You must ask yourself

[3fan4life]

She was in Mexico giving speeches blaming our 2nd Amendment for their high murder rate while zero helped get guns to the cartels to further her propaganda, guns which have killed many good people. If it was't for honest LEOs who gave up their careers to speak the truth we would have never known.

She let American's die in Benghazi to avoid bad publicity just before an election. Then she lied to the victims families and the public about it, over and over.

She defended the rapist of a 12 year-old girl, laughed about it and claims to be the champion of the fairer sex.

She mishandled classified information and lied to the public and the Senate about it. Her mishandling of this classified info probably got an Iranian nuclear scientist hanged.

Baldo, I mean no disrespect and I hope you mean us none. I generally enjoy an intelligent debate and occasionally have my mind changed by one but that's not happening here. You contest no facts, instead you throw insults, you question others grasp of reality and make disparaging personal remarks such as:

Wow, you could use a little decaf.
When I hear it, I'll let you know.... Wink Wink
I know it's early, but this is the most ridiculous comment I've read today...
Ok.....tell you what. I'll type slower for you if that'll help.

Where are your "facts", where is your "logic", explain your "reasoning" if you disagree. This isn't the Jerry Springer show, we aren't shrill hormone laden teenagers shouting in a parking lot. This is adults discussing the future of our country and our families.

Perhaps my facts were wrong, perhaps someone else's were. Perhaps you realize our facts were correct but you disagree with the conclusions we deduct from them. If so, enlighten us!

Right now, your lack of logical responses just reinforce what most of us already believe. If you want to anger a Conservative or Libertarian, lie to them. If you want to anger a modern Liberal, tell them the truth.

That seems to be the pattern.   

[Bighead]

Damn I thought I was going to see a fight and a Hockey Game broke out  

[baldo]

She was in Mexico giving speeches blaming our 2nd Amendment for their high murder rate while zero helped get guns to the cartels to further her propaganda, guns which have killed many good people. If it was't for honest LEOs who gave up their careers to speak the truth we would have never known.

She let American's die in Benghazi to avoid bad publicity just before an election. Then she lied to the victims families and the public about it, over and over.

She defended the rapist of a 12 year-old girl, laughed about it and claims to be the champion of the fairer sex.

She mishandled classified information and lied to the public and the Senate about it. Her mishandling of this classified info probably got an Iranian nuclear scientist hanged.

Baldo, I mean no disrespect and I hope you mean us none. I generally enjoy an intelligent debate and occasionally have my mind changed by one but that's not happening here. You contest no facts, instead you throw insults, you question others grasp of reality and make disparaging personal remarks such as:

Wow, you could use a little decaf.
When I hear it, I'll let you know.... Wink Wink
I know it's early, but this is the most ridiculous comment I've read today...
Ok.....tell you what. I'll type slower for you if that'll help.

Where are your "facts", where is your "logic", explain your "reasoning" if you disagree. This isn't the Jerry Springer show, we aren't shrill hormone laden teenagers shouting in a parking lot. This is adults discussing the future of our country and our families.

Perhaps my facts were wrong, perhaps someone else's were. Perhaps you realize our facts were correct but you disagree with the conclusions we deduct from them. If so, enlighten us!

Right now, your lack of logical responses just reinforce what most of us already believe. If you want to anger a Conservative or Libertarian, lie to them. If you want to anger a modern Liberal, tell them the truth.

Frye,

Like you, no disrespect intended. Most of the members here respond positively to discussions. Others, not so much.

You say all I do is throw insults. Not true. How many times have I posted links to counter statements made here? How many times have I argued a point about something, posted a link, and being told something like  "it's the lame-stream media, in the tank for Hillary"? How many times have my facts been met with derision and ridicule?

You assert that my "lack of logical responses" indicates that I have no interest in dialogue. That couldn't be further from the truth. I've had many good back and forths, but in many cases, the same vitriol that you accuse me of using is a response to the same which had been thrown my way.

Let's use one of your examples listed above. You mention Benghazi. You claim that her actions killed those four men. There have been no less than NINE Republican led 'investigations' to try and nail her to the wall. Guess what, even the Republicans have finally concluded that she did not cause their deaths by any action or non-action on her part. But this isn't good enough for some. Yet that dead horse continues to be beaten.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html?_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politics/benghazi-report-hillary-clinton/

I've posted those links and many others whenever the subject has come up. You'll notice now that it has been very quiet on the Benghazi front. Maybe it's finally sinking in. There are plenty of other 'scandals' to latch onto...


It's easy to single out a minority voice or opinion and cry foul, especially in such a charged political environment such as the one we have today. But take an objective look around....

[Willow]

Frye, the laughing about the rapist has been debunked on here many times.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

How is it debunked when they have audio and video of this? She defended that sick piece of trash and claimed the girl wanted an older man. But yep, it was debunked. Snopes can kiss my ass.

Didnt read the article did you ?

I read the article, meathead. Did you?  The laughing about it was not debunked.  This is a quote from the Snopes article.

WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.

I have about the same level of respect for Snopes as does Gavin but I do look at their stuff now and then.

I am certainly not as incensed as some over Hilary Clinton's defending the rapist or even how she defended him.  An attorney is obligated to represent the client and almost anything other than outright dishonesty is part of doing that.  However, the laughing (chuckling) about pats of the case has not been debunked and is not acceptable.  If she were the kind of person I would respect, let alone select for my President, when she spoke of that case she would only express regret and distaste at what she had to do.  To some degree she did express that she did not choose to defend and that she did it from obligation.  Perhaps we can hope the chuckling over things that happened during the case was an example of nervous laughter.       

[The emperor has no clothes]

Carl, I'm sure you are a better reader than I am. What I read was she laughed about the part of not trusting lie detectors anymore. She had her client take one and he passed. She then said she didn't trust them after that and chuckled. Which to me insinuates she knew he was guilty . If I've got it wrong set me straight.

[baldo]

Carl, I'm sure you are a better reader than I am. What I read was she laughed about the part of not trusting lie detectors anymore. She had her client take one and he passed. She then said she didn't trust them after that and chuckled. Which to me insinuates she knew he was guilty . If I've got it wrong set me straight.

Rob, I read it the same way. It's been awhile since I read the whole report, but I remember the laughing that everyone is so torqued about, has been taken out of context. If I remember correctly, it was more nervous laughter as Willow has suggested. Remember, she was in her 20's and probably a bit uncomfortable as any young person might be.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Carl, I'm sure you are a better reader than I am. What I read was she laughed about the part of not trusting lie detectors anymore. She had her client take one and he passed. She then said she didn't trust them after that and chuckled. Which to me insinuates she knew he was guilty . If I've got it wrong set me straight.

Rob, I read it the same way. It's been awhile since I read the whole report, but I remember the laughing that everyone is so torqued about, has been taken out of context. If I remember correctly, it was more nervous laughter as Willow has suggested. Remember, she was in her 20's and probably a bit uncomfortable as any young person might be.

Its hard to say. But my issue is everybody is trying to make it out like she wanted to represent the scumbag and then thought the rape of a little girl was somehow humorous. From what I can gather this is very far from the truth.

[baldo]

Carl, I'm sure you are a better reader than I am. What I read was she laughed about the part of not trusting lie detectors anymore. She had her client take one and he passed. She then said she didn't trust them after that and chuckled. Which to me insinuates she knew he was guilty . If I've got it wrong set me straight.

Rob, I read it the same way. It's been awhile since I read the whole report, but I remember the laughing that everyone is so torqued about, has been taken out of context. If I remember correctly, it was more nervous laughter as Willow has suggested. Remember, she was in her 20's and probably a bit uncomfortable as any young person might be.

Its hard to say. But my issue is everybody is trying to make it out like she wanted to represent the scumbag and then thought the rape of a little girl was somehow humorous. From what I can gather this is very far from the truth.

But it's very easy to spread and get everyone all twisted up.

[solo1]

I've not read the story but as much as I don't like Hilary, I don't think that it is pertinent.

After all, how many of us are completely proud of our activities as a youth of twenty or so.

Look at the later history of nominees as it pertains to the job at hand.  IMHO, this would not include the foibles of youth.  

For example one particular person comes to mind, not a pol, but he contributed much in his later years................Johnny Cash.

There are thousands of people like that out there.

[baldo]

I've not read the story but as much as I don't like Hilary, I don't think that it is pertinent.

After all, how many of us are completely proud of our activities as a youth of twenty or so.

Look at the later history of nominees as it pertains to the job at hand.  IMHO, this would not include the foibles of youth.  

For example one particular person comes to mind, not a pol, but he contributed much in his later years................Johnny Cash.

There are thousands of people like that out there.

Excellent points, Wayne.

[Willow]

Carl, I'm sure you are a better reader than I am. What I read was she laughed about the part of not trusting lie detectors anymore. She had her client take one and he passed. She then said she didn't trust them after that and chuckled. Which to me insinuates she knew he was guilty . If I've got it wrong set me straight.

It's in response to your specifically stating, "Frye, the laughing about the rapist has been debunked on here many times."  It may be as you have interpreted.  I hope it was. That there was anything to chuckle about in relation to a successful defense of a child rapist is distasteful to me.  That she commented that his passing the polygraph test caused her to lose faith in lie detectors definitely indicates that she believed him to be guilty.

I agree that folks who got worked up about it got worked up for the wrong reason.  The real truth doesn't cause me to view her as an honorable  person and if I were the victim I would find the chuckling more than a little disturbing.    

[The emperor has no clothes]

Carl, I'm sure you are a better reader than I am. What I read was she laughed about the part of not trusting lie detectors anymore. She had her client take one and he passed. She then said she didn't trust them after that and chuckled. Which to me insinuates she knew he was guilty . If I've got it wrong set me straight.

It's in response to your specifically stating, "Frye, the laughing about the rapist has been debunked on here many times."  It may be as you have interpreted.  I hope it was. That there was anything to chuckle about in relation to a successful defense of a child rapist is distasteful to me.  That she commented that his passing the polygraph test caused her to lose faith in lie detectors definitely indicates that she believed him to be guilty.

I agree that folks who got worked up about it got worked up for the wrong reason.  The real truth doesn't cause me to view her as an honorable  person and if I were the victim I would find the chuckling more than a little disturbing.    

agreed, I should have stated it better.

[G-Man]

Right!  The guy who robs your house but never gets caught is STILL a criminal, right?

I am amazed that the "conviction" thing is all they have to truly believe she is not a criminal.

Also, the FBI director, clearly stated she was negligent with the handling of her communications as Sec'y of State.  That a person in that position "should have known" better.  How can she be trusted going further, in the top position, not "knowing" what information is sensitive or not?  And then lie about it.  Over and over and over again.  And delete 30,000 instead of handing them over.  Which we now know was partially to cover up a pay for play scheme through the Clinton foundation and probable arms running through Libya which is why she lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack and then lied to the nation and to the parents of dead soldiers.

NO

[baldo]

Right!  The guy who robs your house but never gets caught is STILL a criminal, right?

I am amazed that the "conviction" thing is all they have to truly believe she is not a criminal.

Also, the FBI director, clearly stated she was negligent with the handling of her communications as Sec'y of State.  That a person in that position "should have known" better.  How can she be trusted going further, in the top position, not "knowing" what information is sensitive or not?  And then lie about it.  Over and over and over again.  And delete 30,000 instead of handing them over.  Which we now know was partially to cover up a pay for play scheme through the Clinton foundation and probable arms running through Libya which is why she lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack and then lied to the nation and to the parents of dead soldiers.

NO

Not to worry....Just like everyone keeps saying about Trump not being the sharpest knife in the drawer. he'll surround himself with the smartest people....

I'm sure she has it covered.....

[scooperhsd]

Right!  The guy who robs your house but never gets caught is STILL a criminal, right?

I am amazed that the "conviction" thing is all they have to truly believe she is not a criminal.

Also, the FBI director, clearly stated she was negligent with the handling of her communications as Sec'y of State.  That a person in that position "should have known" better.  How can she be trusted going further, in the top position, not "knowing" what information is sensitive or not?  And then lie about it.  Over and over and over again.  And delete 30,000 instead of handing them over.  Which we now know was partially to cover up a pay for play scheme through the Clinton foundation and probable arms running through Libya which is why she lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack and then lied to the nation and to the parents of dead soldiers.

NO

Not to worry....Just like everyone keeps saying about Trump not being the sharpest knife in the drawer. he'll surround himself with the smartest people....

I'm sure she has it covered.....

If Trump can hold his tongue enough to convince them that he is serious ...  and they're stupid enough to work for him.

[G-Man]

Right!  The guy who robs your house but never gets caught is STILL a criminal, right?

I am amazed that the "conviction" thing is all they have to truly believe she is not a criminal.

Also, the FBI director, clearly stated she was negligent with the handling of her communications as Sec'y of State.  That a person in that position "should have known" better.  How can she be trusted going further, in the top position, not "knowing" what information is sensitive or not?  And then lie about it.  Over and over and over again.  And delete 30,000 instead of handing them over.  Which we now know was partially to cover up a pay for play scheme through the Clinton foundation and probable arms running through Libya which is why she lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack and then lied to the nation and to the parents of dead soldiers.

NO

Not to worry....Just like everyone keeps saying about Trump not being the sharpest knife in the drawer. he'll surround himself with the smartest people....

I'm sure she has it covered.....

More like covered up, since it's impossible to get the truth out of her.  But she wasn't convicted, I know.

Looking forward for the release of the next wave of newly found e-mails (14,000) to be released.  Sources say that by using a simple search word of Benghazi pulled a bunch.  But she told us the deleted e-mails were about yoga and grandkids.  No, the grandkids crap was when Bill met Loretta and told her that the FBI is in the bag and to go with Comey's recommendation. 

So, looks like Hillary did what again?  Come on, you can say it.  Come on,... She Li Li Li.  Come on, I'll say it with you.  SHE LIED.  again.

When is enough, enough?

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

No.

Nor would she be qualified to work with children, or in health care, or handling money, or doing anything which requires a degree of integrity.

She was in Mexico giving speeches blaming our 2nd Amendment for their high murder rate while zero helped get guns to the cartels to further her propaganda, guns which have killed many good people. If it was't for honest LEOs who gave up their careers to speak the truth we would have never known.

She let American's die in Benghazi to avoid bad publicity just before an election. Then she lied to the victims families and the public about it, over and over.

She defended the rapist of a 12 year-old girl, laughed about it and claims to be the champion of the fairer sex.

She mishandled classified information and lied to the public and the Senate about it. Her mishandling of this classified info probably got an Iranian nuclear scientist hanged.

Most human beings could not live with the deaths her incompetence and lies have caused. It doesn't seem to weight on her at all.

She is not merely a liar.

She is a sociopath, she has no soul, no integrity, no empathy. She's a rich, smart, well connected Charles Manson and has no business in government at any level.

The truths of my above post were questioned on several points, perhaps rightly so. In-particular concerning her defense of a child rapist. I don't believe anyone questioned what I thought was most likely to be questioned, my assessment that Hillary is a sociopath. Which, probably should have been questioned since I am certainly not a psychiatrist, nor, even a collage graduate although I was reading both Freud and BF Skinner in grade school for my own personal amusement.

Which leads to my reading an article this morning in which a forensic Psychiatrist says she seems to be a sociopath. Just thought it was amusing. However, I don't think the results of having a Sociopath in the White House would be amusing for any of us.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/08/dr-keith-ablow-hillary-clinton-inside-mind-shameless-liar.html

[solo1]

It will make no difference. Hilary Backers will still vote for Hilary because she is Hilary.

I've been watching Waters World and I'm simply amazed at the ignorance of many as pertaining to our history and government.  

In spite of the FACTS, not opinions, some still don't 'get it"

We have seen the facts, NOT innuendo, and must make a determination on how to vote based on them.

I would like to believe that thirty years ago, there would have been no question on the qualifications of Mrs Clinton.

Of course thirty two years ago was the date for the fictional story of Orwells "1984".

 Doublethink is here NOW along with its close cousin Doublespeak.

[DK]

Frye, the laughing about the rapist has been debunked on here many times.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

How is it debunked when they have audio and video of this? She defended that sick piece of trash and claimed the girl wanted an older man. But yep, it was debunked. Snopes can kiss my ass.

Didnt read the article did you ?

I read the article, meathead. Did you?  The laughing about it was not debunked.  This is a quote from the Snopes article.

WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.

I have about the same level of respect for Snopes as does Gavin but I do look at their stuff now and then.

I am certainly not as incensed as some over Hilary Clinton's defending the rapist or even how she defended him.  An attorney is obligated to represent the client and almost anything other than outright dishonesty is part of doing that.  However, the laughing (chuckling) about pats of the case has not been debunked and is not acceptable.  If she were the kind of person I would respect, let alone select for my President, when she spoke of that case she would only express regret and distaste at what she had to do.  To some degree she did express that she did not choose to defend and that she did it from obligation.  Perhaps we can hope the chuckling over things that happened during the case was an example of nervous laughter.       

Willow,

Before expressing such an unequivocal opinion about Hillary chuckling, maybe you should inquire into the details.

Was it mean-spirited directed against her client or was it concerning something else? Was she giggling at or about herself? What was it about? What do you know about the reliability and objectivity of your source? Are you acting on a preconceived opinion?

Few attorneys who have handled a case presided over by Judge Maupin Cummins do not chuckle about something happening in his  Court. He was famous for (among other things) keeping a phone on his bench and talking to his broker or planning fishing trips from the bench during trials.

Were I to have the misfortune of representing a number po the persons active on this Board, I'd probably giggle about something when it was over as would the opposing attorney. Most likely, there wouldn't be a big problem with the client overhearing it. Most likely it would be about something not even directly involving the client. If you take yourself so seriously that you can't laugh about it, you can't stay in the law business very long. BTW, most of my giggling has been at myself.

It appears you may be surprised at the extent of the chuckling or drinking together attornies regularly do following trials. It's usually not mean-spirited toward their client, but yet many other funny things do occur.

This oft-repeated story is only yet another example of the rampant piling on done by persons with little or no knowledge of the event but nevertheless enhance the story a bit with each telling.

By the way, you probably can guess that I'm personally acquainted with Hillary, have some direct knowledge of this event, and that I'm voting for her.

Dan

[Skinhead]

and that I'm voting for her.

Dan

And you sounded very intelligent right up to these words^^^^^^^^^

[solo1]

Were I to have the misfortune of representing a number po the persons active on this Board:  Quote by DK.

Yes, most of us are in the "Basket of Deplorables" and it would indeed be a misfortune for you.

I can see why you know Hilary, you have much in common, both attorneys, both from the same state, and both good at obfuscating, in my view.

The laughing matter, which ,it seems, that everyone has latched onto, is immaterial.  Wasted words.

What isn't wasted are the FACTS of Mrs Clinton's history.

[Willow]

Frye, the laughing about the rapist has been debunked on here many times.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

How is it debunked when they have audio and video of this? She defended that sick piece of trash and claimed the girl wanted an older man. But yep, it was debunked. Snopes can kiss my ass.

Didnt read the article did you ?

I read the article, meathead. Did you?  The laughing about it was not debunked.  This is a quote from the Snopes article.

WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.

I have about the same level of respect for Snopes as does Gavin but I do look at their stuff now and then.

I am certainly not as incensed as some over Hilary Clinton's defending the rapist or even how she defended him.  An attorney is obligated to represent the client and almost anything other than outright dishonesty is part of doing that.  However, the laughing (chuckling) about pats of the case has not been debunked and is not acceptable.  If she were the kind of person I would respect, let alone select for my President, when she spoke of that case she would only express regret and distaste at what she had to do.  To some degree she did express that she did not choose to defend and that she did it from obligation.  Perhaps we can hope the chuckling over things that happened during the case was an example of nervous laughter.       

Willow,

Before expressing such an unequivocal opinion about Hillary chuckling, maybe you should inquire into the details.

Was it mean-spirited directed against her client or was it concerning something else? Was she giggling at or about herself? What was it about? What do you know about the reliability and objectivity of your source? Are you acting on a preconceived opinion?

Few attorneys who have handled a case presided over by Judge Maupin Cummins do not chuckle about something happening in his  Court. He was famous for (among other things) keeping a phone on his bench and talking to his broker or planning fishing trips from the bench during trials.

Were I to have the misfortune of representing a number po the persons active on this Board, I'd probably giggle about something when it was over as would the opposing attorney. Most likely, there wouldn't be a big problem with the client overhearing it. Most likely it would be about something not even directly involving the client. If you take yourself so seriously that you can't laugh about it, you can't stay in the law business very long. BTW, most of my giggling has been at myself.

It appears you may be surprised at the extent of the chuckling or drinking together attornies regularly do following trials. It's usually not mean-spirited toward their client, but yet many other funny things do occur.

This oft-repeated story is only yet another example of the rampant piling on done by persons with little or no knowledge of the event but nevertheless enhance the story a bit with each telling.

By the way, you probably can guess that I'm personally acquainted with Hillary, have some direct knowledge of this event, and that I'm voting for her.

Dan

Dan,

You used the word opinion where it doesn't belong.  Perhaps you meant my opinion as to the appropriateness of the chuckling.  The chuckling wasn't my opinion as it was reported in more than one article on a public interview.  It was not even unclear at all what caused her to chuckle.  She chuckled that her experience of the rapist passing the lie detector causing her to lose faith in polygraphs.  There was no doubt in her mind that she was defending a guilty rapist.  In me, although I recognize her responsibility to do so, it would have raised feelings of regret.  If you bothered to read what I typed you would have even seen that I held out the hope that the chuckling was nervous laughter.

Unequivocal opinion?  Inquire into the details?   I'm not sure I have an unequivocal opinions and the details are all right out in the open of the interview.  I'm sure there are more details specifically to the rape case that are not particularly publicly or widely known but what mattered to me was that his defending attorney was sure he was guilty.  She did what she was required to do.  I don't hold that against her.  That remembering the case brought her to a chuckle was my only point.  Actually, my original point and intent was simply to contradict my liberal friend who stated that Hillary's laughing (chuckling) had been debunked.

I know some fine people who are attorneys.  I have a very low opinion of attorneys in general.  In what attorneys are required to do in order to adequately perform their jobs (criminal defense and prosecuting attorneys I'm speaking of) they have been generally conditioned to have a low value for truth.

No, I'm not surprised that you will be voting for Hillary Clinton.  You'll not be surprised that I will not.  I have relatives in Arkansas that will not be voting for Mrs. Clinton and didn't vote for her husband.  I only hope there are enough people who think like I do that will get out to vote in November.