Gyroscopic Investing

I think that you already know the answer.

Hillary did it for "convenience " she said. Didn't want to carry two phones for two email accts. Who wouldn't believe that?

It speaks to the dubiousness of governments who institute laws, but typically mean for those laws to apply to "other people", not necessarily themselves.

Big government is there to write rules "to protect the little people", but can't be bothered by following the same set of rules, because what they do is too important to be slowed down by following the little people rules.

What the heck you two dirty log cabin Republicans talkin' 'bout now?

MachineGhost wrote: What the heck you two dirty log cabin Republicans talkin' 'bout now?

Ha, well I don't think it's a purely partisan issue.  Certainly Republicans can engage in that same stuff.  The only difference would be that the Dems seem more hell bent on centralized control via Federal laws, whereas the Republicans tend to do it more on the state level.

MachineGhost wrote: What the heck you two dirty log cabin Republicans talkin' 'bout now?

MG, please pull your head out of that vat of curcumin and smell the roses! Hillary is out and about these days, spinning yarns and telling tales.

When the NY Times breaks a very unflattering story about a liberal (Hillary) and Sat Night Live effectively mocks Hillary you know you are in  trouble.

Fortunately there are signs  Bush may not be doing any better.  So perhaps we won't have either a Bush or Clinton in the white house.

How can I get in on her email system? I find gmail to be too big brotherly.

Answer to post question:  Almost any time she speaks, based on her track record.

... Mountaineer

Wasn't it she who once said something about the willing suspension of disbelief?

Honestly, after seeing her performance today I believe that she won't be the Democratic nominee. Elizabeth Warren should stay ready to take over their "first woman President " mantra.

Reub wrote: Honestly, after seeing her performance today I believe that she won't be the Democratic nominee. Elizabeth Warren should stay ready to take over their "first woman President " mantra.

I really don't want to have to take a shower after visiting the MSM, so what the heck did Hillary do (besides lie)?  Provide a quality link, please.

So my word's not good enough for you anymore?

Reub wrote: So my word's not good enough for you anymore?

Your word is fine, I just want details about what this uproar is about.

MG,

When hillary started as sect of state she set up her own private server in her house and used that for all her e-mail during the time she worked there.  Although a hacker discovered this ages ago, this only came out in the news recently.  She deleted all her "personal" e-mails on this account and will not let anyone access to the server to verify she didn't accidentally delete gov't related e-mails. We have to just trust her. So:

1.  In all the bengazi investigations, no one knew of this account so no one even knew to look to see if Hillary had any bengazi relevant e-mails in this server/account.

2.  There were large donations to the clinton charity from e.g. middle eastern nations even during the time she was working at state.  Separate "scandal", unless there are e-mails relevant to these e.g. favors she would do in return for the donations.

3.  If nothing else there were rules saying that she had to use gov't e-mail account and someone under her was apparently fired for using personal e-mail account.  Her e-mails were supposed  to be kept securely which they were not.  If she used this account for national security related info that is big deal (since this account was not secure).  Her e-mails in this job are property of the gov't and copies were supposed to be kept by the gov't. 

And then she explains her use of her personal email account for her govt emails by explaining yesterday that it was for "convenience " because carrying around 2 separate phones one for her private emails and another for her work emails would have been too inconvenient.  She also stated that she took it upon herself to delete all private emails before physically printing out the emails she feels were work related and giving the hard paper copies 30,000 pages long to the State Department. She refuses any inspection of her server and dismisses any notion that national security could have been compromised.

Wow!  That is serious chutzpah.  I see no changes in her odds of winning the Presidency so far.

[align=center][/align]

She is nowhere close to Obama or even her husband in the art of lying.

Reub wrote: She is nowhere close to Obama or even her husband in the art of lying.

Yes, but her husband can lie convincingly and is smooth.  She is not.

And I may be on the right, but still love John stewart often:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/ ... onvenient/

Nixon erased 18 minutes of audio and Hillary deleted thousands of emails which she never should have had private possession of in the first place.

Can she be impeached before she's even elected?

Her team printed out 50k physical pages of emails to turn in for archiving.
That seems odd in this day and age of electronic media devices.
You would think that a thumb drive would have worked more efficiently.
It’s almost as if she made the email data hard to filter/sort by turning it over in hard copy form.
I wonder how long it is going to take to set up the OCR scanners to convert the hard copies back into electronic media.
And how long after that before the Republicans begin looking for their version of the missing “18 minutes”? of data

How long? Until just after next year's election, of course.

Benko wrote:

Reub wrote: She is nowhere close to Obama or even her husband in the art of lying.

Yes, but her husband can lie convincingly and is smooth.  She is not.

She should have learned something from her husband. 

Simonjester wrote: "I did NOT have textual relations with that server... Not one single time"

Simonjester wrote: i wish it was mine but i cant take credit it was a found comment...

[/quote]

So the implication is we actually want someone who can lie convincingly and smoothly as President?  That explains a lot about the state of voter mentality!  I mean, the only people stupider than voters are... juries.

MilfordTony wrote:

Benko wrote:

Reub wrote: She is nowhere close to Obama or even her husband in the art of lying.

Yes, but her husband can lie convincingly and is smooth.  She is not.

She should have learned something from her husband.

She did (learn or at least get practice): how to intimidate/discredit women who've been raped.

I don't know that you can learn to be a convincing liar like Bill.  It would make an interesting course in night school though:  "How to lie convincingly".

EDIT: this post was written before I saw MGs above.