Hillary FINALLY responds to a hard question.

a reply to: Sillyolme

laws are laws, they are there to be enforced to all and not selectively, in proper context there is no difference between speeding, shoplifting and pissing on national security standards and perjury. ALL laws are meant to be enforce equally. That means those sleaze bags too.

On another note..

I think we have discovered a key difference between Liberals and Conservatives here.. I actually noticed this with my conservative roommates on many issues and how they differ from mine..

Liberals (in all issues) tend to care both about intent, and result

whereas conservatives, seem to only care about results

If you accidentally kill someone, I dont think you should go to jail if you didnt mean to, since jail is meant for people who want to do harm to others, not people who are clumsy/careless etc.

You can leak this thought process into all issues.. education.. welfare.. immigration..

Immigration is another key example.. Liberals see many illegals as having positive INTENT. Yes they are breaking the law... but they are fleeing an oppressive and bleak environment and trying to better their lives and the lives of others, theyre trying to do GOOD things..

Conservatives just see the black and white.. no shades of gray...

Its a common theme ive noticed

I keep foolishly clicking on these laid baits, foolishly hoping that at least some of our more respected members will actually deal with facts ... rather than regurgitated right-wing propaganda.

I say foolishly twice to reiterate that I know that these threads are nothing more than prime examples of the massive confirmation bias that exists among so many, and yet, I keep hoping for facts over rhetoric ... and I keep being utterly disappointed.

I'm not surprised Clinton is giggling about the email crap ... it is and has been a non-issue, except to those who hate her.

And for those anti-Clinton folks, obviously, the facts make no difference whatsoever.

Sorry, ATS ... Ignorance has won this round; perhaps we will have better luck next time.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Umm ok so twit on iphone kills person on bicycle... oops didn't mean too, walks away. NO!!!! Rot you dip(not you, twit on iphone), have a cage, text later drive now! Negligence is not always on purpose but that doesn't mean that you get a pass on it. Again to reiterate INTENT has nothing to do with LAW, break it and pay. That's the way it works in a fair(sic) justice system.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Nucleardoom

Where does it say that you cannot be president if you have had a security clearance pulled?

The President has no security clearance, in the sense that other employees of the federal government do. Simply put, there is no document held by the United States government that the President is restricted from viewing for reasons of national security. It's also impossible for the President to violate a security classification; the President has the absolute authority to decide who is and is not entitled to know what is in a classified document, and may reveal any classified fact he or she deems appropriate to any person at any time for any reason (except possibly for a few narrow cases where specific statutes make such releases illegal).

There are documents that the President is not permitted to see (individual Census returns, for example) and information the President may know but legally cannot share, but these restrictions flow from statutory rules that are intended to protect personal privacy. Such documents are not considered "classified" for the purpose of national security law.

Anyone with access to classified data requires a clearance at or higher than the level at which the data is classified. For this reason, security clearances are required for a wide range of jobs, from senior management to janitorial.

Now if you had sanctions on your security clearance you couldn't be Pres since you have to see the classified docs in order to do your job effectively.

That's why.

a reply to: carewemust

Not much knowledge is just what you'll get if trump is elected.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong. IT"s about being a decent enough person NOT to support someone with a proven track record of cheating, lying, and paying to stay out of trouble, just like HRC has done, and will always keep doing.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: introvert

But like other career criminals who are never charged with crimes, and have learned all the tricks to keeping from being prosecuted, really is not the role model for a president of the United States. If you want to throw your own country to the dogs like that, that is your own business, and I expect you will be judged for it some day. Good luck.

I'm not voting for her, so I fail to see how I will be judged for it.

Sounds like superstitious nonsense anyway.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong. IT"s about being a decent enough person NOT to support someone with a proven track record of cheating, lying, and paying to stay out of trouble, just like HRC has done, and will always keep doing.

LOL ... now I'm giggling too.

"decent" ... in this context ... Hillary-ous.

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

The clinton defense/support rhetoric that is so full of holes at this point leave me no choice but to say here have a

she is crooked as a dogs hind leg, everyone knows it, if it wasn't for intimidation tactics and connections she would be in a concrete box waiting out her last years by now, and billy boy with her.

That is your opinion. Thankfully, opinions don't put people in jail.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MountainLaurel

We have no evidence that the leaked "classified" documents from Manning have done anything but enlighten people.

Who cares? The law doesn't say anything about "enlightenment". He still leaked classified military documents.

We do have evidence that Hillary's mishandling of "classified" information on many levels, not just e-mails, led to the Death of Americans and God knows how many Libyan's.

No you don't. That rumor was put to rest in the Benghazi investigations.

At the beach there's a sign that says no dogs on the beach from May 15th to Sept 15th. I pointed it out to a guy who was letting his dog run around in the water off a leash. And he said and I swear it's true. "But this is a small dog"

I'm like" the sign doesn't say no big dogs or no spotted dogs. It says no dogs"

The law doesn't say it's ok if you think you're doing us a favor. It's against the law to hack a computer plain and simple. Nothing about big dogs.

Oh My Goodness, that was really a strange response.....no meaningful defense other then "THEY" didn't find any wrong doing, lol, worth prosecuting....but I can't resist exploring how your analogy even applies here? Why was the No dogs sign posted? Maybe to protect wild life in some way that were breeding? If humans weren't banned also, is it possible a dog on leash could avoid hurting the other animals with an aware human walking them? Do homeowners and their dogs who may look forward to that walk everyday have any rights?

Whistle blowers ARE doing us a favor .....People going around harassing others for walking their dog are not.....you really should focus on the Big picture....

a reply to: Nucleardoom

If you had sanctions on your security clearance you couldn't be Pres since you have to see the classified docs in order to do your job effectively.

Show me where it states that in the Constitution.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

The clinton defense/support rhetoric that is so full of holes at this point leave me no choice but to say here have a

she is crooked as a dogs hind leg, everyone knows it, if it wasn't for intimidation tactics and connections she would be in a concrete box waiting out her last years by now, and billy boy with her.

That is your opinion. Thankfully, opinions don't put people in jail.

One struggles to remember that these folks are supposedly "anti-authoritarian" ... that is, until they want to convict and punish someone because they don't like them or have been gullible enough to believe the right-wing media.

a reply to: introvert

That document also never made provisions for clearances to begin with, hyperbole... ask a question that isn't self answering.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong. IT"s about being a decent enough person NOT to support someone with a proven track record of cheating, lying, and paying to stay out of trouble, just like HRC has done, and will always keep doing.

So if someone does not agree with your assessment and does support Hillary, they cannot be a decent person?

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

That document also never made provisions for clearances to begin with, hyperbole... ask a question that isn't self answering.

Psst ... you might want to review that "supreme law of the land" thing ... just sayin'.

Carry on.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

The clinton defense/support rhetoric that is so full of holes at this point leave me no choice but to say here have a

she is crooked as a dogs hind leg, everyone knows it, if it wasn't for intimidation tactics and connections she would be in a concrete box waiting out her last years by now, and billy boy with her.

That is your opinion. Thankfully, opinions don't put people in jail.

One struggles to remember that these folks are supposedly "anti-authoritarian" ... that is, until they want to convict and punish someone because they don't like them or have been gullible enough to believe the right-wing media.

Indeed.

It is in times like this that I am thankful for due process. I can't imagine what atrocities we would see if people simply got their way.

a reply to: introvert

If they can back a known crook openly and unabashedly, I think that is a good enough reason to question their character. So umm YEAH!

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

That document also never made provisions for clearances to begin with, hyperbole... ask a question that isn't self answering.

Show me any document or official writing that states one cannot become president if their clearance has been revoked.