All the emails Hillary Clinton sent had to go to somebody and all those she received came from somebody. I assume the folks investigation that are interested in those sent to or received from other government officials. Why can't those emails be recovered from the servers of those who exchanged emails with her? She can delete and wipe out anything she wants but shouldn't it all still be available on the servers others used?
Question about the Clinton Emails
- Thread starter 3Rfan
- Start date
As NM said they'd like to see what business she conducted outside of government servers and they don't know where all she sent them. It's kind of silly to worry about it now. Anything she doesn't want us to see is already gone. Too bad she won't just take the millions her and Bill accumulated on our dime and go away too. Has anyone ever been such a lightning rod in our history! Everything she touches leaves smoke coming from it. Can't we just move on from her and give someone else a try. It'll be a sad day if she gets elected Pres.
A
ag-man
Guest
Your honey Palin would be a good choice.
They accumulated millions on my dime?? Maybe she can do what her husband did and get the USA out out of debt if she is that talented. It would be worth it.
One of the reasons smoke comes out of what she touches is because the the pubs are running scared (with a hand full of matches and a fan I might add).
Her presidency will be a lot like Presidents Obama and Clinton. She won't be given a chance from the git-go. That is the pubs mantra.
They accumulated millions on my dime?? Maybe she can do what her husband did and get the USA out out of debt if she is that talented. It would be worth it.
One of the reasons smoke comes out of what she touches is because the the pubs are running scared (with a hand full of matches and a fan I might add).
Her presidency will be a lot like Presidents Obama and Clinton. She won't be given a chance from the git-go. That is the pubs mantra.
I think there can be some good candidates but getting one elected is a different story. And even if they do the political system would be so strong against them that they can never accomplish anything really good. It is indeed sad times.
The one thing that ALWAYS comes to my mind when I think of the Clinton White House..........
there was HUNDEREDS OF MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS spent, and all they ever found was a Stained Blue Dress.
To this day, 43 years later, the Far Right Republican Lunitic, Leg Humping, Jesus Freaks of this once Noble, Center Right Leaning Political Party of The People, are still trying to find their Watergate Moment.
there was HUNDEREDS OF MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS spent, and all they ever found was a Stained Blue Dress.
To this day, 43 years later, the Far Right Republican Lunitic, Leg Humping, Jesus Freaks of this once Noble, Center Right Leaning Political Party of The People, are still trying to find their Watergate Moment.
Name a major political figure who isn't a lightning rod in 2015.
The country is too polarized for anyone to become President without becoming one.
I don't think Rubio can win in California. There won't be enough water for him to campaign there.
A
ag-man
Guest
I would have to agree NM,
His positions on taxes, the deficit and foreign policy, I can agree with.
His position on Global Warming, not so much.
All in all, a charismatic, conservative, pro-life, intelligent, catholic Hispanic man who came from humble beginnings to the success that he now is.............. sure to drive Democrats crazy.
Rubio has the Obama/Clinton/Bush/Kennedy vibe. Young, dynamic person. Avoids saying truly crazy things. Sells the dream of America. Some big donors love him. He's everything you want in a politician.
The Republican opposition to climate change is demagoguery for the base, they're basically all lying to you. See Gingrich, Newt. Basically all of the serious candidates know it is real but they have to lie about it to get elected and to keep a subset of the donors happy.
At some point it's not tenable. It's not a logical core position of the party. Skepticism about the efficacy of government action is; denial of science isn't, especially given the movement in Fortune 500 companies around acceptance of global warming.
I believe global warming is the next gay marriage, the leaders of the R party are largely ready to leave the issue behind, and a surprising % of large Republican donors (basically, a lot of the non-oil/gas ones) are supportive of action.
The Republican opposition to climate change is demagoguery for the base, they're basically all lying to you. See Gingrich, Newt. Basically all of the serious candidates know it is real but they have to lie about it to get elected and to keep a subset of the donors happy.
At some point it's not tenable. It's not a logical core position of the party. Skepticism about the efficacy of government action is; denial of science isn't, especially given the movement in Fortune 500 companies around acceptance of global warming.
I believe global warming is the next gay marriage, the leaders of the R party are largely ready to leave the issue behind, and a surprising % of large Republican donors (basically, a lot of the non-oil/gas ones) are supportive of action.
Last edited:
Marco Rubio: a Reactionary Big Government Man
by SHELDON RICHMAN
Republican presidential aspirant and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio gave a major foreign-policy speech recently, and the best that can be said is that he did not claim to favor small government and free markets. What he wants in a foreign policy couldn’t possibly be reconciled with any desire to limit government power. Rubio is for big government no matter what he might say on the campaign trail.
He acknowledged this when he said, correctly, “Foreign policy is domestic policy.”
Rubio set out a doctrine with three pillars, none of which which should comfort anyone who understands, as the great libertarian writer Albert Jay Nock noted, that political power displaces social power. The three pillars are: “American Strength,” “protection of the American economy,” and “moral clarity regarding America’s core values.” All three display a hubris typical of a big-government advocate, including those of the conservative variety.
Regarding strength, Rubio wants you to believe that America’s ability and eagerness to project global power prevents war, while “weakness” promotes it: “the world is safest when America is at its strongest.”
Where has he been this century? Does he not know that U.S. power knocked out Shiite Iran’s chief regional adversary (Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime in Iraq), in turn giving rise to a more-virulent form of al-Qaeda (ISIS), which controls large parts of Iraq and Syria while extending its influence to Africa and elsewhere? Contrary to Rubio, violent disorder has been the direct outcome of George W. Bush’s post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Barack Obama’s 2011 declaration of open season on Bashar al-Assad in Syria and bombing of Libya. (Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks of course followed decades of U.S. intervention on behalf of, among others, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel.)
It’s not that the U.S. government should have sided with Saddam, Assad, and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, all secular rulers. Rather, the point is that the exercise of American power is most likely to muck things up. If government can’t manage health care (as Rubio believes), how can it manage regime changes in foreign societies? Why don’t conservatives ever ask themselves this?
Rubio thinks Obama, who’s hardly a dove, hasn’t war-mongered enough. The Republican wants even more confrontation — with Russia, China, Cuba, and North Korea. What he calls strength is just recklessness. Rubio’s speech demonstrates his unfitness for office (assuming anyone is fit for office).
He says he wants to spread freedom and other values, but he must realize that what American drones, bombers, and special ops spread are death and social upheaval. Again, where has Rubio been?
“America did not intend to become the world’s indispensable power,” Rubio said, adding, “America is the first power in history motivated by a desire to expand freedom rather than its own territory.” Here he adds historical demagoguery to political recklessness. From the start, many American rulers, who embraced empire, intended to make America the continental, hemispheric, and even world hegemon. War was an option, and no one — not the Indians, Spanish, English, French, or Russians — would thwart destiny. Rubio’s glorification of American “strength” is reactionary.
His second pillar, protection of the American economy, also shows his attraction to government power. Although he invokes “free trade,” Rubio embraces “trade’s role as a tool of statecraft that can bolster our relationships with partners and create millions of jobs.” So much for the free market. Again, Rubio is a reactionary. Most American presidents believed that trade was not a matter for free enterprise but a government program designed for politically objectives, including the benefit of special interests. (The military-industrial complex must be licking its chops.)
Rubio says he will promote, as his third pillar, moral clarity regarding America’s core values. Are those the same core values promoted by America’s embrace of dictators and monarchs in the Middle East (and elsewhere) and Israel’s decades-long oppression of the Palestinians, which Rubio supports? Note well that Rubio’s values do not include privacy. He wants to protect the NSA’s PATRIOT Act bulk-data-collection program.
Rubio seeks to “restore America’s status as a nation that shapes global events rather than one that is shaped by them.” We can’t afford another ruler with such hubris.
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog “Free Association” and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society.
I don't think Rubio is running as the candidate of the libertarian right.
He's in the core of the R party.
He's in the core of the R party.
I think that's a big challenge for him. But I think we are in a new world now where 1-3 good donors could make you competitive in a primary
Dude every time you post an article the first thing I do is look at the source. It's usually some trippy Libertarian/Anarchist site. Then I decide from there if it's worth my time to read it. I literally laughed out loud when I clicked on the cited source.
I did like this tidbit.
Regarding strength, Rubio wants you to believe that America’s ability and eagerness to project global power prevents war, while “weakness” promotes it: “the world is safest when America is at its strongest.”
There are many ways to look at that. But what do I know. Could he perhaps mean a strong America as in both economically and military? Of course the writer makes the assumption to what he wanted. And I love the anti-jew sentiment in the article. Gotta love the way he paints the Palestinians as the tortured group.
Essentially he based his opinion around three separate quotes for his three pillars to write a BS piece.
#unbiasedreporting
#standwithrand
Words mean something. Rubio is just another big gubmint republiberalcan.
You'll enjoy voting for him someday.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
I could swear they also found a President who lied about having Whitewater documents that had been subpoenaed still in his possession in the private resedence of the wHite house 3 years after he swore they had been destroyed and no longer existed.,,,,,The same President who lied under oath to a federal judge. The same President who had sex in the White House with an employee of his. ,,,,and you guys are all over a Missouri Republican Sexting with a Young Intern????? He ad least had the courage to step down from his position when it came out and he didnt do anything against the law.
Both Clintons should be in jail and if there is such a thing as Karma they will be before they die and go to hell
How many soldiers died for Bush's war of choice? How many Iraqi babies?
You GOPers sure have a funny sense of right and wrong.
Haven't decided what candidate I will support.
Won't matter because most will just vote party line.
'MURICA!
So, if people die in a war it is unjust or immoral?
How many American babies died during the Civil war or Revolutionary war? Were they unjust? What a fraud you are.
Why don't you Clinton lovers name some legitimate charities that have to keep re-filing their taxes to account for new found income? How many legitimate charities use less than a quarter of revenue on what the giving is supposed to do? How many......etc., etc., etc.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
You are just about completely clueless. It was Saddam Husseins war of choice. He invaded Kuwait a member state of the United Natioins and set the entire timeline in Motion. Daddy Bush kicked the crap out of him,(his only mistake was not driving to Bagdad and taking over the county). Clinton Declared they had WMD (which they did and still have tons of it that are now under ISIS control) and he bombed the hell out of them twice further escalating the war. Then Bush finally sent troops in to finish the job but didnt throw enough manpower at it. He finally got the country secure and Obama has let it fall completely apart.
your kids must turn your computer on and get it to MOSPORTS every day for you dont they??
I never said one word about your friend an confidant sexting the intern. He stepped down and this makes him your hero??? He was about to get his a$$ handed to him, he stepped down because he's a coward. I would say with all the hate in your heart you are the one headed for hell.
Last edited:
God forbid someone see a distinction between an elective war of choice and a war for the existence of the country.
The answer is too many. A huge % of NFP tax returns are a mess.
It's pretty scandalous what qualifies as a charity or a religion under the tax code.
Also unless you read a different Fox News story than me, the supposed issue is they didn't separately disclose details on certain contributions made which she was Sec. State, not that they didn't properly account for them as revenue. It's about the sourcing of the revenue which she was Sec. State, not the amount of revenue overall.
That's not a tax issue, that's a related-party transactions issue.
I don't care that John Diehl sexted an intern. It was a consensual relationship. He should have been allowed to keep his job.
Saddam invaded Kuwait in 2003? I must have missed that.
Every argument you are making is a case for why the US should never have gone to Iraq in 2003.
Stop! Let them put their ignorance on display for all to see.
The kicker is they're going to vote for the same old same old when Jebby gets appointed. Family of fail.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
I never said he did in 2003 did I???,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,same dang war guys. SAdam violated the terms of the cease fire over and over and as soon as he fired the first SAM at a young American pilot patrolling the no-fly zone the war was back on legally because he violated the cease fire agreement. Clinton was too busy with Monica to do anything except have the Air Force bomb the hell out of them for a couple of weeks. Bush and Monica had to clean up the mess Clinton left. Not sure which job was harder.
Next president is going to inherit a Middle East from Obama in total disarray, he reminds me of the Gov in Blazing Saddles
See^^^^
One thing you can be sure of from GOPers..they will never accept responsibility or admit they're wrong.
I didn't say all wars are equal but babies being killed doesn't determine their justness as Veer implied.
The point is that the Clintons "foundation" isn't about charitable acts. It does just enough to "qualify" as charitable but is not there to be charitable.
There are WAY to many such foundations but those who keep claiming the Clinton Foundation is a charity are not trying to be accurate.
Your diversion doesn't show you to be interested in accuracy either.
I would consider voting for a Pub if they would just come up with a plan on anything that made sense, but all they can do is talk about how terrible Obama's policies are then when pressed on what they would do different they are speechless.
