The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.
Yes, you've been saying that for a loooong time and dang-it you're right!
I particularly enjoyed this part of the article:
The central problem with Hillary Clinton’s emails was not the classified material. It wasn’t the headline-making charge by the Federal Bureau of Investigation director of her extreme carelessness in handling it.
That’s a serious offence, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically, exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and — in her dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions — demonstrating her arm’s-length relationship with the truth.
But it was always something of a sideshow. The real question wasn’t classification but: why did she have a private server in the first place? She obviously lied about the purpose. It wasn’t convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding?
Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually walks the line of legality? After all, if Clinton controls the server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it — as she did 30,000 emails — at will.
But destroy what? Remember: she set up the system before even taking office. It’s clear what she wanted to protect from scrutiny: Clinton Foundation business.
The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channelled to Clinton Inc. Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodation, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favourable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton Restoration.
Now we learn how the whole machine operated. Two weeks ago, emails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favours for foundation “friends.” Say, a meeting with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire.
Big deal, said the Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No involvement of the secretary herself. Until — drip, drip — the next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain.
To be sure, Bahrain, home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to go through a foundation — to which his government donated at least $50,000 — to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is telling.
Now, a further drip: The Associated Press found that more than half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with secretary Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million.
Current Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo.
What a long way we’ve come. This is the very last line of defence. Yes, it’s obvious that access and influence were sold. But no one has demonstrated definitively that the donors received something tangible of value — a pipeline, a permit, a waiver, a favourable regulatory ruling — in exchange.
It’s hard to believe the Clinton folks would be stupid enough to commit something so blatant to writing. Nonetheless, there might be an email allusion to some such conversation. With thousands more emails to come, who knows what lies beneath.
damonberryman wrote:
I do not often offer to drop a fight. It is only your condition that brings me to it. it is starting to feel like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyone of us during times in our lives act out of character. I hope that is what you are doing.
I'd love to take credit for all of your meltdowns
... but the fact is I'm only one of a few who deserves the credit here.
Hell, up until a week ago you were losing your shit over anyone who disagreed with you on anything on this topic.
damonberryman wrote:
You are smart. You do argue with conviction. You take no shit from anyone. That should be enough Doc.
It's a long article, thanks for cluttering the board with half of it.
(the half which seems to make the pedophile and Hillary out to not be the monsters they are)
(the half which seems to "blame the victim"... a 12-year old girl!)
Not surprised to see you spring to the aid of a PEDOPHILE yet again...
not surprised to see you post propaganda disguised as fact yet again
ukcanuck wrote:
funny how the video inaccurately makes it sound like the guy got off with only two months in jail...
This PEDOPHILE served only 12 months (including time served) for RAPING A CHILD thanks to Hillary
What is it with you and pedophiles? [/quote]
Actually he was not convicted of rape, but a lesser charge. The victims family pushed for a quick plea bargain and the prosecution agreed with the defence on the bargain and the judge is the one who handed the sentence, so in fact Hilary is not guilty of the accusation.
Even now, that outcome is not unusual for violent criminal charges: 2014 statistics show that 97% of criminal cases (including rape) are resolved by plea bargain, and only 3% go to trial. The ratio of plea bargains to trials was similar in 1970 [PDF].
Additionally, that 1975 criminal case came before the widespread adoptions of rape shield laws that now protect rape victims in court from some forms of questioning. A case brought in 1975 would have been subject to much weaker legal protection for the accuser than today.
As Hillary Clinton said while looking back on the case during a 2014 interview for Mumsnet, "When you're a lawyer you often don't have the choice as to who you will represent. And by the very nature of criminal law there will be those you represent you don't approve of. But, at least in our system, you have an obligation. And once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation."
The system requires the defence attorney to do the best job they can. Not doing so is a crime in of itself. Even you must have watched enough TV too figure that one out.
Having said all that, Im no Hilary fan, its just that Donald sucks even worse.
As for posting the relevant bits of the article its hardly worse than posting sensationalist national enquirer style videos intended to sway people away from reality.
ukcanuck wrote:
not surprised to see you post propaganda disguised as fact yet again
UMMM isn't that exactly what I accused you of doing here?
You're the one who posted selective parts of the article, not I (you nutter).
ukcanuck wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
funny how the video inaccurately makes it sound like the guy got off with only two months in jail...
This PEDOPHILE served only 12 months (including time served) for RAPING A CHILDthanks to Hillary
What is it with you and pedophiles?
Actually he was not convicted of rape, but a lesser charge. The victims family pushed for a quick plea bargain and the prosecution agreed with the defence on the bargain and the judge is the one who handed the sentence, so in fact Hilary is not guilty of the accusation.
Oh... so Hillary is completely ineffectual as a lawyer?
ukcanuck wrote:
The system requires the defence attorney to do the best job they can. Not doing so is a crime in of itself. Even you must have watched enough TV too figure that one out.
It was her tone + attitude that made the video worth posting...
ukcanuck wrote:
Having said all that, Im no Hilary fan, its just that Donald sucks even worse.
Yup, everything boils down to political loyalty with you goosesteppers...
ukcanuck wrote:
Having said all that, Im no Hilary fan, its just that Donald sucks even worse.
Yup, everything boils down to political loyalty with you goosesteppers...
LOL - Doc...
I've been thinking about this election for a while now.
On the one hand, neither the Dems or the Reps have put forward a viable candidate. If trump gets in, he'll be incompetent due to his ignorance of things outside his small world. If Clinton gets in, we'll have another 4 years of stalemate (and worse than what's we've seen with Obama) (plus if she gets in, "WE'RE ALL DOOMED"™. So the only logical choice is to vote 3rd party and demonstrate to the "two major parties" that they have lost the confidence of the voters.
This could provide a boost to the Libertarian Party who could step in to become a centrist party. Of course, which ever party loses would blame the Libertarians for costing them the election. But in the end, it could change the course of politics for decades if the LP made an impact (15% should be enough to get them started).
On the other hand, now the Supreme Court has become truly politicized, this election is almost as much about which candidate will change the face of SCOTUS for the next 20 years. And that alone is one reason to not vote 3rd party.
griz wrote:
Why wouldn't I want to know more about the rebuttal from Monckton? I'm all ears.
I am interested in Science. Why wouldn't I be?
Well for starters, you seem to believe in a literal translation of the creation story in the bible...
If thats the starting point then pretty much its all down hill from there.
No one who claims to be interested in science could credibly deny evolution. Its accepted fact end of argument.
Wait a sec! Not even close to end of argument.
Those old early 60s elementary school science books, (WITH COOL PICTURES), that show the different stages of man can pretty much be used as fireplace starter. Newer science seems to point to ALL SEPARATE SPIECES. So it doesn't seem now that we simply evolved from ape-like creatures.
Evolution is not always the right word to use, it seems, for all.
Adaptation could sometimes be better. Even advancement, though some will certainly argue that, no doubt.
damonberryman wrote:It is so like you to focus on the points of contention rather than pay attention to my reaching out. You lose on these exchanges by this behaviour. It sits on top of what at times are intelligent arguments and instead turn it into something unhealthy when measured over a time of weeks. This is just a fucking hockey thread Doc. Get over yourself. None of us are going to solve problems or deeply change the world. Different points of view make the world go round. Hop on rather than being so cynical. I do not often offer to drop a fight. It is only your condition that brings me to it. it is starting to feel like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyone of us during times in our lives act out of character. I hope that is what you are doing. You are smart. You do argue with conviction. You take no shit from anyone. That should be enough Doc.
It's a hockey forum, that is true.
We have been given the opportunity to talk and debate about other topics and that is awesome!
It would be real shitty if "everyone" thought they couldn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
Who knows what platform a real "game changer" may come from.
