This has got to be an Onion article, right?

[The Cadet]

What are we working on now, 280 days without a formal press conference and abosolutely no whining from LSM?.....that's a good indication.....just giving her a pass....

...No, they haven't. In fact, it's been a near-constant refrain, even in the hard-left rags I read. Washington Post criticized her for it. So did Slate. Here's NBC News. Shall I continue?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Some simply don't like it because it goes against the Hillary. But if it were Bush doing something highly questionable or illegal..........

BINGO!

 

[civilwarbuff]

...No, they haven't. In fact, it's been a near-constant refrain, even in the hard-left rags I read. Washington Post criticized her for it. So did Slate. Here's NBC News. Shall I continue?

Please do....3 complaints in 280+ days....I am underwhelmed.....

 

[The Cadet]

Please do....3 complaints in 280+ days....I am underwhelmed.....

Those were just the first ones that came to mind. I've seen such complaints from just about every mainstream news source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising.html
http://www.poynter.org/2016/what-jo...ary-clintons-press-conference-drought/427911/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/708855/Hillary-Clinton-press-US-election-BBC-Steve-Hilton
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/24/media/clinton-trump-no-interviews/

Et cetera et cetera et cetera.

 

[MrSpikey]

The United State of America hacks into other foreign accounts on a regular basis. It's the way it's done.

Indeed. How do you distinguish fact from propaganda in what they choose to make public when coming from a foreign power that wishes to forward its own interests at the expense of your own?

 

[MrSpikey]

He says he has evidence; why don't you hold your breath until it comes out?

I'll refrain from weighing the evidence until it's produced.

How about you?

 

[MrSpikey]

What, you don't believe the US has never worked with enemies to attain a goal?....in this case the truth?

No, I don't believe that.

If people want to believe information from a source they would otherwise view as untrustworthy, simply because in that instance it validates their existing beliefs, that is their choice. Don't expect others to accord it the same status, though.

 

[PapaZoom]

Indeed. How do you distinguish fact from propaganda in what they choose to make public when coming from a foreign power that wishes to forward its own interests at the expense of your own?

That's a good question. It seems it would be easy to forge a document and it's certainly easy to fake a photo. I suppose there are ways to authenticate much of it.

 

[PapaZoom]

No, I don't believe that.

If people want to believe information from a source they would otherwise view as untrustworthy, simply because in that instance it validates their existing beliefs, that is their choice. Don't expect others to accord it the same status, though.

Just remember though that the info on the DNC fixing the primary so that Hillary would be the choice no matter what turned out to be true.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I'll refrain from weighing the evidence until it's produced.

How about you?

Please show me where I have been "weighing the evidence" before it has been produced.

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, I don't believe that.

If people want to believe information from a source they would otherwise view as untrustworthy, simply because in that instance it validates their existing beliefs, that is their choice. Don't expect others to accord it the same status, though.

We worked with the Taliban against Russia; how did that work out for us?

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Just remember though that the info on the DNC fixing the primary so that Hillary would be the choice no matter what turned out to be true.

Do you realize how annoying that is to her supporters? Oh wait never mind...

 

[MrSpikey]

Please show me where I have been "weighing the evidence" before it has been produced.

I asked you a question, rather than stating a fact.

 

[MrSpikey]

We worked with the Taliban against Russia; how did that work out for us?

Well, I think you were quite happy with the situation at the time.

Later on, not so much.

Kind of underlines my point, don't you think?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well, I think you were quite happy with the situation at the time.

Later on, not so much.

Kind of underlines my point, don't you think?

I stated the US has worked with enemies to attain a goal, you said you don't believe it and I provided an example. If you refuse to believe facts, that's your problem.

 

[MrSpikey]

I stated the US has worked with enemies to attain a goal, you said you don't believe it and I provided an example. If you refuse to believe facts, that's your problem.

Were they enemies when you armed them? Or were they only really classed as enemies much later on?

 

[PapaZoom]

Were they enemies when you armed them? Or were they only really classed as enemies much later on?

Nit pick. He's right on this.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Were they enemies when you armed them? Or were they only really classed as enemies much later on?

They were unfriendlies we used to attain a goal; Russia was kicked out......

 

[TLK Valentine]

What are we working on now, 280 days without a formal press conference and abosolutely no whining from LSM?.....that's a good indication.....just giving her a pass....

You need to pay more attention -- Hillary gave a press conference two days before you posted this...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/media/clinton-presser/

 

[TLK Valentine]

You know, when a bounty hunter captures a criminal in a foreign country and takes them before a judge, the judge does not care about the circumstances of the defendants appearance. Being there is all that matters.....same with the emails....I don't care about how someone acquired them, I just want to see them.....

Kind of makes you wonder why the police or other government agencies don't just hire bounty hunters and circumvent the Constitution entirely...