No, your socialist candidate is bought off by George Soros, as is every socialist aligned with the DEM party.
Clinton Classified E-Mail Scandal Progressing to New Level...
- Thread starter Nuk'EM Heels
- Start date
You worried about how she stands up to Trey Gowdy . . ? LOL . . . Do you think she's gonna wilt and whimper away . . ? I don't ever see that happening.
The republicans should be very careful how they treat her or they'll come across looking like bullies. Giving even more credence to what Kevin McCarthy said last week. What questions can they ask that haven't been asked already . . ?
She needs a good bullying... and shaming... and perp walking... and stripe suiting...
OBTW, if DEMs are worried that HRC might get bullied in an investigative hearing on Capital Hill then perhaps you should find another candidate...
Last edited:
Actually you should take a look at his campaign finance statements. Bernie is the only candidate who doesn't have a super PAC, so he has no way of legally taking those large private contributions. His average contribution is about 25 dollars.
Can you prove this? I'm seriously interested to know this.
I know Hillary is openly in the pockets of Goldman-Sachs. I'd vote for a corpse over her.
BWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!! You seriously maintain Bernie 'Colonel' Saunders isn't beholden to Soros money?!?!?!?!?! BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!
The FBI has seized four State Department computer servers as part of its probe into how classified information was compromised on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email system, according to people familiar with the investigation.
The four servers, which were located at the State Department’s headquarters building, were seized by the FBI several weeks ago. They are being checked by technical forensic analysts charged with determining how Top Secret material was sent to Clinton’s private email by State Department aides during her tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, said two people familiar with the probe. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because it is an ongoing investigation.
State Department spokesman John Kirby referred questions about the computer servers to the FBI. An FBI spokeswoman, Carol Cratty, declined to comment.
No other details about the servers, including whether they are part of the department’s classified system, or used for unclassified information networks, could be learned.
A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not respond to an email request for comment.
The four servers, which were located at the State Department’s headquarters building, were seized by the FBI several weeks ago. They are being checked by technical forensic analysts charged with determining how Top Secret material was sent to Clinton’s private email by State Department aides during her tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, said two people familiar with the probe. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because it is an ongoing investigation.
State Department spokesman John Kirby referred questions about the computer servers to the FBI. An FBI spokeswoman, Carol Cratty, declined to comment.
No other details about the servers, including whether they are part of the department’s classified system, or used for unclassified information networks, could be learned.
A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not respond to an email request for comment.
Refute my claim with objective evidence or you're just a liar. Sound familiar?
Yeah, and you were never able to provide any objective quality evidence to prove your point. If you won't do it in that instance then I refuse to do it for you in this instance. See, I can do it too! Sound familiar?
Last edited:
If he contributed to Bernie's campaign at all he certainly didn't make the top donors list
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f
I did, but you choose to ignore any evidence that is contradictory to your fundamentalist beliefs.
The problem with someone like Soros is, he can be propping-up any number of those top 10. Another problem with someone like Soros is, he's going to be propping-up companies and entities that will be donating to BOTH SIDES. That's one way people in power stay in power.
Lots of people would rather spend our money on healthcare, education, and our crumbling infrastructure instead of maintaining a global military presence that is completely absurd and not even remotely necessary to our security. Lots of people are also tired of big money interests owning the political system.
Which is why people like Soros, Adelson, and the Koch Brothers shouldn't be able to pump an unlimited amount of money into the political system. Another reason I will be voting for Bernie is his promise not to nominate anyone for the SCOTUS unless they promise to overturn the Citizens United ruling
I'd rather spend the money I earn on things I see fit and need. Maybe others should try to do the same thing.
Yeah that's the entire idea. Are you under the impression that the American people currently have any say whatsoever in what their tax dollars are spent on? Or do you think we "need" a defense budget that exceeds the next 9 highest spending countries combined? (most of which are of course allies)
At least you're basing it on something you care about.
Soros, Adelson, Kochs are next-to-impossible to eliminate from government. You can find their predecessors all throughout history.
I'd rather give it to a soldier that puts his life on the line for his/her country than some deadbeat that lays around doing nothing.
If that money actually went to the soldiers themselves I would completely agree with you. But I have friends who serve. So I know better
You provided ZERO objective quality evidence to support your allegation. ZERO. Just you spouting off, as usual.
Oh I have no doubt that they don't get what they(soldiers) truly deserve but I also know someone like Sanders, Clinton etc. will continue to keep giving things to those that don't deserve a damn thing.
I assume you're referring to the welfare and nutrition program recipients who are neither working nor making any effort to find work, even if they are in no way disabled.
I'm not fond of freeloaders either. The problem is, you can't shut down those programs because the vast majority of the people who receive those benefits actually get them for less than a year, and are either already employed or seeking employment. Weeding out the freeloaders is a tricky proposition no doubt.
With regards to the soldiers, the military will pay them the bare minimum they can get away with, even when they're deployed. Its despicable
I am referring to those completely capable of working. I also would like to see mandatory drug tests on those receiving those benefits. I had to take a drug test for my job. Liberals will never clamp down on the wastes in these systems because they know it will cost them votes. LBJ knew what he was doing for the Democratic party.
That's what I figured. And that's probably a fair point. However I think drug testing is an invasion of privacy whether its for a job, or for welfare benefits. I would crack down on cash benefits that get spent on drugs however.
From my experience - which is considerable based on 20 years in human service working with the very families we're talking about here - the vast majority of recipients are not on the up and up. I'd say close to 50% are gaming the system. But we're too far gone now. There's no fixing the problem unless we're willing to let millions die. So the do-nothings are protected...and they know it. And they'll continue to game the system and the numbers of those gaming the system will only grow.
How about this - before every year, I get to allocate - by percentage - where I want my personal tax dollars to go - a la carte style. This is the best solution because people would feel good about paying taxes (whatever the percentage) and we'd also see what the people want to support and what they don't want to support. Liberals would hate it. That's another plus.
Last edited:
Yeah that sounds like a great idea
Less than 50% of recipients receive welfare for a period longer than two years. I don't see how 50% of recipients could possibly be gaming the system, even if that were somehow the case within the limited sample you worked with.
What a shocker though, a conservative social worker with an extremely high estimate of people freeloading of social programs... I'm almost inclined to think you might be to some degree biased...
And I'm inclined to think you may be...Yeah that sounds like a great idea
Less than 50% of recipients receive welfare for a period longer than two years. I don't see how 50% of recipients could possibly be gaming the system, even if that were somehow the case within the limited sample you worked with.
What a shocker though, a conservative social worker with an extremely high estimate of people freeloading of social programs... I'm almost inclined to think you might be to some degree biased...
Yeah that sounds like a great idea
Less than 50% of recipients receive welfare for a period longer than two years. I don't see how 50% of recipients could possibly be gaming the system, even if that were somehow the case within the limited sample you worked with.
What a shocker though, a conservative social worker with an extremely high estimate of people freeloading of social programs... I'm almost inclined to think you might be to some degree biased...
I'm inclined to think that you have no practical knowledge of that which you speak and you're relying on reading biased reports and watching MSNBC. Whereas I live in this world and have real life experiences. But it's cool. I frequently use my 20 years of practice to point to when I'm debating misinformed liberals.
If it sounds like I'm being condescending, it's because I am.
Yeah I guess it can be inconvenient when the facts get in the way of your political agenda.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Then why even bring it up if you admit that you and everyone else on planet earth are biased? Besides, I think I remember you claiming at one time to be an unbiased independent.... At least until it was demonstrated that you are nothing but a sophomoric liberal hack stuck in 7th grade liberal indoc...
Go take a social psychology class. I know you're afraid of science but you should try it sometime.
I've never claimed to be unbiased. I am however an independent.
When I was in 7th grade I still believed in god, and didn't know anything about politics. But ya gotta grow up sometime...
Bull crap. You are absolutely not independent. Your positions on issues align with the hard left. And, you haven't grown up, your still stuck in 7th grade induc.
My positions can fall anywhere on the spectrum, without me submitting to group think and partisan politics. A distinction you cannot grasp whatsoever. But you've proven time and time again that subtle distinctions are not your strong suit.
You should stop believing in mythology before you insult others for not being "grown up."
You and your buddy are not independent at all; you simply masquerade as independents... When you graduate to 8th grade liberal induc, let us know...
Thanks for the link but I fail to see what facts there would disprove my assertion that at least half of the folks receiving welfare are manipulating the system. You keep harping on the length of time as if that's the only way one can take advantage. I know families that have made welfare a way of life. Sure, they me be off of it here and there, but eventually, they're back on. Some sell food stamps for clothes, drugs, etc. Many have jobs paying them under the table yet still collect welfare. How else can you explain when they roll up to my office in a Tahoe and talking on their iPhone? Don't be so naive.
