Guard Dog

No you lost me here. There is nothing, and I do mean nothing honorable about the motives or methods of Hillary Clinton. She cares about one thing: the advancement of Hillary Clinton. If someone gets helped along the way, great. If people get hurt, f--k them. She is completely dishonest. there can hardly even be a debate on that point now. She is a politician, no doubt there. Unlike Barack Obama she is not what I'd call a "true believer" which in my book makes her preferable to him. But only by the thinnest of margins. She is a deeply flawed candidate and human being and if it wasn't for the fact that she's running against someone who could be described in the exact same way this election would already be over. As for me I'm going to buy a bumper sticker that says "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Johnson". The beauty of that is it works no matter which turd doesn't flush in November.

Nonek & Malc I hope both your pups get better. I made an offer on a townhouse in Bartlett, TN last week. The offer was accepted today. It's 900 sq' but needs some work. I offered $60k for it and they countered with $72k and I told them no thanks. Today they accepted $60k. I wasn't trying to be a hardass. $12k was the biggest down payment I could come up with. I'm going to be busy for a time fixing it up. The carpet is shot, bathroom tile is cracked, needs drywall work, new counter tops, and some minor carpentry. I think I can do most of the work myself.

I re watched Comey's statement twice last night. I believe he is on the level and the investigation was probably not influenced. He did let the justice department off the hook by publicly announcing the recommendation. Make of that what you will. His assessment of Clinton's conduct is actually quite damning. It should be a blow to her campaign in a normal election year. However this year is not normal when her opponent is Donald Trump. Had it been any other Republican that statement might even have been a death blow. But I believe this election will see more negative votes cast (votes against a candidate rather than for one) that any other in history. I agree with Grom, no prosecutor would look at this as a likely win and would not be willing to spend the time and money required to litigate the case. I do wish Comey, who is a law enforcement officer not a prosecutor, had not made the decision for them but the end result is the same so I guess it doesn't matter. As I stated before in my experience someone who was careless with classified information could expect to be fired. Well, she has already left so that's out. They could expect to have their security clearances revoked. If she wins this election I don't see how that could happen. How can the President not have the top security clearance? It would make a good story for Veep on HBO though. And finally that individual would be barred from working for the government in the future. Well, this might happen but it's up to us, the voters. So what did we learn from this? That Hillary Clinton is dishonest? I think even her two biggest supporters here BruceVC & Leferd would even agree to that. That she is incompetent? Once again that isn't news. In a normal year an incompetent liar would be facing long odds to win an election but this isn't a normal year.

Well we can say one thing for certain. In 9/2014 when she said this: She was lying. If that bothers anyone.

Remember that "thing" we were discussing a few pages ago Bruce? You're doing it again. What would the penalty for refusing to apologize be anyway? I'd say death. After all, you can make him say it, but you could never be sure he means it!

Yep. Not a criminal. Just "careless" and "grossly negligent". Just what you want in a President. "Grossly negligent" is the legal standard that would have supported indictment ("either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way"). Comey said that there wasn't enough evidence to support that. (Or, more precisely, that a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring the charge.) "Extremely careless" is as far as he went in describing her conduct. I stand corrected. In truth I was always far more concerned about her intentionally destroying her server data. It smells like a cover up. Comey said straight out that was not the case so that is that. As far as mishandling classified material, as I posted earlier, unless it was done with the intention on stealing it or intentionally exposing to someone who should not have it, I never thought it merited criminal prosecution. But it should and would disqualify someone from working in a job that require a security clearance. Like being President for example. Can you picture this, she gets elected, the director of the CIA comes over for a briefing and Vice President Kaine turns to her and says "I'm sorry Madam President but you'll have to leave the room" !

Yep. Not a criminal. Just "careless" and "grossly negligent". Just what you want in a President.

From my own experience in working for the Federal Government what she did would not likely result in criminal prosecution. But the employee would be fired, have all security clearances permanently revoked, and be barred from ever working for the Government again in any capacity. But I guess that doesn't apply to Democrats running for President. Only to Republicans and working stiffs.

Pardon me for not really paying attention (its not really my business,) but these two clowns surely aren't your only options are they? No. click the link in my sig to learn more.

Yep! When I fill out my tax return next year and don't report all my income the IRS will just say "It was gross negligence but you didn't 'intend' to defraud the government. We won't charge you" right?

So that's that. The FBI has determined Clinton was stupid and reckless but did not "intentionally" attempt to cover up or hide anything or jeopardize the security of the country. For what it's worth I'm satisfied.

It looks like Trump's VP candidate list is down to four. Here is my take for those who care to read it: New Gingrich: Former speaker of the House & Congressman from Georgia. Pro: Smart, expert on handling Congress. Most of his dirty laundry is already common knowledge. Con: That dirty laundry is pretty bad. While he's never been accused of anything criminal he's certainly a heartless SOB who makes Trump look like Santa Claus by comparison. But that may be the point. Mike Pence: Governor of Indiana. Pro: "Little r" Republican. Considered a moderate. Both fiscally & socially conservative but more of a "non interventionist" internationally. Was in favor of a spending limit on Congress and opposed NAFTA & TPP. CON: Who is he again? Chris Christie: Governor of New Jersey. Pro: He's well known, no surprises and might put New Jersey in play. Considered to be a capable politician but he's on the outs with the "establishment". Con: Ne's got a big mouth and often sticks his foot in it. He's like Trump in a size 46 jacket. Pro Gun Control makes him a hard sell to the south & west and Trump will need them all. Joni Ernst: Senator from Iowa. Pro: Army National Guard & Iraq War veteran. Very smart and capable and can give a great speech. She is the rising star of the republican senate and is a future Presidential candidate. Con: Still in her first term of public office so experience is a factor. I am a fan of Joni Ernst but that's still Donald Trump on top of the ticket so it would not change my vote. But any of these other than Gingrich would be a solid choice. Gingrich would be a mistake. Probably a fatal one.

I was going to go the the VFW for the Independence Day celebration. It started at 4. So I was sitting in my rocking chair on the porch sipping iced tea and listening to the Rays vs. Angels game on my XM Radio. The game was close, I was into it so when the time came to get changed and go it seemed like such a hassle. So I poured a different kind of drink, iced tea, lemonade, and a little bourbon. Just a little. That tasted really good. Then that game went off and the Marlins vs. Mets came on so I made another, then another. Next thing I know it's pitch dark. The Marlins lost, I ran out of lemonade and it's time to go to bed anyway. It wasn't what I intended to do today but it was a great day all the same. Happy Birthday USA.

I would like to get to the bottom of this whole email scandal because many people do share your view and I also want clarity For me if she intentionally deleted data that would incriminate her of course I wouldn't ignore this and I would stop supporting her But the evidence just doesn't support this, now I will go into more details so my point is clear. So take a look at this link and tell me what you dont agree with if you dont mind http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/index.html There is no question in my mind she is covering up something criminal. She had those servers professionally wiped. You are more than familiar with IT, you know what that means. And she only did that AFTER she lost in court and was compelled to turn them over. This IS a cover up. No questions about it. Now WHAT is being covered up is a question. I think, my opinion only, the deleted documents refer to donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept during her tenure. Then there is this quote: "But she "has maintained and preserved copies" of work-related, or potentially work-related emails she turned over to the State Department late last year." So we are to accept the word of a potential criminal defendant that the evidence they destroyed was not germane to their case? Only in the Democrat Party would that fly. Here is a homework assignment for you Bruce. Do a little reading about a business called Uranium One and how it came into being and then tell me if you think everything is above board on that. Okay but lets focus on one thing at a time if you dont mind so we can create a foundation of common agreement So based on the link I posted do you agree She handed over 55,000 emails and 30, 000 she said could be for public viewing She also admitted deleting only personal emails which is fine Now I'm not sure if you aware but when people delete data it can normally always be recovered using data recovery software Here is a link explaining this http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/investigators-find-emails-hillary-clinton-said-were-erased.html?_r=0 So the FBI was able to view all data she attempted to delete and they found nothing incriminating? Professionally wiped Bruce. She didn't "right-click-delete". The data on those servers, that I will remind you was the property of the United States, was professionally destroyed. As for the e-mails she handed over we now have only her word that was all the "work" e-mails she had. Let's say I was the number one suspect in a murder that was committed using a caliber of weapon I was known to own. Now let's I was compelled to surrender that weapon for testing and I fought hard not to do it. And when I did the police found I had replaced the barrel and firing pin. Would that arouse any suspicions? Another thing Bruce, the FBI has made no recommendations yet. This is an ongoing investigation. You seem to think it's all wrapped up. It's not.

I would like to get to the bottom of this whole email scandal because many people do share your view and I also want clarity For me if she intentionally deleted data that would incriminate her of course I wouldn't ignore this and I would stop supporting her But the evidence just doesn't support this, now I will go into more details so my point is clear. So take a look at this link and tell me what you dont agree with if you dont mind http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/index.html There is no question in my mind she is covering up something criminal. She had those servers professionally wiped. You are more than familiar with IT, you know what that means. And she only did that AFTER she lost in court and was compelled to turn them over. This IS a cover up. No questions about it. Now WHAT is being covered up is a question. I think, my opinion only, the deleted documents refer to donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept during her tenure. Then there is this quote: "But she "has maintained and preserved copies" of work-related, or potentially work-related emails she turned over to the State Department late last year." So we are to accept the word of a potential criminal defendant that the evidence they destroyed was not germane to their case? Only in the Democrat Party would that fly. Here is a homework assignment for you Bruce. Do a little reading about a business called Uranium One and how it came into being and then tell me if you think everything is above board on that.

Well the "bash Bruce" horse has been beaten to death... let's get back to business shall we? Apparently Hillary didn't just want to destroy records of who she was communicating with and what was said, she also wanted to destroy records of who she met with: http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/ It's getting harder to dismiss all this as nothing. Even if nothing else comes of this she willingly and knowingly destroyed documents that were the property of the United States. Having been in the Military and having worked for the government a few times I can tell you for a fact that, while you probably won't go to jail for doing that, you better believe you would be fired and barred from ever working for the government again in any capacity.

That part about imprisoning people who say racist things comes to mind.

Bull****, you made at least one member (me) more open to gun rights and freedom of speech. I don't know if it helps, but it is something rather than nothing. sir Thank you Sir! My participation here has changed my opinions too. Particularly on the death penalty. I used to be in favor of it but now I'm against it. Although not for the reasons most people think.

I just tried to take one online. They ad-bombed every page then wanted $10 to e-mail me the result. I think just enduring the pop ups should be a 10 point penalty and actually sending them money should be a 20 point penalty!

I dunno mate, tests I seen were more focused on logical thinking which doesn't mean 'acquiring knowledge' - its more a memory thing. IQ should be using this knowledge correctly It's been a while since I took one but I remember quite a few questions that would have required a more-than-basic understanding of math & language

This is normally exactly what people say who dont have a high IQ !!! GD dont be a hater Hey, I'm sure mine could boil water.... as long as we're using the right scale!

I've never understood how IQ tests are relevant to anything. IQ is supposed to represent and individuals capacity to learn. How is a test that is centered on acquired knowledge helpful in that? Stephen Hawking was born in an advanced country where he had the opportunity to receive and education suitable to his intellect. Suppose he had been born in Kenya to farmers? He would still be just as intelligent only there would be little opportunity to do anything with it. If you give Kenyan Stephen Hawking an IQ test that asks questions based on acquired knowledge he'd probably get an 85 too.

OK, I make it a point not to talk about other forum members here (except maybe Volo but he likes it) but I think you guys are a little hard on Bruce here. Yes he does have some opinions that sound like they might be designed to get a rise out of everyone but I believe he really does think that. I think he's being straight with you. Lets face it, there are folks in this world who will tell you grass is red even when you know it's green. Some of them ARE just screwing with you. Others genuinely can't understand why you keep calling that red grass green. I think Bruce is the latter. He sees things how he sees them and if he can't always back up his opinions with logic (referring to the SJW stuff here) at least he can do it with passion. Most of us came by our political philosophies honestly. We lived the lives we lived, learned the lessons we learned and it just grows from that. I figure Bruce is no different than anyone on that count. This board would be dull as hell if we all agreed with each other. We come here and debate with each other because it's fun to do it. Not because we are trying to convince anyone of anything. I'be been posting here for twelve years now (Jesus Christ really?) and I can't really say I've changed anyone's mind about anything, but I did get to find out what other folks think and WHY they think it. I figure that is the best part.