it isn't the total, it is which legislation it involved.
it isn't the total, it is which legislation it involved.
Oh, one side always thinks the other side is worse. Actually, both sides think that way. And that is how you know you're on one side or the other side.
Here is my question, which is worse? Deleting 18.5 minutes of audio recordings or erasing an entire email server used by the Secretary of State for Official Purposes?
Both are equally wrong. For the same reasons. One guy had to resign in shame, the other is running for president and proud of her accomplishments. Which side is worse? Meh, I can't hardly tell them apart.
I know plenty of people who know how to Google something, spew it forth as if it is some universal truth, only to be 100% wrong, because they don't know anything about anything. These are the people who know how to Google, but don't know enough to be able to tell the good vs the bad.
There are three kinds of people
1) People who don't know Google or how to use it
2) People who think they know something because they Googled it
3) People who actually know something, and use Google to enhance their information.
#3 people are the only ones who can have an engaging conversation about the topic without needing to use Google.
It is easy to say science isn't political, however it is political if you want government funding.
I want research that says X, I get my buddies in the Y party to create a funding bill for research that says X. I can create science that says X, and get more funding, therefore I say X. If I say not X, I don't get any more funding, and have to find a new job flipping hamburgers at McD's.
Science isn't political
Its not the X party, it is the Y party (where X and Y are the two major parties, and interchangeable)
The IRS is politically motivated, which is why the likes of Lois Learner are the ones protected by the AG office from any sort of investigation.
1) I heard about it first on the news
2) I am angry and will get to the bottom of this!
3) Not a Smidgeon of evidence (no investigation either looking for said evidence)
4) Nothing but a Phony scandal
5) Old news.
My take on the whole thing, it is only a scandal with the OTHER side does it. Which is why I am a libertarian, both sides are corrupt, and saying X side is more corrupt than Y, is oversimplification (and not true)
Fad Savvy more likely. Most of the "Tech Savvy" people I know are Google experts, meaning they know how to Google for an answer, and they think that makes them an expert. Take away their computer, and they can't have a Tech conversation with anyone.
They have no idea what it takes to get them their "Google". They aren't tech savvy, they are digital savvy illiterates.
Obama was a US Senator longer (3-Jan-2005 to 16-Nov-2008) that Palin was Governor of Alaska
Voting "present" if I recall was his biggest achievement in those years. Having no real accomplishments other than being elected is outstanding political work these days. It also is working for Hilary.
And obviously you think three years as senator makes one fully qualified to be President of the US.
Based on what?
Rose Law firm files
Taking China from the WH
Drug Dealer Scandal
Mail Server Scandal
Clinton Foundation scandal.
Of course, a lifetime of scandal should be enough to prevent her from running. At this point the DNC can't complain about anyone the GOP having "Scandals"
She crafted and presented a workable health care bill
She wasn't elected to do that. She wasn't even elected. If your best case scenario is this then go away.
She also served successfully as secretary of state in an essentially scandal free administration, no matter how much republicans wish it were otherwise.
Scandal Free? LOL
Successfully? LMAO The world is burning, and you call that success?
She got the job because she was Monica's Ex-Boyfriend's wife. Not because she actually did anything worthy of it.
And if that is her BEST accomplishment (holding an appointed post) then that is really pathetic.
Why didn't the reporters do the same thing with a Jr Senator from Illinois? Remember, he was just a couple years into his first term as Senator, voting "present" more often than anything else. Red Flags abounded, but he was "black" and "dynamic". Having the first "campaign" meeting at the house of two former (or still) radicals wasn't a hint of things to come?
While Palin was new to the National scene, she didn't get elected Governor because she was a woman, she pissed off a lot of people both (D) and (R) up there. She was just too "small town" for national appeal. The (D) and (R) power brokers love fancy city slickers
Too late. 16 years of Bush/Obama has been enough.
holding my nose and pulling the lever for her.
You are under the false assumption that the Clintons aren't in the realm of billionaire status. The whole "Clinton Foundation" is a clever trick to get people to think that the Clintons actually care about anything other than power and wealth. It has been that way since Bill was Governor.
who can take shots at Hillary without getting slammed as sexist.
(D): "Treat women and men equally"
(Everyone): "Hilary has a very poor record in public office"
Yeah, we want equal rights, until it is inconvenient.
Actually, if a REPUBLICAN (woman or not) did any of those things, the news media besides FOX NEWS would actually be covering them. But the MSM is in full whitewash mode on Hilary, simply because she is a woman and (D) and the best the DNC actually has after seven years of Obama.
And Hilary's biggest accomplishment, is being Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife. There is no way she would have been elected Senator or appointed Secretary of State is she weren't. She hasn't done anything.