• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

hillary is a pathological liar

When did elitist become such a bad thing especially since dumb as shit rubes want the foundation to be what the founding fathers wanted which means they would have zero say. People are smarter than you, people are trained for specific things, people's judgement and ideas mean more than yours.
 
Say Hey Deac said:
There is no winky, so I can't tell if you're kidding. I kind of hope you aren't.
Click to expand...

Well, you've never personally struck me as being particularly elitist or anti-democratic, so I'd take back that part, but the tone of your comment reeks of both those things.
 
asking the plebeians what they want is the worst way to do anything

that's why our founding fathers didn't set that up
 
I'll put it this way: I've been moderately interested in this email thing because I have a lot of experience providing legal advice on the NC Public Records Act (note: the state law is different from FOIA and doesn't address "top secret" classifications). That said, I have not delved into the federal statutes to learn what acts those laws identify as crimes, nor of course am I privy to all the facts gathered as a result of witness interviews, document review, forensic analysis, etc. So, never in a million years would I opine about whether Hillary Clinton should be indicted, and rather I would tend to defer to the federal prosecutor who does know the law and the facts.

Apparently there are other folks out there (54% of the polling sample!) who do feel comfortable making a judgment that she should be indicted. I assume those people are intimately familiar with the statutes and have special access to all the facts. If not, then I would love to hear their explanation. (Actually: I wouldn't care at all, but in THEORY I would love to hear it)
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I'm pretty anti-democratic. It's an awful way to run a country.
Click to expand...

Well my country club golfing pal, you're in luck.
for roughly 70% of the population – the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale – they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They’re effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which is maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy; it’s plutocracy.
Click to expand...
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_nothing_like_a_democracy/
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Well my country club golfing pal, you're in luck.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_nothing_like_a_democracy/
Click to expand...

Not sure why it was necessary to qualify myself as a "country club golfing pal" for that explanation, but nowhere in my statement did I indicate what I thought the United States of America actually was.

I am more than happy with an oligarchy provided it is based on the intellectual elite instead of the fiscal elite. That obviously is not a feasible idea in the current (or really any) political climate.

Since you are so keenly interested in how I spend my spare time, I am more than happy to move this conversation to PM, where I can lay out my balance sheet for you to indicate why I chose to join a country club based on my current income level/job.
 
Say Hey Deac said:
I'll put it this way: I've been moderately interested in this email thing because I have a lot of experience providing legal advice on the NC Public Records Act (note: the state law is different from FOIA and doesn't address "top secret" classifications). That said, I have not delved into the federal statutes to learn what acts those laws identify as crimes, nor of course am I privy to all the facts gathered as a result of witness interviews, document review, forensic analysis, etc. So, never in a million years would I opine about whether Hillary Clinton should be indicted, and rather I would tend to defer to the federal prosecutor who does know the law and the facts.

Apparently there are other folks out there (54% of the polling sample!) who do feel comfortable making a judgment that she should be indicted. I assume those people are intimately familiar with the statutes and have special access to all the facts. If not, then I would love to hear their explanation. (Actually: I wouldn't care at all, but in THEORY I would love to hear it)
Click to expand...

The "prosecutor" in this case has a conflict from which she refused to recuse herself, so she punted back to the law enforcement agency. That itself is remarkable, no?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Not sure why it was necessary to qualify myself as a "country club golfing pal" for that explanation, but nowhere in my statement did I indicate what I thought the United States of America actually was.

I am more than happy with an oligarchy provided it is based on the intellectual elite instead of the fiscal elite. That obviously is not a feasible idea in the current (or really any) political climate.

Since you are so keenly interested in how I spend my spare time, I am more than happy to move this conversation to PM, where I can lay out my balance sheet for you to indicate why I chose to join a country club based on my current income level/job.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa- it was a joke. A young guy who belongs to a country club and says he hates democracy- how could I not make reference to that?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
This is a great post.
Click to expand...

Why don't we all jus vote for Gary Johnson. He's qualified smart and a good compromise between the two parties. Neither of us like our candidate so why don't we use it as an opportunity to break up the monopoly that the two party system has created.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa- it was a joke. A young guy who belongs to a country club and says he hates democracy- how could I not make reference to that?
Click to expand...

I never said I hated Democracy, I said I was "anti-democracy", and "it (is) an awful way to run a country." Clearly that's a bit of logistics, but they are different words.

Also, belonging to a country club has absolutely nothing to do with my views on democracy. That's just your rush to create a narrative in your head of why I think politically the way I do.

I would say that most country club elitists aren't liberals either, but you haven't really explored that route either.
 
Say Hey Deac said:
I'll put it this way: I've been moderately interested in this email thing because I have a lot of experience providing legal advice on the NC Public Records Act (note: the state law is different from FOIA and doesn't address "top secret" classifications). That said, I have not delved into the federal statutes to learn what acts those laws identify as crimes, nor of course am I privy to all the facts gathered as a result of witness interviews, document review, forensic analysis, etc. So, never in a million years would I opine about whether Hillary Clinton should be indicted, and rather I would tend to defer to the federal prosecutor who does know the law and the facts.

Apparently there are other folks out there (54% of the polling sample!) who do feel comfortable making a judgment that she should be indicted. I assume those people are intimately familiar with the statutes and have special access to all the facts. If not, then I would love to hear their explanation. (Actually: I wouldn't care at all, but in THEORY I would love to hear it)
Click to expand...

The average American voter is not afflicted with the twin diseases of humility and a desire to gather all the facts.
 
Wrangor said:
Why don't we all jus vote for Gary Johnson. He's qualified smart and a good compromise between the two parties. Neither of us like our candidate so why don't we use it as an opportunity to break up the monopoly that the two party system has created.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If Johnson becomes viable, I'll definitely consider it. I like the guy. How can you not like a guy who apparently did a fine job as governor, is into extreme sports and has climbed Everest? Though he should probably stop consuming pot products for the next few months. And I've said before, the most interesting result this year would be if he won and the Dems got the senate (the Pubs are clearly retaining the house). Johnson would want to make budget cuts that would piss everyone off on both sides but I think would otherwise be okay from an economic perspective. But I do think a sudden change in foreign policy to complete isolationism or non-interventionism might produce some scary results, but who knows. His main task, which it appears he's not making much headway in achieving at the moment, is to get to 15% so he can get into the debates. If he can do that and appear as an adult in that debate stage room, I'd hope that he starts pulling support from both parties.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I never said I hated Democracy, I said I was "anti-democracy", and "it (is) an awful way to run a country." Clearly that's a bit of logistics, but they are different words.

Also, belonging to a country club has absolutely nothing to do with my views on democracy. That's just your rush to create a narrative in your head of why I think politically the way I do.

I would say that most country club elitists aren't liberals either, but you haven't really explored that route either.
Click to expand...

Doofus, it was a joke. Seriously. I've got zero problem with you or anyone else attending a country club. But you expressed disdain for democracy, which plays into the stereotype of country club members being elitists, so I made reference to it. It was a throwaway remark. Nothing to be upset about. I've got no problem with you playing golf or belonging to a country club- I realize it makes financial sense.
 
RJKarl said:
People hack Gmail all the time.
Click to expand...

Password GODEACS?


Say Hey Deac said:
I'll put it this way: I've been moderately interested in this email thing because I have a lot of experience providing legal advice on the NC Public Records Act (note: the state law is different from FOIA and doesn't address "top secret" classifications). That said, I have not delved into the federal statutes to learn what acts those laws identify as crimes, nor of course am I privy to all the facts gathered as a result of witness interviews, document review, forensic analysis, etc. So, never in a million years would I opine about whether Hillary Clinton should be indicted, and rather I would tend to defer to the federal prosecutor who does know the law and the facts.

Apparently there are other folks out there (54% of the polling sample!) who do feel comfortable making a judgment that she should be indicted. I assume those people are intimately familiar with the statutes and have special access to all the facts. If not, then I would love to hear their explanation. (Actually: I wouldn't care at all, but in THEORY I would love to hear it)
Click to expand...

Except this guy isn't the federal prosecutor in this situation, he is a cop, and that's the problem. TAB saying, and Comey thinking like he did when, that Comey has put away Gotti and whoever else is what is causing the consternation here. His job in this case was to solely collect the evidence and turn it over, not opine about its legality or illegality. His actual job was to turn it over to the AG's office and say "we have X e-mails, Y were marked confidential, and here is what we know about their disclosure or potential disclosure, you decide what to do with it". Lynch pulled the rope-a-dope on this clown, and the dumbass fell for it. Another government stooge who doesn't know his role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top