IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags e-mail scandals , Eric Hothem , hillary clinton , politics scandals

Closed Thread
Old 7th March 2015, 08:23 AM   #241
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,864
I really have to wonder about comments suggesting the critique over Hillary's use of a personal email account are conspiracies. Granted I can see where people argue about hypocrisy with the critiques, but when you strip politics from the equation it boils down to:

A) The use of personal emails is essentially illegal in the sense that the law dictates record keeping in the event that there are FOIA requests to disclose the emails, which... using the personal email account cripples the capacity to do so. Especially after said person has left office.

and

B) If sensitive intel or state information was transmitted it doesn't live up to the same security measures as required.

How some commentators concluded this was the new Benghazi conspiracy I don't know, must be driven by partisan politics, rather than an assessment of the risks involved with breaking policy...

Didn't an ambassador under Hillary's S.O.S. office have to resign for something similar?

I don't care what happens to Hillary on this per se, but there needs to be a policy enacted and enforced so that matters like this come up less often, particularly if the case is going to be made that she's not the first to do this sort of thing.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 7th March 2015 at 08:31 AM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 08:29 AM   #242
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...nghazi-attack/
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 08:31 AM   #243
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post

I don't care what happens to Hillary on this per se, but there needs to be a policy enacted and enforced so that matters like this come up less often, particularly if the case is going to be made that she's not the first to do this sort of thing.
Agreed
Does it surprise that Hillary Clinton has taken something like this to a new level?

If she wins the presidency, it will be scandal after scandal.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 09:17 AM   #244
OmegaWolf
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Again, there is nothing to say her setup was hastily put together or that it was not "locked down". Which is an extremely odd phrase for someone in the computer industry to use. I don't know what "locked down" even means.

It's a common term in the industry. It's used in cyber defense whitepapers by the SANS Institute (ever heard of them?), documentation by Microsoft, RedHat, IT security auditors, etc. Microsoft even provided a "Lockdown Tool" for IIS version 6. If you're unfamiliar with the term, why did you comment on whether Clinton's server was locked down or not?
OmegaWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 10:08 AM   #245
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Agreed
Does it surprise that Hillary Clinton has taken something like this to a new level?

If she wins the presidency, it will be scandal after scandal.
This is why I've been saying for 8 years she's unelectable. Her very existence offends (R)s enough to get out the vote in opposition. In an era of abysmally low voter turnout this can make a big difference. Just look at Obama - he excited the (D) voters enough to bring out the low-frequency voters. Clinton would have had a much harder time against McCain, even saddled with Palin.

Clinton doesn't need to do anything actually wrong for the low-information (R) to decide she most be guilty of some damn thing or another, mostly informed by echo chamber noise of dubious accuracy.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 10:17 AM   #246
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
This is why I've been saying for 8 years she's unelectable. Her very existence offends (R)s enough to get out the vote in opposition. In an era of abysmally low voter turnout this can make a big difference. Just look at Obama - he excited the (D) voters enough to bring out the low-frequency voters. Clinton would have had a much harder time against McCain, even saddled with Palin.

Clinton doesn't need to do anything actually wrong for the low-information (R) to decide she most be guilty of some damn thing or another, mostly informed by echo chamber noise of dubious accuracy.
Plus the low information D voters are going to be offended that she embarrassed Obama by holding on to all her own emails on her cowboy/homebrew server, and the high information voters too!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 10:19 AM   #247
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Is characterizing her server as "cowboy/homebrew" accurate or useful in any degree? I haven't see the hardware and software specs for the system.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 10:28 AM   #248
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
Is characterizing her server as "cowboy/homebrew" accurate or useful in any degree? I haven't see the hardware and software specs for the system.
I've posted at least three detailed articles discussing the specs, take a look.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 11:11 AM   #249
Sherkeu
Master Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 2,623
Originally Posted by OmegaWolf View Post
I just had to chime in here. The above statement is false and smacks of inexperience with email servers. Microsoft Exchange server, just as an example, can be configured (and most often is in enterprise settings) to retain and backup deleted messages, even hard-deleted messages that bypass the "deleted messages" folder. This is how administrators are able to restore messages for users that inadvertently hard-delete messages. Our system retains these for 90 days.

Just to clarify this further (and correctly), let's say your account receives an email at 11:00 p.m., the server runs it backup at midnight. The backup is archived, and the next morning you delete the message. Do you think it magically disappears from the off-site, archived backup, too? In this example, the deleted message is archived even if the server is NOT configured to retain deleted messages because it was backed up before it was ever deleted.

I'm confident that .gov servers do retain and archive all deleted items -- that's part of the importance of using them. Obviously the concern with Clinton managing her own server is that she has complete control over what is retained and what is and is not backed up and archived. And if her staffers were also issued accounts on the same server, then both sides of the email conversation are controlled and no record of it will exist elsewhere.
Thanks for this. I'm in software sales and I know most of my enterprise customers do their back-ups between 12-3am nightly. That info is almost never changed. The end-user certainly could not do it. (New entries are used to reconcile mistakes or changes.) But I really didn't know much about specific email servers...and nothing about .gov, except that it should be pretty robust. But...the government. You know?
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 11:33 AM   #250
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
Thanks for this. I'm in software sales and I know most of my enterprise customers do their back-ups between 12-3am nightly. That info is almost never changed. The end-user certainly could not do it. (New entries are used to reconcile mistakes or changes.) But I really didn't know much about specific email servers...and nothing about .gov, except that it should be pretty robust. But...the government. You know?
Equally as absurd was the suggestion from plague that Hilary could have deleted emails from the .gov server at any time. Hell she would not have gone roque with her cowboy/home brew server if that was true.

Given that she could delete emails, I think the burden is on her to show they were not deleted.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 11:38 AM   #251
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
I've posted at least three detailed articles discussing the specs, take a look.
We have 250 posts in the thread. Throw me a clue which page? I haven't had my knickers in a twist on this so I let the thread get longer than my attention span. Sorry. I'll try harder to stay OCD about every damn post on the forum next week.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 11:49 AM   #252
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Equally as absurd was the suggestion from plague that Hilary could have deleted emails from the .gov server at any time. Hell she would not have gone roque with her cowboy/home brew server if that was true.

Given that she could delete emails, I think the burden is on her to show they were not deleted.
Given that you could have murdered a homeless person, I think the burden is on you to show that you never murdered a homeless person. Oh, wait, it doesn't work that way, does it? Do you have any evidence that anything was deleted?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 11:51 AM   #253
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Given that you could have murdered a homeless person, I think the burden is on you to show that you never murdered a homeless person. Oh, wait, it doesn't work that way, does it? Do you have any evidence that anything was deleted?
And that's why the government requires the emails to be on their own servers, as their systems actually meet the record collection rules that document actions.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 11:52 AM   #254
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
And that's why the government requires the emails to be on their own servers, as their systems actually meet the record collection rules that document actions.
Did the government have that requirement at the time in question? Seems from reading this thread that it did not.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 11:56 AM   #255
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
as Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Nate Cardozo put it: "Clinton's decision to forgo the State Department's servers is inexplicable and inexcusable."
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
We have 250 posts in the thread. Throw me a clue which page? I haven't had my knickers in a twist on this so I let the thread get longer than my attention span. Sorry. I'll try harder to stay OCD about every damn post on the forum next week.
Sure thing buddy.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 12:00 PM   #256
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Given that you could have murdered a homeless person, I think the burden is on you to show that you never murdered a homeless person. Oh, wait, it doesn't work that way, does it? Do you have any evidence that anything was deleted?
Yes, actually it does work that way, friendo.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 12:01 PM   #257
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Yes, actually it does work that way, friendo.
No, not in America.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 12:01 PM   #258
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Did the government have that requirement at the time in question? Seems from reading this thread that it did not.
Yes the state department had that requirement, I posted Hilary's cable above.

Take a gander.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 12:04 PM   #259
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
No, not in America.
Sigh. Yes actually, American courts change the burden where there is evidence of misconduct in connection with the retention and production of documents.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 12:09 PM   #260
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Sigh. Yes actually, American courts change the burden where there is evidence of misconduct in connection with the retention and production of documents.
Do you have evidence of misconduct?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 12:11 PM   #261
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Do you have evidence of misconduct?
Yes, it has been posted extensively in this thread.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 12:44 PM   #262
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,548
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Do you have evidence of misconduct?
No. I have extensively reviewed every post in this thread. So far no evidence of misconduct has been presented.

Originally Posted by 16.5
Yes, it has been posted extensively in this thread.
Sez you.

Yet I can't find those posts. How can this be?
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 12:45 PM   #263
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
No. I have extensively reviewed every post in this thread. So far no evidence of misconduct has been presented.

Sez you.

Yet I can't find those posts. How can this be?
It appears the evidence of misconduct was the possibility of misconduct. Color me unconvinced.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 12:58 PM   #264
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Sigh. Yes actually, American courts change the burden where there is evidence of misconduct in connection with the retention and production of documents.
Maybe she needed a private email acct. so she could stay off the radar while managing the Benghazi cover-up.

Otherwise "Clinton had private email acct." ain't gonna rock the world for very long, no matter how hard you spin it.

It seems like, eventually, Republicans will have to offer something besides guns, war, religion and fear.

But maybe not. America is a fading power, and American living standards are in decline. The US public is terrified of everything from Ebola to ISIS, and the US gov't showcases its global impotence on a daily basis. Maybe a purely reactionary stance will be enough to carry the electorate in such a climate.

You can hope, eh?
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 01:03 PM   #265
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
No. I have extensively reviewed every post in this thread. So far no evidence of misconduct has been presented.

Sez you.

Yet I can't find those posts. How can this be?
Color me unsurprised that you were unable to find evidence of misconduct in this thread.

Take a look back at the article I posted regarding State Departments failure to turn over documents to Gawker, because Hilary failed to turn over the documents in her possession.

Put this in perspective, Hilary basically converted US Government documents when she became a private citizen.

If Joe Sixpack did that, he'd be in prison. Clinton is "negotiating" with the US Government regarding what she will turn over.

Put in jail for a couple of days, and we'll see whether we can shake loose the government's property.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 01:04 PM   #266
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
snip
Ok. by-eee!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 7th March 2015 at 01:25 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 02:27 PM   #267
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Did the government have that requirement at the time in question? Seems from reading this thread that it did not.
The rules for record-keeping were in existence during her term in office.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politi...ing/index.html

The National Archives and Records Administration, the government agency that regulates the Federal Records Act, issued guidance in 2009 -- the same year Clinton took over at State -- that allowed agency employees to use personal accounts as long as they ensured "that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Waiting for a request that came 2 years after she left office doesn't fit that criteria.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 03:34 PM   #268
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
The rules for record-keeping were in existence during her term in office.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politi...ing/index.html

The National Archives and Records Administration, the government agency that regulates the Federal Records Act, issued guidance in 2009 -- the same year Clinton took over at State -- that allowed agency employees to use personal accounts as long as they ensured "that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Waiting for a request that came 2 years after she left office doesn't fit that criteria.
That's an odd source to use to support your point.

From your link:

Quote:
However, it is currently unclear whether Clinton broke a State guideline dating back to 2005 that suggested "normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an (authorized information system), which has the proper level of security control."

Those guidelines were filled with exemptions that could allow Clinton to use a private account.
Quote:

"Under federal regulations, there is no prohibition on using a personal email for official business as long as any records are preserved," the official said. "Reports claiming that by using personal email she is automatically in violation of that FAM [Foreign Affairs manual] are inaccurate."
Quote:
The National Archives and Records Administration, the government agency that regulates the Federal Records Act, issued guidance in 2009 -- the same year Clinton took over at State -- that allowed agency employees to use personal accounts as long as they ensured "that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.
quixotecoyote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 03:49 PM   #269
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 897
Quote:
that allowed agency employees to use personal accounts as long as they ensured "that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.
But they weren't "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system". Not unless Hillary's private servers count as the "appropriate agency recordkeeping system".
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 04:13 PM   #270
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,548
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
But they weren't "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system". Not unless Hillary's private servers count as the "appropriate agency recordkeeping system".
Evidence that federal records were not preserved in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system?

Why are we even having this debate? Oh yeah, because we need something to pin on Hillary.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 04:14 PM   #271
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
But they weren't "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system". Not unless Hillary's private servers count as the "appropriate agency recordkeeping system".
This, and it bears repeating that she was a private citizen for the last two years.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 04:18 PM   #272
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Evidence that federal records were not preserved in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system?
Wait, so:

1) The emails that were requested of Hillary aren't federal records?

2) The emails requested of Hillary were already in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system, but for some reason the government requested them from Hillary rather than using its own archive?

3) Something else?
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 04:46 PM   #273
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Evidence that federal records were not preserved in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system?

Why are we even having this debate? Oh yeah, because we need something to pin on Hillary.
You think the new york times was looking to pin something on Hillary???
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 04:48 PM   #274
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post

Clinton doesn't need to do anything actually wrong for the low-information (R) to decide she most be guilty of some damn thing or another, mostly informed by echo chamber noise of dubious accuracy.
This is astounding. President Clinton was getting BJ's in the oval office. His wife road his coat tales everywhere he went, they are a team of corruption that will only intensify if she's elected.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 05:28 PM   #275
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
The reason Bill was able to get BJs in the Oval Office is because he was still on the job at 1am. The only 20th century presidents I would bet never ever got a bj on the job are Carter, because he is the most (possibly only) honest, decent, moral person to hold the job and Nixon because nobody would want him. Not that Bill getting willingly seduced by an admitted crush-junkie has anything to do with Hillary. And the only reason that even came to light is because an investigation of a land deal that metastasized into a "we're sure they did SOMEthing wrong, we just haven't found it yet" fishing expedition.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 05:31 PM   #276
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
And thanks for proving my assertion. Bill's BJs affect hillary's record only in the echo chamber and only get brought up by the extra-low-information "voter."
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 05:44 PM   #277
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
That's an odd source to use to support your point.

From your link:
Not if you understand the point I was making and the point I was not making. I've never said that she couldn't use a private account. In fact, I said the email account is the red herring.

I said she had a responsibility under the law to provide the emails to the archives and make available to the public under the FOIA laws. A duty she never met during her time in office. And never met until about 2 years after she left.

Even if everything in the emails are totally legit and she turned over everything she should have, it's the tardiness of doing so that is the problem. Her library book was over due and people are fighting over her right to check out the book or not and ignoring the fact she returned the book way past due. Whilst this library never had a time limit on when the book was due during her tenure, I find 6 years from day it was first checked out to be unacceptable.

Had the national archives not requested her to return her book, when do you think she planned on returning it? How much time should any politician be allowed to comply with the law?
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 05:52 PM   #278
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
And thanks for proving my assertion. Bill's BJs affect hillary's record only in the echo chamber and only get brought up by the extra-low-information "voter."
Oh I see, I suppose it doesn't alarm you that Hillary is married to a serial rapist/predator?
Remember Hillary saying if you elect one, you get two?

Why is it so difficult for liberals to admit what these two people are?

Last edited by logger; 7th March 2015 at 05:55 PM.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 05:56 PM   #279
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
Not that Bill getting willingly seduced by an admitted crush-junkie has anything to do with Hillary.
lol

Yes, nothing to do with her at all.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 06:40 PM   #280
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
I mean beyond the obvious bit where she's ugly as a mud fence and any guy who already likes to get a bit of strange would take a BJ from a titsie groupie instead of wandering half way across the White House to wake her up for a midnight screw.

Or did you have something else in mind?
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.