You're changing the question.

Yes, I'm sure Clinton was out behind the shed like old John Henry just smashing away.

From what I've read an admin was asked to clean up her email archives a year earlier, forgot, had his oh bleep moment then did it after the fact. Clinton knew nothing about it.

Don't you render your electronics useless when you recycle them so nobody can get your personal data? Do you have a hammerless method to do this to a phone?

How many were simply lost?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service :eek:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

I use my phone for both my work and my private email. Now who's the genius?… Me obviously . because the woman you want to be president couldn't figure it out . Ik
On phone number three since the bag phone , yes I'm that old , and I have my old ones still .
Pretty good considering I'm more tech than Hillary and she had 13 phones and a few iPads.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Everything stated above is total bull#^&#^&#^&#^& 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

CNN said last nit hat according to the FBI report, the original request to delete the emails came before the subpoena. But after the subpoena was delivered to team Clinton, the IT company told them "we haven't deleted these emails yet, what do you want us to do", and Team Hilary said "go ahead and delete them."

And if Hilary can't grasp that a "C" means classified, then can you seriously claim she is up for this job?

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

If for example I was to say...Don't burn our #&*$ down we need our #&*$ take that #&*$ to the suburbs, burn their #&*$ down we need our weaves.

https://youtu.be/2ukE60gaRIk

Or how about...."Burn this mother#&$*er down" referring to the city.

https://youtu.be/MLlDzWt7TPc

What do you suggest for a penalty?

What about Hollywood, would scripts and actors be exempt? Would existing movies that have what you consider objectionable language have to be destroyed so they can't been seen again?

Would Broadway be exempt or would plays like West side Story need to be prohibited?

Won't this disproportionately effect the non Caucasians who write and produce the majority of rap songs, I suppose it will mean no more royalties for offensive lyrics that are currently producing income for that sector.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

Really....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-handling.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because it doesn't fit your narrative of Hillary as a Bond villain?

How come they keep releasing, releasing, releasing and nothing sticks? Is your lack of faith in our best investigators that bad?

Do you read any of this stuff before you post it?

Yes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it means "Confidential" which is a classification.

The FBI described what it found:

"The FBI identified three email chains, encompassing eight individual email exchanges to or from Clinton's personal email accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked '(C),' a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level."

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is your point.
She didn't know what she was signing or......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it.

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

And she's still leading by a wide margin :hee:

More from those wacky left winger Clinton lovers at the FBI.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/im.../07/comey2.pdf

Stop making excuses.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually she doesn't even recall having any instructions or training on classified information. Does that sound normal to you ?

Also she's not leading at all anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Electoral college. Come on Buck...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, Spence, another investigation would reveal that you sent that email. :hee:

No, it was not an impossibly high standard to use State Dept. servers instead of her own private one.

We do differ then - I think all speech should be allowed. Why allow someone to think they are a fool when you can remove all doubt.

The next issue is when people can wrangle themselves into a position where they can define what speech is free and what speech is not, there is no more Free Speech.

I don't always agree with Milo but I love how he gets all these institutions of higher learning into a two minutes of hate frenzy. Then emperor has no clothes.

I don't know the full scope, content, and context of his post, but singular persons do insult each other. Milo gets more than his share of "attacks" against him. That does seem to be a form of entertainment for most who read verbal battles. I would guess that forums like Twitter attract that sort of thing along with the colosseum like responses. Don't they have thumbs up and thumbs down icons?

If you want a fuller understanding of what he is about, read and listen to his explanations rather than what is said about him or rather than just personally interpreting and reacting.

I previously posted this link :http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/0...the-alt-right/
It will give you an insight from his perspective on his use of provocation.

And the video I posted as the subject of this thread paints a different portrait of him than what one might interpret from his provocative memes if they weren't familiar with his more serious commentary.

Neither you nor Spence have commented on that video. Instead, you've talked about perceptions and opinions that paint him as some vicious danger to society.

In the video, among a whole lot more, he says things like "the point of a civilized society is to live together in harmony despite differences." There is a lot of serious cultural, political, and societal meat to digest in the video. But it seems the provocative stuff from other sources is all that interest y'all. And the motivation and purpose of that stuff is not understood or is misinterpreted.

you got issues :btu:

sadly I made commitments and watched your link you just dont like my response.. ^^^ he sprinkled his whole interview with those caveats then rants on about Importing Muslims how he is an agent of chaos the only one being provocative is him ... but pleases make him the victim he is not understood or is misinterpreted.. he is very clear how he sees the world

I am not suggesting banning anything prior to speaking it to prevent hurt feeling. I am saying Once a thing is said you need to face the possible repercussions for that speech ... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

ummmmm...the large majority of the violence we've seen recently as a result of politics and speech has been courtesy of the left....who may we hold accountable for encouraging it?

wait...I've got this....

if a republican says something and republicans act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a republican says something and democrats act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a democrat says something and democrats act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a democrat says something and republicans act violently the republican(s) is responsible

I'm starting to figure out this progressive accountability thing :laugha:


question...if a republican says something a democrat doesn't like and a democrat yells "get him" and violence ensues....who should be held accountable for the violence ?

Can't answer the question can you. Your the one who has issues with the first amendment and want it changed, not me.
You are the one who wants to silence people not me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, did the head of the FBI state that she was "extremely careless", yes or no?

Maybe she didn't break the law. Maybe. But the FBI affirmed that she was extremely careless with sensitive information.

We get to decide how much we care. Most Democrats won't hold it against her. You are one of the very few who refuse to concede that there was any kind of a lapse in judgment.

And the fact that (1) 2 days before the announcement, Bill was on the Attorney General's plane for a private chat , and (2) the day after the announcement, the Hilary campaign said they'd consider keeping Loretta Lunch as AG...those things speak for themselves.

Oh right, tell that to Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter, both of whom have blood on their hands.

WDMSO, when, exactly, do you see conservatives engaging in feral riots?? When? It doesn't happen. Riots are just about always, a tool of the left. Why is that?

Speech should not lead to violence in a free society . Yet it does. Just because I don't agree with (or intend to vote for) Trump do I think he should not speak. I also don't think people should violently protest outside his rally - yet they do. Protest - absolutely - violence no.

BLM protest? Sure thing. Violence no. Block a highway? Endanger others or prohibit commerce? No.

In some cultures free speech can get you killed. That should not be here.

The Left, Progressives included, have been willing and effective agents of chaos. The Left has always required the destruction of free society. The Left is authoritarian not libertarian. It has to impose its authority over any pocket of libertarian culture. Free people are a threat to its notion of an orderly society--to its notions of justice, fairness, equality. Freedom, actually, to authoritarians, IS chaos.

The Left doesn't consider its smashing of cultural liberalism as chaos, even though it creates an ensuing chaos. Because that is merely a necessary step along the way to its version of order and justice.

So, yes, Milo sees himself as an agent of chaos. But it is a libertarian chaos, the chaos of freedom. You have to open-mindedly listen to his serious discussions to understand that. If you just dismiss the idea that he is serious about actual freedom for all, including the categories you've brought up (being "gay,"he is one of those categories) because of his provocative method of stirring up the pot, you will miss that ultimately important point.

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

"Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership"

That's fair. I can't stand Trump, but in total, I think he is better (God help us). But you make it seem like everyone who is saying she did anything inappropriate, is on a witch hunt, of has the facts wrong. And you believe everything she says, without question, always.

You downplay everything. You are the only person who will not concede that she lied about coming under sniper fire. I have never, ever heard anyone else deny that she lied. It causes you to lose all credibility, because it's not reasonable to say she didn't lie (unless you think she actually believes that she got shot at, in which case you are saying she is delusional).

"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"

True. It was a horrible, horrible nomination. See, I can admit that. I can admit flaws, even serious flaws, in my own candidate, when the evidence is clear. And that makes one of us.

"the net value of her leadership"

She voted for the Iraq war, in her own words, "with conviction".

Then, when General Petreus pitched the idea of the Surge, she said that to believe the Surge would do what he claimed, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". Those were her exact words. In other words, she accused the man of lying. And of course, the Surge did exactly what they hoped it would do.

As Secstate, she inherited a stable Iraq. When she resigned, it was in chaos.

Net value? It's debatable...and a serial liar, to boot. But if the election were today, I think it would be an electoral landslide for her.

"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"

And do you know why that is? Because people on my side are way more capable than people on your side, of being critical of fellow Republicans. On your side, all that matters is protecting anyone with a D after their last name. Her disapproval ratings are astronomical also, but you don't see liberals breaking ranks.

No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

I have never seen you agree with anyone's criticism of her, not once.

"I've said many times she has flaws "

And your list of said flaws, does not include "lied about coming under sniper fire".

Nor does it include "lied when she said Bill wasn't cheating on her, and compounded that lie by saying that the GOP was framing him to make it look that way".

Would one of those flaws be being trusted with or even knowing the meaning of classified information ? Seems the most qualified person in America should know what the "C " stands for .
I know you realize this, but you twist what Donald Trump says and does , while accusing others of twisting what Hillary Clinton is .
I keep it wondering what's in it for you ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually you've said she didn't know nor should she have....that's a tad different....

Isn't that what the Trump reality organization used to indicat that the person applying for the apartment was Black and to not rent to them?