Reply With Quote
I am a Bernie supporter. Winehole highlighted this personality flaw of yours - you don't allow people to agree with you because of all the assumptions you make about them.
not defending Hillary, I reject her personally or policy-wise.people defending Hillary is really, really funny.
I attack the Repug witch hunt. A difference you rightwingnut assholes can't get your pea brains around.
Repugs know that none of their Klowns has chance electorally, so they try to destroy her. But Bernie polls as beating Trump by 10 points.
I am a Bernie supporter. Winehole highlighted this personality flaw of yours - you don't allow people to agree with you because of all the assumptions you make about them.
Who is leading the investigation and what branch are they taking orders from, pea brain.
I dunno about dismiss, but the real meat of this is if she broke the law, right? In that case, substance would show up in the form of an indictment (if it ever materializes).
Absent that indictment, is there much substance at all to this, other than the political pandering?
what about reports the FBI is pissed off and might start leaking things since Obama doesn't want to indict (probably covering up for himself more than Shillary imo)? if those reports are true (and perhaps they're not), you still think it's political pandering?
Bend over, I'll show you an expanding probe.
That's the problem with "reports", "secret sauces" and "leaks" about what's supposed to be a secret investigation, it's hard to tell what's made up or not. The an hesis of substantial.
Even if it were to be true, does it really matter how they feel? I suppose they'll have to wait until next November and see if the GOP wins to press ahead. Then again, the DoJ might just burn everything by then.
I'm not a fan of Shillary, and I wouldn't doubt for a second she's into something fishy (again), but until we see and indictment it's hard to tell what's really fiction and what isn't.
at boukaki's delusional fantasy that Bernie could actually be President.
What is disturbing is that so MANY YOUNG people (who are gonna vote for a long time) are falling for his message. I keep reminding myself of what my son's teacher said when his classmates were going gaga at the thought of free x, y, z, "Free everything sounds good until they start taking it out of YOUR paycheck." That shut everyone up.
say what you want about Bernie, he isn't promising free . he's been upfront about raising taxes to pay for it.
I still haven't heard from the Bernie fans (boutons did respond about marginal rate) on my question if they're okay with Danny Green getting taxed 73% on $2 million to $10 million and 77% over $10 million.
are you ok with it?
why or why not?
I'm definitely not okay with it. I am a fiscal conservative. We can't even afford what they're spending now - much less all that other stuff. The country is over $18 trillion dollars in debt. I believe one should not spend more than what's coming in whether it's an individual/family or the government.
I use Danny Green as an example because we are all (usually) Spurs fans and understand that he has a very limited time to earn money to secure the rest of his life. I haven't calculated how much tax he'd pay on just his salary (not counting his ads, endorsements, investments) but it's outrageous.
And this isn't even touching on what it does to an individual when you get "free" stuff without working for it, what happens to the incentive to risk your hard earned money for your return to be taxed so heavily, etc.
much better fantasy than having ANY of your Repug Klowns ever sniff the WH.
le 18 part 1, check 101
2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, do ent, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this le or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, do ent, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this le or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
What cons utes "willfully and unlawfully"?
It's like 2008 all over again. Bernie has more momentum at this point.
http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/...123-story.html
GOP panel on Benghazi finds no Obama administration wrongdoing
What does your indictment against Clinton say she actually did, counselor?
I always find it interesting when people project personal ethics into policy discussions as if government operates and behaves like you and me. The Contract With America rhetoric still getting play in GOP circles decades and Newt's failure later is just gold.
More Wing-nut nuttery with no proof.....
Defending implies that Hillary did something wrong.....you haven't proven she did anything illegal other than your political pandering...
The way this thread is trending..the le of this thread should be changed to "FBI Clinton probe expands to public 'opinion" track.... really....
She certainly made some wrong choices. Whether they were illegal or not is the only real question. Unless youre a wingnut.
Petraeus didn't even lose one star for giving classified info to his buddy. Maintains full military pension. Where's the Repug outrage of their bogus "he won Iraq" hero?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
