(12-03-2012, 05:44 PM)Maggot Wrote: She's gonna need a midget in a clown car following her with a shovel to pick up poop by then.

Huma is in the clown car. And have you ever tried to catch a leopard frog? They are slippery and quick, I will give HRC that. She has always been good at slippery and quick.

I don't think HRC is as worried about her e-mails containing government secrets as she is about what people will find out how she really feels about the American public once all the e-mails are released.

(09-13-2015, 04:30 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(09-12-2015, 10:15 PM)Carsman Wrote: Can't back it up, it was deleted!

Face it, you've got nothing except an opinion. Same goes for Pappy.

Things may be able to be resolved. This info in the news, this morning.

The company that managed the Democratic frontrunner's private email server says it has no knowledge that the server was entirely erased.
'The server wasn't wiped'

So?

So ?

So maybe the deleted emails can be retrieved! If they can be, it may help her, or hinder her.

So many of you conveniently forget that she had every right to delete emails and did nothing wrong by doing so.

Clearing up the mess that is already out there, can only help her cause?

(Right or wrong, fix it!)

(09-13-2015, 04:30 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(09-12-2015, 10:15 PM)Carsman Wrote: Can't back it up, it was deleted!

Face it, you've got nothing except an opinion. Same goes for Pappy.

So if a cop goes into a house and it stinks of pot and the resident is in the bathroom and he hears the toilet flush you don't think he was flushing the pot?
Same thing here. Something stinks and she flushed it away.

(09-12-2015, 09:11 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-12-2015, 08:15 PM)F.U. Wrote: How can there be any proof weather or not it was important if the dumb ass deleted the proof? Come on, you have to understand that.
Just because she said it was so you believe her? Really? I would hope that you wouldn't even trust your auto mechanic on his word/without proof. OK, If you have your car in the shop and are told there is a extensive list of parts that need replaced. do you just say OK, do it and never look back? I know I don't. I want the parts that are replaced after they are removed. Just like mechanic's, politicians are shady. Never and I mean NEVER trust them on their word.

I don't think there's any chance that you'll ever be a lawyer, a law enforcement investigator, or a judge F.U.

And, if you're ever on a jury, there will likely be 11 other people involved who would not sign off if you insisted that since you can't prove a negative, the negative must be true.

So, your way of thinking doesn't hurt anybody and isn't problematic to me. And, I like reading your opinions, same as everybody elses - though your advice to me (to adopt your philosophy/thinking) isn't advice that I'll be following.

It doesn't matter to me if you always think negatively of some/all people unless proven wrong, and it doesn't matter to me if other people always think positively of some/all people unless proven wrong.

I haven't seen any evidence of wrong-doing or illegality on the part of Hillary Clinton and so I'm not assuming it occured because some people imagine that it must have occurred. However, should something more than unsubstantiated suspicion be presented, I'll consider it at that time.

And, as I've noted several times in this thread - I believe that Clinton should have used the government server for work emails, even though it wasn't required. I think she, of all people, should have foreseen that choosing to use a personal email for work would be used as ammunition against her by her detractors, even if she violated no policies and broke no laws in so doing. Further, I think it would have been better for her if she'd proactively addressed the allegations immediately, seriously, and firmly -- thereby avoiding the later failed attempt at humor and the cornered apology. I think she and her camp have managed the controversy poorly.

Geeeese, HotD, that is the nicest way I have ever ben called stupid.
Actually I have ben called for jury before, several times and they boot me right away. As soon as I say I think the court systems are a joke, I am out the door.

By the way, I think you would make a great lawyer.

(09-13-2015, 11:07 AM)F.U. Wrote: So if a cop goes into a house and it stinks of pot and the resident is in the bathroom and he hears the toilet flush you don't think he was flushing the pot?
Same thing here. Something stinks and she flushed it away.

Hahaha! You're grasping.

(09-13-2015, 11:13 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(09-13-2015, 11:07 AM)F.U. Wrote: So if a cop goes into a house and it stinks of pot and the resident is in the bathroom and he hears the toilet flush you don't think he was flushing the pot?
Same thing here. Something stinks and she flushed it away.

Hahaha! You're grasping.

Not at all. I just look at things differently. I always ask why. Why did she mix work with home and why was she stupid enough to think people wouldn't question her flushing the evidence. That's it. WHY?

(09-13-2015, 11:16 AM)F.U. Wrote: why was she stupid enough to think people wouldn't question her flushing the evidence. That's it. WHY?

What's the evidence? Strangely not one single person can answer that. Can you? Who told you there is "evidence"? Evidence of what?

How many times does it need to be said. SHE FLUSHED EVERYTHING. Now we don't know what she had. If it was nothing she sure got herself in a pickle and made herself look bad over nothing.

ETA and that is why I ask WHY. Why would someone that is looked at as being so smart , so stooped? She had to know this would bring up questions. Why would she give the people that hate her ammo to fire back at her? Why WHY WHY ?

(09-13-2015, 11:21 AM)F.U. Wrote: we don't know what she had.

Exactly and yet you present your "evidence" as fact. Pfft. Her personal email isn't your business. You're not entitled to know one damn thing about it.

We are entitled to ask questions as to why she deleted that email. Once she was dumb enough to mix work and home life those personal emails were no longer personal. They were work and should not have ben flushed and are open to us asking about them and seeing them.

(09-13-2015, 11:12 AM)F.U. Wrote: Geeeese, HotD, that is the nicest way I have ever ben called stupid.

If I wanted to call you stupid, I would do so directly.

That wasn't what I did. I pointed out that since we're not in court, your "guilty til proven innocent" mindset is not a problem.

You and I don't have similar thought processes or styles, F.U., obviously. I'm not asking you to adopt mine and, I won't be adopting yours.

However, I sometimes change my opinion based on compelling arguments or facts.

Your reasons for believing that Hillary Clinton must be guilty of something for which she hasn't been charged aren't based on facts and aren't compelling to me. But, I don't have any problem with a difference in view points.

I just realized the issue here. One side says oh its ok, she said it is so. She said they were personal not work. The other side is saying, BS, I don't believe you, I want proof.
Its just a case of Prove it.

(09-13-2015, 11:27 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-13-2015, 11:12 AM)F.U. Wrote: Geeeese, HotD, that is the nicest way I have ever ben called stupid.

If I wanted to call you stupid, I would do so directly.

That wasn't what I did. I pointed out that since we're not in court, your "guilty til proven innocent" mindset is not a problem.

You and I don't have similar thought processes or styles. I'm not asking you to adopt mine and, I won't be adopting yours. Diversity is a good thing, in my opinion.

Why yes it is. Stubbornness, not so much!

(09-13-2015, 11:26 AM)F.U. Wrote: They were work and should not have ben flushed and are open to us asking about them and seeing them.

YOU are saying they are work. Holy shit, what part of that are you not getting? That is YOUR thought (and others like you of course.)

(09-13-2015, 11:35 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(09-13-2015, 11:26 AM)F.U. Wrote: They were work and should not have ben flushed and are open to us asking about them and seeing them.

YOU are saying they are work. Holy shit, what part of that are you not getting? That is YOUR thought (and others like you of course.)

You cant cut that one part of my post out Duch. They became work when she mixed the two.

I just know that if they were nothing she sure shot herself in the foot over nothing.
This stupidity just might cost her the shot at being the first US president that slept with another US president [ I seen that yesterday and just had to use it, lol] .

ETA . . . and YOU are saying they are not [what part of this aren't you getting?], WHY? Because she said so? You have to ask WHY WHY WHY?