mrandyk Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Hillary Clinton hasn't even been Secretary of State for over 3 1/2 years. The amount of attention some people give the email scandal so long after the fact, after all the investigations, and after no charges were recommended is nothing short of ridiculous. Her opponents cling to it and are making fools of themselves in doing so. 2 Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Hillary Clinton hasn't even been Secretary of State for over 3 1/2 years. The amount of attention some people give the email scandal so long after the fact, after all the investigations, and after no charges were recommended is nothing short of ridiculous. Her opponents cling to it and are making fools of themselves in doing so. Umm...you just completely disproved your credibility on here permanently. What do you mean she hasn't been SOS for 3 1/2 years? She was SOS in Obama's first term starting in January, 2009. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Hillary Clinton hasn't even been Secretary of State for over 3 1/2 years. The amount of attention some people give the email scandal so long after the fact, after all the investigations, and after no charges were recommended is nothing short of ridiculous. Her opponents cling to it and are making fools of themselves in doing so. Umm...you just completely disproved your credibility on here permanently. What do you mean she hasn't been SOS for 3 1/2 years? She was SOS in Obama's first term starting in January, 2009. ummmmm..... 2 Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Hillary Clinton hasn't even been Secretary of State for over 3 1/2 years. The amount of attention some people give the email scandal so long after the fact, after all the investigations, and after no charges were recommended is nothing short of ridiculous. Her opponents cling to it and are making fools of themselves in doing so. Umm...you just completely disproved your credibility on here permanently. What do you mean she hasn't been SOS for 3 1/2 years? She was SOS in Obama's first term starting in January, 2009. ummmmm..... I think even you knew she was no longer SOS...am I right? 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 ^^^^Dude, are you trying to be bad at both math AND reading? 1 Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 ^^^^Dude, are you trying to be bad at both math AND reading? If I misread his intent in his email, my apologies, but it's been longer than 3.5 years since she finished up as SOS. "Hasn't even been" suggests to me she is currently in the role. If the intent was to say she "Hasn't even been out of" the role, that would make more sense structurally if that was the intent. If that is the intent, it's a bogus one as nobody knew about the private emails and servers while she was SOS, and much of this has come up within the past year or two. It's darn relevant to this campaign as well as we are talking about her becoming POTUS despite showing a complete lack of judgment on national security issues. 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 3 years and 6 months.... seems like 3.5 years. Link to comment
funhusker Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 ^^^^Dude, are you trying to be bad at both math AND reading? If I misread his intent in his email, my apologies, but it's been longer than 3.5 years since she finished up as SOS. "Hasn't even been" suggests to me she is currently in the role. If the intent was to say she "Hasn't even been out of" the role, that would make more sense structurally if that was the intent. Teach me about "irony" next, Mr. Grammar. Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 ^^^^Dude, are you trying to be bad at both math AND reading? If I misread his intent in his email, my apologies, but it's been longer than 3.5 years since she finished up as SOS. "Hasn't even been" suggests to me she is currently in the role. If the intent was to say she "Hasn't even been out of" the role, that would make more sense structurally if that was the intent. Teach me about "irony" next, Mr. Grammar. You need a lot more teaching than just that... 1 Link to comment
huskerfan2000 Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 Hillary Clinton hasn't even been Secretary of State for over 3 1/2 years. The amount of attention some people give the email scandal so long after the fact, after all the investigations, and after no charges were recommended is nothing short of ridiculous. Her opponents cling to it and are making fools of themselves in doing so. The only fools suckers are those backing her.. Link to comment
funhusker Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 We should all strive to continue to learn. I agree. To do that, we have to look at new information, determine what is good and what is bad. Sometimes we realize that what we think we know, isn't true at all. Sometimes we see a YouTube video and realize it is complete garbage and is a waste of time no matter how much someone stomps their feet and yells "BIAS!". Now, many of us here are open to ideas and discussion based on verifiable facts. And some, well, they just aren't.....My only desire to go back and forth with those posters is to point out their ridiculousness of claiming someone loses "credibility on here permanently" because of a trivial, non-integral section of a post that didn't even exist. My point, if a poster wants to come across as a pompous know-it-all, they should make sure to carefully and correctly read a post before saying it is laughable. It's just a bad look.... 1 Link to comment
huskerfan2000 Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/correction-coming-nothing-stop-economist-210000300.html I still won't vote for him, but had to post this for the Trump haters. Rosenberg says a Donald Trump win could hurt the market near term, but added that he thinks a Trump victory would actually be "pretty good for the U.S. economy down the road." Link to comment
ZRod Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 No, I think you'll find sites that are blatantly biased to the far right, or bought and paid for are what is discredited (typically with facts). I could be wrong on that, but that's what I've seen. That is so blatantly wrong it isn't even funny! Of course the "facts" used are from a liberal site.. while trying to discredit conservative facts from a conservative site. Knap even tried to discredit a video, just recently, because it was from fox news! I didn't watch the video and the link is now dead, so I can't comment on its content. However, almost anything on TV from Fox is garbage. And before you drag MSNBC into this I'll say that I wouldn't know much about them. I have watched maybe 2 hours of that channel in my entire life. I can't fathom a site you wouldn't consider too liberal when you are linking to the heritage foundation.The question still stands, no matter how hard your try to deflect it. Are those articles wrong? From my perspective, yes, they are wrong. Based on what I see and here in the media Trump is constantly labeled negatively by the media, Hillary isn't. Yes, they talk about the email scandal, but it is in a "no big deal" sort of way. I guess you can say even though the media is trying to take him down, that it is having a reverse affect. So, in that way, I guess you can say they are correct. Oh, and the email scandal is not out of control. It shows she is far from qualified to be president, and it should, and rightly so, disqualify her due to a total lack of understanding, or caring about national security. I mean I guess you can feel however you want, but the second link took articles from more "liberal" sites than conservative (Politico, Fox, Washington Post, CNN, Huff Po) and their analysis showed from 2015 until now more negative stories were written for Clinton than Trump. Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 We should all strive to continue to learn. I agree. To do that, we have to look at new information, determine what is good and what is bad. Sometimes we realize that what we think we know, isn't true at all. Sometimes we see a YouTube video and realize it is complete garbage and is a waste of time no matter how much someone stomps their feet and yells "BIAS!". Now, many of us here are open to ideas and discussion based on verifiable facts. And some, well, they just aren't.....My only desire to go back and forth with those posters is to point out their ridiculousness of claiming someone loses "credibility on here permanently" because of a trivial, non-integral section of a post that didn't even exist. My point, if a poster wants to come across as a pompous know-it-all, they should make sure to carefully and correctly read a post before saying it is laughable. It's just a bad look.... I agree with your initial sentence, and the point is that the way the post IS worded, my initial response is accurate. Now after considering your questioning what he may have intended, I'm willing to give the original post the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, any suggestions that voters should not be taking into account Hillary's lies about her emails is ridiculous, especially when she continues to lie about lying. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 We should all strive to continue to learn. I agree. To do that, we have to look at new information, determine what is good and what is bad. Sometimes we realize that what we think we know, isn't true at all. Sometimes we see a YouTube video and realize it is complete garbage and is a waste of time no matter how much someone stomps their feet and yells "BIAS!". Now, many of us here are open to ideas and discussion based on verifiable facts. And some, well, they just aren't.....My only desire to go back and forth with those posters is to point out their ridiculousness of claiming someone loses "credibility on here permanently" because of a trivial, non-integral section of a post that didn't even exist. My point, if a poster wants to come across as a pompous know-it-all, they should make sure to carefully and correctly read a post before saying it is laughable. It's just a bad look.... I agree with your initial sentence, and the point is that the way the post IS worded, my initial response is accurate. Now after considering your questioning what he may have intended, I'm willing to give the original post the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, any suggestions that voters should not be taking into account Hillary's lies about her emails is ridiculous, especially when she continues to lie about lying. Your initial response of "you have no credibility because I think you said something you did not say"? No it wasn't accurate, not even close. I agree with you as far as if people want to talk about emails let them talk about them. Just because something happened 4 years ago doesn't mean it's not valid. Just as some people want to talk about other things that they feel are more valid. It would just be easier and more fun to talk about them if we some posters didn't act like this was some middle school debate club and trying "discredit" entire posts because they got read wrong. Link to comment
Recommended Posts