, his is the classic personally self-centered kind which is less dangerous than the moral narcissism of Hilary, and of Progressives in general. His narcissism allows him to be flexible in things other than himself. Hers will not allow her to bend from Progressive ideology because it has become who she is and is the driving force of her narcissism, of her self love.

And, most importantly for me, The judges she would nominate for the Supreme Court, as well as the lower courts, would devastate the Constitution even more than has already been done.

Do you vet your kids babysitters with that same rationale.....meh, they all have their faults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Our sitters certainly do have faults, doesn't disqualify them from service.

That is ridiculous. But even if it were true, no matter if she had some nice accomplishments, her major incompetence in an important political office along with her chequered past and general untrustworthiness makes one wonder why she is the Democratic candidate. My guess is that her party and her followers want more of the same social disintegration, economic bankruptcy, and weak responses to real foreign threats to our existence.
She's the democratic candidate because she's the most qualified and has the passion to serve the people. Her resume is substantial to say the least. Nobody in positions of consequence has a perfect record, there's just too much that's out of your control, you have to look at the net...

Her demonstrated inability to properly execute leadership of the most powerful nation on earth has no alternative who is less dangerous than she is. As flawed as Trump is, he does not have the influence in his party to lead it into the same fiscal, social, and existential chaos that Hillary and her ultra-Progressive cohorts have in the Democrat Party.
She's never been POTUS, how can you say she's failed to "properly execute leadership of the most powerful nation on earth?'"

And though both he and Hilary are narcissists, his is the classic personally self-centered kind which is less dangerous than the moral narcissism of Hilary, and of Progressives in general. His narcissism allows him to be flexible in things other than himself. Hers will not allow her to bend from Progressive ideology because it has become who she is and is the driving for of her narcissism, of her self love.
I'm not sure narcissist is an appropriate label for Hillary, though it's a nobrainer for Trump.

There was a great article I read a few months ago about the other story with Clinton's emails...that they revealed she was a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those she worked with...that's not the trait of a narcissist, quite the opposite.

And, most importantly for me, The judges she would nominate for the Supreme Court, as well as the lower courts, would devastate the Constitution even more than has already been done.
Given Trump's tendency to chance positions on a whim I think you'd get a better result from Clinton...at least you know she'll nominate quality people.

Yes, because she's eeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllll lll...

Note she wasn't even subpoenaed. There's nothing there...

your conclusion is there is nothing there because you stated she was not even subpoenaed ? The FBI was going to if she had not come in to be interviewed(interrogated, whatever you choose to call it) on Saturday, so how can there be nothing there? It is all senseless since the people in charge have fixed things to get their way as usual.

I have concluded that Spence is playing games with you all and yes it is true that liberalism is a mental defect

She's the democratic candidate because she's the most qualified

According to the Constitution, she is no more qualified than anyone else who ran in the primaries

and has the passion to serve the people.

She has a passion to control the people. And to spend more money than we have to do it. And to act as an imperial President rather than a Constitutional one.

Her resume is substantial to say the least.

Her resume is substantially substandard politically and speckled with dubious activity in and out of politics.

Nobody in positions of consequence has a perfect record, there's just too much that's out of your control, you have to look at the net...

There is the impossible "perfect," and there is the penchant for making bad decisions. She falls in the latter category. Her desire to control is too great, and the net inadequate to disastrous.


She's never been POTUS, how can you say she's failed to "properly execute leadership of the most powerful nation on earth?'"

Her leadership as SecState was a failure in leadership for the most powerful nation on earth.

I'm not sure narcissist is an appropriate label for Hillary, though it's a nobrainer for Trump.

There are, as I pointed out and is pointed out in a new book by Simon, different kinds of narcissism. Hillary's type is the most dangerous.

There was a great article I read a few months ago about the other story with Clinton's emails...that they revealed she was a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those she worked with...that's not the trait of a narcissist, quite the opposite.

She has the trait of the moral narcissist.

Given Trump's tendency to chance positions on a whim I think
you'd get a better result from Clinton...at least you know she'll nominate quality people.

You would get far left, Progressive, anti-original Constitutional, leaning Judges. No matter what their "quality" is, the Constitution would be further degraded. And a more unlimited central government would be promoted. Trump has already named the kinds of Judges he would nominate. And they are far more in line with the Constitution.

There was a great article I read a few months ago about the other story with Clinton's emails...that they revealed she was a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those she worked with...that's not the trait of a narcissist, quite the opposite.


I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not sure narcissist is an appropriate label for Hillary, though it's a nobrainer for Trump.

There was a great article I read a few months ago about the other story with Clinton's emails...that they revealed she was a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those she worked with...that's not the trait of a narcissist, quite the opposite..

The book I referred to regarding Hilary's narcissism is I KNOW BEST: HOW MORAL NARCISSISM IS DESTROYING OUR REPUBLIC, IF IT HASN'T ALREADY by Roger L. Simon.

Simon summarizes moral narcissism as: "Ideas and theories and ideology … that people attach themselves to to such a degree that they define themselves because they believe in those ideas. And it doesn’t matter at all if those ideas work out in the real world; it’s how those ideas work out theoretically and are approved of by the masses."

He shows how the phenomenon has grown politically, on both sides of the aisle. And he specifically pointed out in an interview that Hilary is a moral narcissist, and that Trump is not, rather that he is just the classical non-ideological narcissist. Which, in Simon's opinion, makes Trump less of a danger than Hilary because the moral narcissist identifies self with ideology. So she, being a narcissist, will not bend from that ideology which defines her no matter how evident it is that her ideas don't work. It is the steadfast love of herself as identified by her ideology, her brand of morality, that must be maintained no matter the consequences. Whereas Trump, not being a moral narcissist, not being an ideologue, can be flexible in politics and change course when it is needed.

When you say it is not the trait of a narcissist to be "a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those she worked with.." you're not understanding that a moral narcissist can be genuine and caring and responsible to those she works with, especially if they hold the same ideology, and if they help her promote her ideas. But, regardless if she's all nicey-nice, a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility toward those she worked with or not, that has no bearing on her moral narcissism. No bearing whatsoever on her steadfast loyalty to her own self-identified ideology, no matter, again, what consequences may follow.

And, besides, there are articles that show Trump to be "a genuine and caring person with a sense of responsibility of those [h]e worked with..." Does that mean he is not a narcissist. Certainly not a moral narcissist.

And further besides, there are SEVERAL articles in which she is a nasty uncaring bitch toward those she worked with.

She's the democratic candidate because she's the most qualified and has the passion to serve the people.



I threw up in my mouth too :yak4: