DC Tom Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Listen, you stupid sonofabitch, if you're going to reference a posting history, you should try to do it well, or at least marginally accurately. Here's my position of the issue: The thread I expressed this sentiment in in not only still on the first page, but at last glance was only the seventh topic down, and is being actively responded to, most recently by you. You're becoming ham-handed and lazy, and the quality of your contributions is in great decline. So much so, in fact, that I speculate that you're becoming a day-time drunk. You're an ass, and I don't care. !@#$ off, you racist prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 You're an ass, and I don't care. !@#$ off, you racist prick. Relax, we don't all think you are a daytime drunk. You need to find a time to sleep it off somewhere in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 You're an ass, and I don't care. !@#$ off, you racist prick.I'm actually embarrassed for you at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 You're an ass, and I don't care. !@#$ off, you racist prick. I'm actually embarrassed for you at this point. Anyone else reminded of the MASH episode where BJ and Hawkeye fake fought for Frank's benefit ? Anyway.............back to Hill. The Federal Records Act says that the obligation of the department is actually the obligation of the secretary. The Federal Records Act says that the secretary is responsible for preserving all of the records of the agency. It falls on the Secretary of State to be the responsible party. That is important as a legal point, but, the law aside: Isn’t this exactly what we would expect regardless? The Federal Records Act simply codifies in one particular area what we already regularly take for granted generally: The head of a government body is responsible for that body. The principle at stake here — although it is complex – we recognize intuitively. It is what Harry Truman was getting at when he said, “The buck stops here.” He was acknowledging that, as president, he was representatively responsible for the entire United States executive branch. Example: Say federal tax collectors, who fall under the purview of the executive branch, were applying operative tax law differently to the president’s political opponents than to his political allies. Even if he never spoke to one of those rogue agents in, I don’t know, let’s say Cincinnati, he is still responsible for their actions — because he took an oath of office that made him the head of that entire executive apparatus. Their actions are his actions, in a manner of speaking. The same was true of Hillary Clinton when she accepted the position of Secretary of State. She did not just “take a job.” She entered into a representative role. She voluntarily accepted that the actions — mistakes, missteps, crimes — of her employees were hers. But her response to “Emailgate” is a complete abdication of those responsibilities, which have since become electorally inconvenient. Consider: She has defended her actions by saying that a) everything she did was legal, and b) other State Department employees, to whom she sent emails, should have recorded her correspondence. First, having failed to break the law is not exactly a glowing recommendation of one’s fitness for office. And second (and this is the more important point), it should be a downright repulsive response from a leader to, in the moment of trouble, try to shift responsibility onto her underlings. Leadership in representative government means that you assume the risk associated with leading lots of people; you recognize that the people you lead might screw up, that it might have nothing to do with you, and that you bear responsibility for it nonetheless. Hillary has done precisely the opposite. By recognizing that the buck stopped with him, Harry Truman was recognizing the grave and enormous burden of being president. It was an act of moral seriousness. But Hillary refused to take responsibility for her previous corner of government. Why on earth, then, should we elevate her over the whole thing? Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Well, you can't mean that Hillary was responsible for anything! That's the most ridiculous assertion I think I've ever heard. We all know it's the little people that are responsible. They're the ones who are responsible for paying taxes, enlisting in the armed forces, fighting in wars, working hard, obeying the laws of the land. You sound like one of the Over the Hillary Gang. Get it straight. Hillary can do as she damn well pleases. She wants to be President, so she will be President, and if anyone does a single thing that goes against that... they will be CRUSHED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Anyone else reminded of the MASH episode where BJ and Hawkeye fake fought for Frank's benefit ? Anyway.............back to Hill. The Federal Records Act says that the obligation of the department is actually the obligation of the secretary. The Federal Records Act says that the secretary is responsible for preserving all of the records of the agency. It falls on the Secretary of State to be the responsible party. That is important as a legal point, but, the law aside: Isn’t this exactly what we would expect regardless? The Federal Records Act simply codifies in one particular area what we already regularly take for granted generally: The head of a government body is responsible for that body. The principle at stake here — although it is complex – we recognize intuitively. It is what Harry Truman was getting at when he said, “The buck stops here.” He was acknowledging that, as president, he was representatively responsible for the entire United States executive branch. Example: Say federal tax collectors, who fall under the purview of the executive branch, were applying operative tax law differently to the president’s political opponents than to his political allies. Even if he never spoke to one of those rogue agents in, I don’t know, let’s say Cincinnati, he is still responsible for their actions — because he took an oath of office that made him the head of that entire executive apparatus. Their actions are his actions, in a manner of speaking. The same was true of Hillary Clinton when she accepted the position of Secretary of State. She did not just “take a job.” She entered into a representative role. She voluntarily accepted that the actions — mistakes, missteps, crimes — of her employees were hers. But her response to “Emailgate” is a complete abdication of those responsibilities, which have since become electorally inconvenient. Consider: She has defended her actions by saying that a) everything she did was legal, and b) other State Department employees, to whom she sent emails, should have recorded her correspondence. First, having failed to break the law is not exactly a glowing recommendation of one’s fitness for office. And second (and this is the more important point), it should be a downright repulsive response from a leader to, in the moment of trouble, try to shift responsibility onto her underlings. Leadership in representative government means that you assume the risk associated with leading lots of people; you recognize that the people you lead might screw up, that it might have nothing to do with you, and that you bear responsibility for it nonetheless. Hillary has done precisely the opposite. By recognizing that the buck stopped with him, Harry Truman was recognizing the grave and enormous burden of being president. It was an act of moral seriousness. But Hillary refused to take responsibility for her previous corner of government. Why on earth, then, should we elevate her over the whole thing? Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner So, her employees were at fault for maybe doing the same thing she did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Didn't think that it could get worse ? Hillary Clinton's E-Mail Was Vulnerable to 'Spoofing' Hillary Clinton didn't take a basic precaution with her personal e-mail system to prevent hackers from impersonating or "spoofing" her identity in messages to close associates, according to former U.S. officials familiar with her e-mail system and other cyber-security experts. This vulnerability put anyone who was in communication with her clintonemail.com account while she was secretary of state at risk of being hacked. Clinton said at the United Nations last week that there were no security breaches of her personal e-mail server, which she used to send and receive more than 60,000 professional and personal e-mails. But former cyber-security officials and experts told us that there were gaps in the system. According to publicly available information, whoever administrated the system didn't enable what’s called a Sender Policy Framework, or SPF, a simple setting that would prevent hackers sending e-mails that appear to be from clintonemail.com. SPF is a basic and highly recommended security precaution for people who set up their own servers. Experts told us that oversight was just one flaw of a security system that would have been relatively easy for foreign intelligence services and others to exploit. "I have no doubt in my mind that this thing was penetrated by multiple foreign powers, to assume otherwise is to put blinders on,” said Bob Gourley, the chief technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2005 to 2008 and the founder of Cognitio, a cybersecurity consultancy. More at the link:http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-18/hillary-clinton-s-e-mail-was-vulnerable-to-spoofing- Or it could have been spoofed by Chef Jim's buddies from the FBI being discussed on OTW Edited March 20, 2015 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Actually, that's how she's getting money into her foundation - the Nigerian express. Chef should tell the FBI to check out that angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors Reuters, by Jonathan Allen Original Article Was Hillary Clinton running her own rogue intel operation? Washington Times, by Monica Crowley Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Was Hillary Clinton running her own rogue intel operation?Washington Times, by Monica Crowley :lol: No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 :lol: No. Monica Crowley is a kook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 It's all that time she spend with Nixon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Monica Crowley is a kook. Really, you could replace that headline with anything. Why not "Was Hillary Clinton Running Her Own Child Pornography Ring?" or "Was Hillary Clinton Running a Nigerian Prince Scam?" This is one case where, if you're going to go retard, you may as well go full retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Monica Crowley is a kook. QFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors Reuters, by Jonathan Allen Original Article Was Hillary Clinton running her own rogue intel operation?Washington Times, by Monica Crowley Original Article Just like she never produced the proof that her exorbitant speaking fees were all donated to the CF. Again it's amazing how hypocritical libs are when it comes to Hilly, only because she has that "(D)" next to her name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Monica Crowley is a kook. QFT Admit it. You'd still hit it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) I hope you republicunts can knock Hilary out of the race with this scandal and it doesn't turn into a whole lot of nothing like most of republicunt faux outrage - would love to clear the way for Elizabeth Warren. Oh man, I hope you nominate Warren. I've always wanted to see a 50-state win. Warren would be absolutely destroyed in the debates...because she has rarely been publicly challenged on any of her positions. Scott Brown beat her hands down/did everything right, but the people of Mass couldn't stomach an R holding on to Kennedy's seat, and the only reason they put Brown there was to stop Obamacare. IF that election happened in any other state, she loses. And, that's what we are talking about here: Warren going up for election in every other state. Fauxchohantus and her fake heritage? With her far-left idiocy on business? It's going to be a pubic ass-raping...they may have to put "not suitable for some viewers" warnings on it. I laugh just thinking about it. Hell, many of us here could destroy her in a debate, and all we'd have to do is stick to simple ecomics, and ask her things about the military: Like, what is the difference between a captain and a commander?(ah ah ah....think first...) And, please, as per your normal complete lack of understanding of how this world works: it will NOT be the Rs who take out Hillary. It will be the Ds. Especially the Obama Ds, who are, rightly, looking at: R Congress + another Clinton opportunist = 1994-2000 all over again...when Bill said "the era of big government is over"...and schitting their pants. Hillary, and her own self-interest, puts every single one of their wingnut laws/regulation/executive orders/spending programs, and even entire agencies....on the table to be destroyed. Hillary would kill Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, Global Warming policy, dead, and sign off on tax, entitlement, and executive power reform, and she would do it all for a guaranteed 2nd term, just like her husband. The Rs would make that deal in a heartbeat, and run Rick Perry against her, just like they ran Bob Dole. So there you go. It is the far-left Ds, not the Rs, that will go after Hillary, since far-left Ds are the nearly the only elected people left in the D party. Basically, this is their only choice. And all this time: you've never been aware of the damage that blind support of Obama/calling people racists for pointing out his failures, has been doing to you and yours. Well, here it is. Because they're complete idiots. Odds are they'll "find" one, too, in that they'll whip one up quick in a misbegotten attempt to save face. Because they're complete idiots. Which then leads us to the question: will they also be tripped up by the document's timestamp? Hey, the Chairman of the Ethics in Science Board was tripped up by a timestamp when he was forging phony documents. He's a global warming scientist, which means he's practically omniscient. I expect a lot less from the dunderheads at the State Dept. Edited March 23, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I laugh just thinking about it. Hell, many of us here could destroy her in a debate, Many of you can't change your own diapers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Many of you can't change your own diapers Which makes their ability to destroy Hillary in a debate all the more mind blowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts