Guard Dog

You don't need as many guns generally or need to fight certain legislation that makes owning certain guns illegal . The world knows this, the UN knows this, American Democrats know this ....it has been proven in several countries that stricter gun control reduces gun violence. Many of your fellow Americans on this forum think gun control is a good idea? Right there Bruce. That is EXACTLY the arrogance I'm talking about. In just one half sentence you are presuming you know better than me what I need.

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than it ever was be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes. Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control his words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better" The arrogance of the left is is such that at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

Did you see the way he ran the bases? Good thing it left the yard. The poor dude might have been thrown out at first on triple for anyone else!

If the RSA can be destabilized by people posting on Facebook, get out now. The collapse is already inevitable.

I watched Chappie on HBO last night. It was pretty good. The south African movie business has been churning out some decent work lately.

@TN, I just saw your post from the other day. Deepest sympathies. Losing a friend, even a four legged one, hurts like hell. And we are all pulling with you for your niece's recovery.

Bruce a moral tyranny is every bit as bad as any other kind. If you believe C.S. Lewis it's actually worse. And once speech, even stupid speech, is punishable you are well on your way.

I haven't heard of anyone asking or suggesting Hastert get a pass. I'd lock that b-----d in a cell with a man twice his size that would teach him a new meaning to the word "rape". Actually Hastert is another example of the libertarian argument that we need to keep the government small and weak. Look at the human garbage that gets collected there. It's a good idea to keep the amount of power they are able to wield small.

@Calax, I made Hillary the CFO in my example only to differentiate her position from the President. In other words, the error did not originate at the top. She is definitely guilty of violating the Federal Records Act of 2009. She has admitted as much. This is not a criminal offense so much as a procedural one. The remedy would probably dismissal as SecState. But she was alrady long gone so the remedy is "don't let it happen again" to the State Department. Now the hullabaloo is about her violating (unwittingly) the Espionage Act on 1917 and US Code Title 18 Part I, Chapter 37, sub paragraph 793 about transmitting classified information from an unsecured server. Those would be criminal acts. Espionage thing is a Rush Limbaugh pipe dream. It would take so real mental gymnastics to make that work. The other might have some teeth to it. For the record I don't think she will or should be indicted but to my thinking her actions and more importantly her effort to cover it up rather than just say "this was an unintentional mistake" means she does not have the character to be President. People will forgive and overlook an honest mistake. But lying and demonizing all the while denying what is obviously true only makes her look worse... if that was possible.

I think it's more of the latter than the former. Michelle Malkin is way better looking and does not have Coulter's profile because she is less inflammatory while still being just as conservative.

This is from a few pages back, but I thought that this matter was already noted. They specifically used a private email server because they couldn't get authorization to use mobile phones with the one provided by the government (as had been afforded to previous SecState, Rice). Clinton preferred to use her phone for most correspondence, thus wouldn't have been able to perform the tasks that were required of her as SecState as effectively, without the phones being allowed as a part of their normal process. Basically, that thing she's holding in her hand? That's the private email server's reason for existing. You have some reading to catch up on!

Oh man that would be an awkward conversation!

That can easily be done in secret though.

Bruce you work with companies in the US so I'm sure you are familiar with the law called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. If you are let me ask you a question. Suppose the CFO of a company were sending business e-mails from a private e-mail account to people both inside and outside the company. Because of an irregularity the SEC had cause to look into that company and issues a subpoena for them. Rather than turn them over the CFO deletes them and destroys his HDD. Then the CEO of the company, who up to now has done nothing wrong, tries to cover it up. What would be the likely outcome of this scenario?

If they released it today I'd be all over it!

I watched this game last night. This was just awesome: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/176649162/giancarlo-stanton-hits-longest-homer-of-2016

OK, what legitimate reason could she have for using a private server to conduct the business of the US State Dept, circumventing the oversight responsibilities of the Congress? Okay hear me out I dont know if I have told you but what I do for a living is I sell and consult around software that has several uses but primarily its used for eDiscovery and its used mostly in the financial sector. Since Enron all the companies in the USA in the financial sector and many others globally are legally required to be able to produce email and other types of data if there is an inquiry through the likes of the SEC So I do this for a living and I went back and reread Leferds post to get a better understanding of this whole event https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html There are in fact several things very wrong with this whole event and initially I didnt want to say anything as I didnt want to undermine or seem to criticize Hilary but then I thought I must be consistent and honest about something that I can see is a problem...what went on here would have failed any security test in the private sector . So a couple of points Its a major oversight that no one that she was emailing for years raised issues about why or how she was using a private email address because I would assume with all the hundreds of emails she sent surely someone from NSA or FBI shoukd have asked questions? Other people in the US government use private email but they also use there work address Hilary seemed to slip through the cracks You can use encryption without a certificate on a Blackberry so why didnt anyone just implement it Her deleting of emails shouldnt be an issue unless she was sending data to people outside the government ..I doubt this? Any email sent to anyone in the US government I assume would be captured by the same software departments like DOD use In summary I can completely understand Hilary not understanding the technology but its still a major issue her staff didn't address the security gaps....this would be an immediate dismissal offense in every customer I know Yes they should have. That does not absolve her responsibility If this is widespread than it MUST be stopped. I certain you agree a government of a free country cannot be permitted to operate in secret. Not from itself at least. Once again that does not absolve her responsibility for her bad acts. Even assuming her motivations were innocent. I'll say it again, the e-mails and correspondence of the US State Department are the property of the US Government. It DOES NOT MATTER if her Blackberry was secure, if it was not using the State Departments server she was in the wrong. It absolutely matters that she deleted them. How does that look? She is doing something wrong and when she is instructed to give the data to the FBI & DOJ she DELETES it? What are we supposed to read into that? That there was something in there she didn't want them to see? Something that incriminates her or someone else? Had she turned the whole thing over then I'd buy it was all just a mistake. Don't let it happen again and everyone moves on. But rather than do that she attempts to hinder the investigation? She is not stupid and it was not an accident. So that means a cover up, which means a conspiracy. What was in those messages she is so afraid of? So we are back to where we started. she is either completely evil, or completely incompetent. Neither is a desirable quality in a President.

OK, what legitimate reason could she have for using a private server to conduct the business of the US State Dept, circumventing the oversight responsibilities of the Congress?

I know what I'm getting Bruce for Christmas: http://hillaryactionfigure.com/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=hillary&utm_content=Male%2BDesktop+Feed%2B-%2B-

Correct. Now here is the problem. As the Secretary of State every e-mail she sends in the performance of her duties becomes the property of the United States Government the instant she hits "send". Every correspondence involving the business of the United States is subject to oversight by the Congress and appropriate law enforcement agencies, as well as FOI requests once the appropriate time has passed. But the e-mails on her private server that she has ADMITTED she used for the business of the United States are beyond the reach of the agencies of the government that they BELONG to. And when she was directed to produce those messages, she deleted them. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/ Do you see the problem here Bruce? The reason she used a private e-mail server to do the business of the United States was so she could do so in secret. What do you suppose she was trying to hide? She is not stupid. She knows who her e-mails belong to. Good Lord it was explained to me on my first day of work at my job that every e-mail I send, every study I write, every notebook page I put my pen to immediately becomes the property of the State of TN. If the lowest ranking engineer from the TDEC understands this don't you think the Secretary of State of the United States does? So, what us she trying to hide? Because there can be no other logical explanation. Now, the classified information thing I told you to forget a moment ago... add that back in. Now where are we?

I'll give you a hint Bruce. The answer to my question is in the article Leferd posted. And it has nothing to do with classified information. Forget for a moment that is even an issue.

Well there are numerous reasons for having your own email server, for example if you wanted to use a gmail or yahoo account and not use the resources of a company you work for you could use a private server or you can setup your own private domain with your own SMTP address...and you would want to do this because it could be personal emails not government emails you sending What are your reasons ? You are evading or misunderstanding my question. Why do you think Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail account to conduct State Department business? She has admitted she has done this much. Why do YOU think she would do that?