PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on June 19, 2016, 01:48:35 PM
-
Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election, according to court watchers.
...
His retirement would have a substantial impact on control of the court. The next president is expected to immediately replace the seat opened by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, providing a one-vote edge in the court that is currently divided 4-4.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-may-be-next-to-exit-supreme-court/article/2594317
That should make things interesting if Hillary wins.
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-may-be-next-to-exit-supreme-court/article/2594317
That should make things interesting if Hillary wins.
Do you think Hillary might appoint more liberal judges than Trump?
Do you think anyone would vote for trump because of this?
Surely you are not saying that some people might legitimately vote for trump because . . .
He's not Hillary!
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-may-be-next-to-exit-supreme-court/article/2594317
That should make things interesting if Hillary wins.
Yep. Republican primary voters sure fucked that up.
-
Do you think Hillary might appoint more liberal judges than Trump?
Do you think anyone would vote for trump because of this?
Surely you are not saying that some people might legitimately vote for trump because . . .
He's not Hillary!
I've never said that people wouldn't vote for him because of that. I've only asked for reasons other than that to vote for him, which I still have not received, and didn't think was too much to ask for. The best anyone can seem to come up with is "well no matter what, his position is at least a little better than Hillary's".
I think Justice Thomas may try and hold on if Hillary is elected since Supreme Court justices don't like to retire unless they have a good idea that they'll be replaced by someone of similar jurisprudence.
-
The best anyone can seem to come up with is "well no matter what, his position is at least a little better than Hillary's".
I'm sorry, but if you have a choice between two candidates, and one is even a little bit better than the other, then that is the one you choose..
-
I'm sorry, but if you have a choice between two candidates, and one is even a little bit better than the other, then that is the one you choose..
False choice.
More than 2 candidates, plus write-in.
Plus, Donnie has said he doesn't need conservatives to vote for him. If he won't even ask for the votes, why should he get them?
-
If he won't even ask for the votes, why should he get them?
Why? because the voter still has the freedom to chose.
-
I think the GOP Senators really screwed the pooch not confirming Garland. They certainly won't get anything better from the Hildebeast, and Odin only knows what the Donald might do.
-
I think the GOP Senators really screwed the pooch not confirming Garland. They certainly won't get anything better from the Hildebeast, and Odin only knows what the Donald might do.
I'd much rather take my chances with Trump than Hillary. At least he is saying the right things, especially about the 2A. Garland is anti 2A.
-
I'd much rather take my chances with Trump than Hillary. At least he is saying the right things, especially about the 2A. Garland is anti 2A.
And what are the chances that you'll see a Trump presidency, really? He doesn't have any campaign infrastructure and no money, and boy he doesn't like asking. Heck, Rob Portman has a bigger war chest.
-
And what are the chances that you'll see a Trump presidency, really? He doesn't have any campaign infrastructure and no money, and boy he doesn't like asking. Heck, Rob Portman has a bigger war chest.
Trump has a chance to win and if Hillary is indicted he probably will win. We still aren't officially into the general election season so it should be interesting to see when the attacks start. They already are in some instances.
-
The article has been updated with a post from his wife stating that the talk about Justice Thomas retiring is "bogus". Let's hope his wife is correct and that he stays on. That's one less seat to worry about.
-
The article has been updated with a post from his wife stating that the talk about Justice Thomas retiring is "bogus". Let's hope his wife is correct and that he stays on. That's one less seat to worry about.
I heard that this AM as well.
-
Yep. Republican primary voters sure fucked that up.
Thank you for putting it the way it is. Maybe, just maybe... Supreme Court Justices are more important than a Mexican wall? Oh well, I'll just have to see if there is a way to make money and profit off of America's decline because either way, America is not going to be great again.
-
Trump has a chance to win and if Hillary is indicted he probably will win.
Only in your wildest fantasies.
-
Only in your wildest fantasies.
I'm afraid I have to agree with you there.
There is no way a liberal administration is going to indict Hillary. And she knows that.
-
I'm afraid I have to agree with you there.
There is no way a liberal administration is going to indict Hillary. And she knows that.
Unless the FBI recommends indictment and nothing happens and public pressure mounts. I'm still not convinced the Obamas will just willingly hand power back to the Clintons. There's a lot of bitterness there. Just because he endorsed her doesn't matter either. Hillary takes money from foreign governments and then scolds them publicly, that's just how it works.
-
Unless the FBI recommends indictment and nothing happens and public pressure mounts.
A prosecutor still has to take the case, which one won't unless he or she thinks he or she can win it. And without intent (i.e. she intentionally released classified documents) he or she can't.
-
A prosecutor still has to take the case, which one won't unless he or she thinks he or she can win it. And without intent (i.e. she intentionally released classified documents) he or she can't.
There's a lot more to this than what you seem to understand. Right now she is in violation of several different laws and also several regulations in regards to protecting government email.
-
There's a lot more to this than what you seem to understand. Right now she is in violation of several different laws and also several regulations in regards to protecting government email.
No, she is in violation of a State Department policy. Her predecessor acted similarly, as did her predecessor.
-
No, she is in violation of a State Department policy. Her predecessor acted similarly, as did her predecessor.
It's not "policy", it's CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, administrative law) and U.S.Code (Federal Law).
And her predecessor did not do the same thing, that's well documented.
-
It's not "policy", it's CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, administrative law) and U.S.Code (Federal Law).
And her predecessor did not do the same thing, that's well documented.
You don't understand. Steingar is an expert of handling of classified material. He has family members (or is it friends?) that work for the State Department. Although Steingar has never held a clearance, he knows all about the proper handling and protection of classified information.
-
You don't understand. Steingar is an expert of handling of classified material. He has family members (or is it friends?) that work for the State Department. Although Steingar has never held a clearance, he knows all about the proper handling and protection of classified information.
Apparently.
One cannot have a criminal investigation ongoing over a "policy" violation either.
-
Apparently.
One cannot have a criminal investigation ongoing over a "policy" violation either.
It's just a security review, she's told us that. ::)
-
No, she is in violation of a State Department policy. Her predecessor acted similarly, as did her predecessor.
Three separate links that describe how Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation by the FBI. Salon and MSNBC are certainly not conservative outlets, either.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/14/judge-confirms-criminal-probe-clinton-emails/
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/fbi_criminal_investigation_emails_clinton_approved_cia_drone_assassinations_with_her_cellphone_report_says/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server
-
It's not "policy", it's CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, administrative law) and U.S.Code (Federal Law).
And her predecessor did not do the same thing, that's well documented.
Since I am such a rube and you are an expert I'd be very interested in exactly which sections of the CFR and U.S. Code Mrs. Clinton has contravened.
-
Since I am such a rube and you are an expert I'd be very interested in exactly which sections of the CFR and U.S. Code Mrs. Clinton has contravened.
Ever hear of Google? Spend some time doing research and you will find your answers. You do know how to do research don't you? Or do you teach your students to be spoon fed and not do anything on their own?
Since you opt for the spoon fed approach to learning, here is 3 at the top of the list:
First violation is 18 USC sec. 793(f)
Second violation is the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration Federal Records Act, section 1236.22
Third violation is of the Freedom of Information Act.
And by the way, violation of the above 3 laws is considered criminal.
-
...
First violation is 18 USC sec. 793(f)
...
And by the way, violation of the above 3 laws is considered criminal.
Everything in Title 18, United States Code is criminal.
-
First violation is 18 USC sec. 793(f)
Actually, I am pretty good at google. From 18 USC sec. 79(f)
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States
There's that intent thing right there. It gets repeated quite a bit too. Sorry.
Second violation is the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration Federal Records Act, section 1236.22
Went into effect after the Hildebeast was Secretary of State. Strike two.
Third violation is of the Freedom of Information Act.
FOI covers government. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen. Strike three, you're out.
-
Actually, I am pretty good at google. From 18 USC sec. 79(f)
There's that intent thing right there. It gets repeated quite a bit too. Sorry.
For someone in academia your stupidity is astounding. That goes for your understanding of the law as well. You are cherry picking what you agree with and disregarding the other parts of the law. Maybe you use that technique when you lecture your students to mask your ineptitude, but to someone who knows better you look like a buffoon.
Went into effect after the Hildebeast was Secretary of State. Strike two.
Doesn't matter, the law is not grandfathered. Once the law was enacted it covered everyone at that point. Or perhaps you can show us where in the Act it excludes certain individuals from complying?
FOI covers government. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen. Strike three, you're out.
Now that is a moronic statement if there ever was one. Secretary Clinton was indeed a government employee as she received a paycheck and benefits by being employed by the government. Everything the woman did while being a Senator and a Secretary is covered under FOIA, hence the reason she went to great lengths (and committed crimes) to evade the FOIA process.
(http://i1305.photobucket.com/albums/s549/lucifer68/a%20retard_zpskalwusc0.jpg)
-
Doesn't matter, the law is not grandfathered. Once the law was enacted it covered everyone at that point. Or perhaps you can show us where in the Act it excludes certain individuals from complying?
What that means is if you committed the act before the law went into effect you didn't commit a crime. Can't make a law and go back and charge people who did it before the law went into effect. Just doesn't work like that.
Secretary Clinton was indeed a government employee as she received a paycheck and benefits by being employed by the government. Everything the woman did while being a Senator and a Secretary is covered under FOIA, hence the reason she went to great lengths (and committed crimes) to evade the FOIA process.
It was while she worked for govco. Ain't no more. Moreover, there is the issue of intent with this law as well. Someone would have to prove that she intended to withhold these things, a nearly impossible thing to do.
Sorry, your dog don't hunt. This is just like the birther nonsense used against the Obominator. Repeating it ad nauseum and insulting me doesn't make it so.
-
Went into effect after the Hildebeast was Secretary of State. Strike two.
However, it was in effect for most of her term as SecState, and she violated it repeatedly after it went into effect. Just because it wasn't in effect when she was sworn in doesn't mean that a new law doesn't apply to her and her actions after the law took effect. Ex post facto only applies to actions taken before the law took effect, and she continued to violate the law well after it took effect.
There's also the fact that what she did was illegal under regulations in effect since 1995.
-
However, it was in effect for most of her term as SecState, and she violated it repeatedly after it went into effect. Just because it wasn't in effect when she was sworn in doesn't mean that a new law doesn't apply to her and her actions after the law took effect. Ex post facto only applies to actions taken before the law took effect, and she continued to violate the law well after it took effect.
Law didn't take effect until 2014, after the Hildebeast relinquished the office.
There's also the fact that what she did was illegal under regulations in effect since 1995.
Which ones are those?
-
Actually, I am pretty good at google. From 18 USC sec. 79(f)
There's that intent thing right there. It gets repeated quite a bit too. Sorry.
Went into effect after the Hildebeast was Secretary of State. Strike two.
FOI covers government. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen. Strike three, you're out.
You have got to be kidding. Hillary was Sec State until 1 Feb 2013. It doesn't exempt anyone prospectively.
As for intent, if you as a government employee grabbed a top secret file to read on a FC park bench while you eat your sandwich, and "accidentally" left it on the bench, which happens to be across the street from the Russian embassy, that would just get an administrative reprimand?
-
For someone in academia your stupidity is astounding. That goes for your understanding of the law as well. You are cherry picking what you agree with and disregarding the other parts of the law. Maybe you use that technique when you lecture your students to mask your ineptitude, but to someone who knows better you look like a buffoon.
Doesn't matter, the law is not grandfathered. Once the law was enacted it covered everyone at that point. Or perhaps you can show us where in the Act it excludes certain individuals from complying?
Now that is a moronic statement if there ever was one. Secretary Clinton was indeed a government employee as she received a paycheck and benefits by being employed by the government. Everything the woman did while being a Senator and a Secretary is covered under FOIA, hence the reason she went to great lengths (and committed crimes) to evade the FOIA process.
(http://i1305.photobucket.com/albums/s549/lucifer68/a%20retard_zpskalwusc0.jpg)
Gee, what nice little inclusive forum we have here... >:( If it weren't for the conservatives being divided and fighting about douche bag Trump, it would be pretty much useless. Clearly discussing topics with people from other points of view in an adult manner is not how it goes here.
-
Gee, what nice little inclusive forum we have here... >:( If it weren't for the conservatives being divided and fighting about douche bag Trump, it would be pretty much useless. Clearly discussing topics with people from other points of view in an adult manner is not how it goes here.
Lucifer is gunning to be Trump's Chief Protocol Officer.
-
Gee, what nice little inclusive forum we have here... >:( If it weren't for the conservatives being divided and fighting about douche bag Trump, it would be pretty much useless. Clearly discussing topics with people from other points of view in an adult manner is not how it goes here.
Discussion is great.
Do you think everyone should ignore errors and lies? Are we all so thin-skinned that we can't call out people for their errors?
-
Gee, what nice little inclusive forum we have here... >:( If it weren't for the conservatives being divided and fighting about douche bag Trump, it would be pretty much useless. Clearly discussing topics with people from other points of view in an adult manner is not how it goes here.
If Lucifer didn't have ad hominems to toss about, he'd have nothing to say at all.
-
Discussion is great.
Do you think everyone should ignore errors and lies? Are we all so thin-skinned that we can't call out people for their errors?
Were you called a fucking retard by lucy?
-
Were you called a fucking retard by lucy?
Poor little snowflake. Will you need counseling now?
-
Poor little snowflake. Will you need counseling now?
If Lucifer didn't have ad hominems to toss about, he'd have nothing to say at all.
Q.E.D.
-
Discussion is great.
Do you think everyone should ignore errors and lies? Are we all so thin-skinned that we can't call out people for their errors?
Don't be a fucking retard.
Calling out lies is alright. Calling people fucking retards is a bit much.
-
Wow, I am getting a bit tired of this also. While I disagree with Michael (Steingar), I have met him and his wife at fly ins, and consider him my friend. Yes, sometimes his opinions frustrate me, but that's what opinions are for.
-
Wow, I am getting a bit tired of this also. While I disagree with Michael (Steingar), I have met him and his wife at fly ins, and consider him my friend. Yes, sometimes his opinions frustrate me, but that's what opinions are for.
You are a good friend, and even though we disagree I don't mind. Its just politics guys. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. The main thing is we get along.
-
Wow, I am getting a bit tired of this also. While I disagree with Michael (Steingar), I have met him and his wife at fly ins, and consider him my friend. Yes, sometimes his opinions frustrate me, but that's what opinions are for.
That's fine when we are disagreeing on the latest NBA draft picks, but we are talking about the future of our nation, which I am afraid has already gone off the cliff like so many other leftist/socialist countries.
.
Hillary is getting a pass because of who she is and who is in power at the moment. Any one of us in the same position would be in Leavenworth.
-
Poor little snowflake. Will you need counseling now?
I just find it odd that you have targeted Michael this week for your attempted outing of his identity, and over the top vitriol by calling him a fucking retard.
It must be dark living in your hate-filled world.
Are you a pilot?
-
I just find it odd that you have targeted Michael this week for your attempted outing of his identity, and over the top vitriol by calling him a fucking retard.
It must be dark living in your hate-filled world.
Are you a pilot?
I wonder how many sock-puppets FC has on here.
-
That's fine when we are disagreeing on the latest NBA draft picks, but we are talking about the future of our nation, which I am afraid has already gone off the cliff like so many other leftist/socialist countries.
.
Hillary is getting a pass because of who she is and who is in power at the moment. Any one of us in the same position would be in Leavenworth.
Perhaps the issues are important, but we are not. This is just conversation on a web board and nothing more. It just sin't worth getting your panties in a wad.
-
I wonder how many sock-puppets FC has on here.
The Number7 sounds about right.
-
A bit ironic that those who claim to be pure conservatist and constitutionalist are the ones wanting to control what others write.
-
A bit ironic that those who claim to be pure conservatist and constitutionalist are the ones wanting to control what others write.
A bit ironic that the liberal sock puppet doesn't understand that being called out on spouting nothing but ad hominem is not the same as controlling your speech.
-
That's fine when we are disagreeing on the latest NBA draft picks, but we are talking about the future of our nation, which I am afraid has already gone off the cliff like so many other leftist/socialist countries.
.
Hillary is getting a pass because of who she is and who is in power at the moment. Any one of us in the same position would be in Leavenworth.
I'm just saying there is no need for personal attacks. Most of us want what's best for the country, and that is NOT Hillary. And yes, I agree we have probably already gone off the liberal/progressive cliff.
-
I'm just saying there is no need for personal attacks. Most of us want what's best for the country, and that is NOT Hillary. And yes, I agree we have probably already gone off the liberal/progressive cliff.
There is still a chance to turn it around unless the ideologues totally destroy it.
-
There is still a chance to turn it around unless the ideologues totally destroy it.
With the media, education (K-University) and government constantly promoting liberal/progressive ideals, I highly doubt it.
-
I'm just saying there is no need for personal attacks. .
Fine. But please apply that to everyone. There are others on here that hurl personal attacks at anyone who disagree with them or dare post an opinion they disagree with, yet I don't see you calling them out on it.
-
With the media, education (K-University) and government constantly promoting liberal/progressive ideals, I highly doubt it.
In another generation or so, gun ownership will be like smoking or farting in church--- socially unacceptable--- and besides, it causes climate change.
-
In another generation or so, gun ownership will be like smoking or farting in church--- socially unacceptable--- and besides, it causes climate change.
Well schools don't even allow kids to bite a pop tart that MIGHT look like the shape of a gun. They are being taught ALL guns are bad, evil, and scary, and the gun is to blame for violence, not the person.
-
Fine. But please apply that to everyone. There are others on here that hurl personal attacks at anyone who disagree with them or dare post an opinion they disagree with, yet I don't see you calling them out on it.
I cannot recall ever hurling any sort of invective at you. Ever. Indeed, on this site I can't recall hurling any sort of invective at anyone. But I've had plenty hurled my way. You don't stop this sort of behavior by spreading it around.
-
I cannot recall ever hurling any sort of invective at you. Ever. Indeed, on this site I can't recall hurling any sort of invective at anyone. But I've had plenty hurled my way. You don't stop this sort of behavior by spreading it around.
I never said it was you.
As with most forums there will always be "favorites" that will get a pass no matter what.
-
I never said it was you.
As with most forums there will always be "favorites" that will get a pass no matter what.
The fact remains that you did this to someone blameless of this sort of behavior. I turned the other cheek, ironic though it may be. Perhaps you might consider doing that more often.
-
The fact remains that you did this to some blameless of this sort of behavior.
That sentence makes no sense.
I turned the other cheek, ironic though it may be. Perhaps you might consider doing that more often.
Whatever.
-
The fact remains that you did this to some blameless of this sort of behavior. I turned the other cheek, ironic though it may be. Perhaps you might consider doing that more often.
Don't take it personally. He is hiding in his safe-space. He thinks that me criticizing his Orange Lord is a personal attack on him, so he lashes out at others with actual personal attacks. He's not too bright, and I'm becoming more convinced he's just another FC sock-puppet.
-
Don't take it personally. He is hiding in his safe-space. He thinks that me criticizing his Orange Lord is a personal attack on him, so he lashes out at others with actual personal attacks. He's not too bright, and I'm becoming more convinced he's just another FC sock-puppet.
Perhaps, but I actually got along with FC to a large degree. If I ever meet him I'll be happy to buy him a beer. But I meant what I said. You don't stop this sort of behavior by spreading it around.
-
That's fine when we are disagreeing on the latest NBA draft picks, but we are talking about the future of our nation, which I am afraid has already gone off the cliff like so many other leftist/socialist countries.
.
Hillary is getting a pass because of who she is and who is in power at the moment. Any one of us in the same position would be in Leavenworth.
So how in the world does calling people names do anything to change anything that goes on in our country??? Honestly, unless being in politics is your profession, or you are a serious volunteer, or something, politics and political discussion pretty much is just entertainment just like the NBA. Getting all wound up because Hillary gets off scott free, is silly. Since the beginning of history, the wealthy, powerful and privileged have always lived by a different set of rules and realities. We have a little republic and we all get to vote, but nothing has changed about that and IMO, it never will.
-
political discussion pretty much is just entertainment
Yep.
-
That sentence makes no sense.
That is English. We speak it here.
-
That is English. We speak it here.
Apparently syntax is not required. ::)
-
Apparently syntax is not required. ::)
Ya dun attack'd dat dude witout bein' attack'd by dat dude.
Hope that helps.
-
Ya dun attack'd dat dude witout bein' attack'd by dat dude.
Hope that helps.
You have some multisyllabic words in there, you might want to fix that.
-
I've also met Michael on a couple of occasions at Air Venture and consider him a friend.
-
I've also met Michael on a couple of occasions at Air Venture and consider him a friend.
Yup. Disagreeing over politics doesn't mean folks is bad people.