Oh come on. You're obviously not interested in a serious discussion if you're going to go this route.LINK?She is a proven liar, and thus is it difficult to know where she really stands on the issues.
Wrong. It's a character issue. If you can't tell the truth on something as lame as what team you like...how can you be trusted on more important matters?FAILShe can't decide what baseball team to like.FAILShe's a #####.FAILHer fake smile.FAILCome on guys.. surely there are TONS of legitmate reasons out there to hate this woman as a presidential candidate.she can't hold her liquor
Not sure why we're having to stoop to grade school shenanigans here
Can we get a little more meat on these bones please?So, in summary, what has Hillary lied about?BosniaIrelandNAFTAIraq War supportRefcoWhitewaterTravel OfficeFilegateHealth Care anecdoteVotes being counted in MI/FLJust sort of a brief summary. I'm sure there are many, many more.
The lemon fell out of his mouth or what?oh, and Hillary snuffed Vince Foster during a sexual asphyxiation episode in Fort Marcy Park.
Through her actions on health care reform during Bill Clinton's first term, we learned that Hillary prefers to pursue policy through behind-closed-doors summits with so-called experts, and then attempt to ram-rod said policy through congress without proper legislative review. Given the above, I object to her demonstrated approach to crafting and implementing public policy.Through her actions on health care reform during Bill Clinton's first term, we learned that Hillary is a big-government liberal who prefers a European-style socialist health care system. Seeing that (for example) the British health-care system is a massive boon-doggle filled with bureaucrats and red tape with little ability to respond to its customers (the health-care needers, ie the citizens) and (particularly in the case of dentistry, which is nigh-impossible for people in the public system to obtain - 80% of Britains have no access to a National Health System dentist these days) is therefore a massive failure, her legislative agenda to implement socialistic health care modeled on the Euro-British model here in America is highly suspect.Curious about folks reasons for not voting for hillary (were she to receive the nomination).
"She's a woman"
"She's a democrat"
"She's crazy"
"She's Bill's wife"
Etc.... are not viable reasons.
Curious about specific POLITICALLY BASED reasons regarding her stance on specific issues.... her past actions... her voting record.... direct quotes...etc.
Fire away.
Yes, because character has no relevance to a candidates legitimacy.[icon] said:Agreed but still FAILLooking for substance on issues here.... Her position on key issues.. voting record... quotes...etc.Abraham said:My opinion is that she makes people feel bad about themselves or feel stupid in the way that **** Cheney does. "Condescending" is the word. I don't think that's what I want in our leader in chief.
and here: more panderingThe First Amendment is where you simply do not go. It is sacred. It protects our most cherished rights -- religion, speech, press and assembly -- and while I sometimes turn viscerally angry when I see the flag despoiled, my emotions are akin to what I feel when neo-Nazis march. Repugnant or not, popular or not, it is all political speech. Her sponsorship of the flag measure calls for reconsideration all around -- either by Hillary Clinton and her support of the flag bill or by liberals and their support of her.
I have more on Cuba, I can do later this evening. And then there are her actions during this primary.Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag. Her supporters would characterize this as an attempt to find a middle way between those who believe that flag-burning is constitutionally protected free speech and those who want to ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways.
Senator Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill, which is sponsored by Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.
It's hard to see this as anything but pandering - there certainly isn't any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn't been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends. Even then, it was a rarity that certainly never put the nation's security in peril.
The bill attempts to equate flag-burning with cross-burning, which the Supreme Court, in a sensible and carefully considered 2003 decision, said could be prosecuted under certain circumstances as a violation of civil rights law. It's a ridiculous comparison. Burning a cross is a unique act because of its inextricable connection to the Ku Klux Klan and to anti-black violence and intimidation. A black American who wakes up to see a cross burning on the front lawn has every right to feel personally, and physically, threatened. Flag-burning has no such history. It has, in fact, no history of being directed against any target but the government.
Mrs. Clinton says her current position grew out of conversations with veterans groups in New York, and there's no question that many veterans - and, indeed, most Americans - feel deeply offended by the sight of protesters burning the flag. (These days, that sight mainly comes from videos of the Vietnam War era; the senator's staff did not have any immediate examples of actual New York flag-burnings in the recent past.) But the whole point of the First Amendment is to protect expressions of political opinion that a majority of Americans find disturbing or unacceptable. As a lawyer, the senator presumably already knows that.
In summary, she is a recidivist liar, and that is the reality that Hillary supporters such as yourself can never wrap your brains around. Good riddance to her and this nightmare fantasy of becoming the next president. We already had Nixon. We don't need another, thank you very much.Baconator said:Can we get a little more meat on these bones please?cobalt_27 said:So, in summary, what has Hillary lied about?BosniaIrelandNAFTAIraq War supportRefcoWhitewaterTravel OfficeFilegateHealth Care anecdoteVotes being counted in MI/FLJust sort of a brief summary. I'm sure there are many, many more.
McCain = continuing dramatic drop in value to each and every US dollar. Far outpacing any tax.simple she's a democrat her and Obama = higher taxes for everyone, plain and simple.McCain is the answer
So you are just going to ignore all her personal traits? Like some of them don't reflect negatively on her capacity to get things done?[icon] said:Agreed.... but FAILmoleculo said:irritating, shrill voice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules[SIZE=12pt]WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Hillary Rodham Clinton had no government email address. Credit Liam Richards/The Canadian Press, via Associated Press [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]How many emails were in Mrs. Clinton’s account is not clear, and neither is the process her advisers used to determine which ones related to her work at the State Department before turning them over.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“It’s a shame it didn’t take place automatically when she was secretary of state as it should have,” said Thomas S. Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a group based at George Washington University that advocates government transparency. “Someone in the State Department deserves credit for taking the initiative to ask for the records back. Most of the time it takes the threat of litigation and embarrassment.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mr. Blanton said high-level officials should operate as President Obama does, emailing from a secure government account, with every record preserved for historical purposes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“Personal emails are not secure,” he said. “Senior officials should not be using them.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Penalties for not complying with federal record-keeping requirements are rare, because the National Archives has few enforcement abilities.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The revelation about the private email account echoes longstanding criticisms directed at both the former secretary and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for a lack of transparency and inclination toward secrecy.[/SIZE]
Is that you, Rex Ryan?She's a liar and a socialist and her feet stink.
There's no serious presidential candidate that lacks ambition. I don't see why that's considered a bad thing when it comes to Hilary.Here just north of Arkansas, I've heard too many otherwise sane people swear up and down that the Clinton's had people killed.
It appears her life's first, second, third, fourth and fifth goal is to become the first female President. Everything else means nothing to her. Career politician who stayed with Bill because it was politically convenient and would sell her soul if it meant being President.
I think that if she became President, she'd govern out of selfish ambition and profit.
Eh, the first Clinton did a pretty good job in hindsight (particularly compared to those who came after him).I don't understand why anyone would vote for a Clinton or a Bush from here on out, but that's just me.
That being said: the necroposts are quite entertaining!
Bill did do a pretty good job, but Hillary did not. Her one big policy initiative was the health care panel and it was rife with controversy and secrecy. It probably hindered health care reform and the president himself.Eh, the first Clinton did a pretty good job in hindsight (particularly compared to those who came after him).I don't understand why anyone would vote for a Clinton or a Bush from here on out, but that's just me.
That being said: the necroposts are quite entertaining!
True, but Hillary's never been able to tell a remotely compelling story for why she wants to be president other than just being president. She's the say-anything-do-anything kind, which is quite a bit different from Obama, say.There's no serious presidential candidate that lacks ambition. I don't see why that's considered a bad thing when it comes to Hilary.Here just north of Arkansas, I've heard too many otherwise sane people swear up and down that the Clinton's had people killed.
It appears her life's first, second, third, fourth and fifth goal is to become the first female President. Everything else means nothing to her. Career politician who stayed with Bill because it was politically convenient and would sell her soul if it meant being President.
I think that if she became President, she'd govern out of selfish ambition and profit.
These don't make her "evil" or corrupt (though make your own conclusions).So, in summary, what has Hillary lied about?
Bosnia
Ireland
NAFTA
Iraq War support
Refco
Whitewater
Travel Office
Filegate
Health Care anecdote
Votes being counted in MI/FL
Just sort of a brief summary. I'm sure there are many, many more.
Colin Powell also used private emails when he was Secretary of State.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules[SIZE=12pt]WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Hillary Rodham Clinton had no government email address. Credit Liam Richards/The Canadian Press, via Associated Press [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]How many emails were in Mrs. Clinton’s account is not clear, and neither is the process her advisers used to determine which ones related to her work at the State Department before turning them over.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“It’s a shame it didn’t take place automatically when she was secretary of state as it should have,” said Thomas S. Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a group based at George Washington University that advocates government transparency. “Someone in the State Department deserves credit for taking the initiative to ask for the records back. Most of the time it takes the threat of litigation and embarrassment.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mr. Blanton said high-level officials should operate as President Obama does, emailing from a secure government account, with every record preserved for historical purposes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“Personal emails are not secure,” he said. “Senior officials should not be using them.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Penalties for not complying with federal record-keeping requirements are rare, because the National Archives has few enforcement abilities.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The revelation about the private email account echoes longstanding criticisms directed at both the former secretary and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for a lack of transparency and inclination toward secrecy.[/SIZE]
{Sorry for the funky thread, it's impossible to find what you're looking for here nowadays...}
It's true, it's gone on before, I think the Obama Sec. of Housing did as well, she even invented a pseudonym?Colin Powell also used private emails when he was Secretary of State.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules[SIZE=12pt]WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Hillary Rodham Clinton had no government email address. Credit Liam Richards/The Canadian Press, via Associated Press [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]How many emails were in Mrs. Clinton’s account is not clear, and neither is the process her advisers used to determine which ones related to her work at the State Department before turning them over.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“It’s a shame it didn’t take place automatically when she was secretary of state as it should have,” said Thomas S. Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a group based at George Washington University that advocates government transparency. “Someone in the State Department deserves credit for taking the initiative to ask for the records back. Most of the time it takes the threat of litigation and embarrassment.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mr. Blanton said high-level officials should operate as President Obama does, emailing from a secure government account, with every record preserved for historical purposes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“Personal emails are not secure,” he said. “Senior officials should not be using them.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Penalties for not complying with federal record-keeping requirements are rare, because the National Archives has few enforcement abilities.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The revelation about the private email account echoes longstanding criticisms directed at both the former secretary and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for a lack of transparency and inclination toward secrecy.[/SIZE]
{Sorry for the funky thread, it's impossible to find what you're looking for here nowadays...}
To boldly go where no man has before?I'd bang... Personally I find her repugnant at this point, but the bragging that could be done, wow.
Well, I was just saying that I wouldn't rule out a Clinton just because of the name. A Bush I would.Bill did do a pretty good job, but Hillary did not. Her one big policy initiative was the health care panel and it was rife with controversy and secrecy. It probably hindered health care reform and the president himself.Eh, the first Clinton did a pretty good job in hindsight (particularly compared to those who came after him).I don't understand why anyone would vote for a Clinton or a Bush from here on out, but that's just me.
That being said: the necroposts are quite entertaining!