Data from Clinton's calandar seems to be missing...

[Moonbeam]

If you have the calendar already it should be easy to determine if the missing records only represent particularly "suspicious" meetings (ie implying targeted intent), or it was common enough for everything else. That most basic & key math is missing from the OP. Missing some info for 75 entry out of thousand page calendar isn't in itself a smoking gun.

I have learned in this thread that for there to be anything suspicious one must posess the conservative Clinton contempt gene or be suffering from lSanders sadness burn. All rational people know there is nothing suspicious here. After all, the AP is just an appendage of Fox News.

Personally however, and speaking as a biased fanatic, I thought the AP article very fairly laid out the facts so that objective, but apparently extinct Martians could draw their own independent conclusions.

Personally, again, I looked at the fact that there is resentment on the Sanders side toward the democratic partiy's increasing coziness with money and the nature of who the missing data involved and came to the conclusion it looked to be no accident such details were withheld and that it took a lawsuit to pry them out. But that, naturally, is because I'm crazy.

 

[ivwshane]

I have learned in this thread that for there to be anything suspicious one must posess the conservative Clinton contempt gene or be suffering from lSanders sadness burn. All rational people know there is nothing suspicious here. After all, the AP is just an appendage of Fox News.

Personally however, and speaking as a biased fanatic, I thought the AP article very fairly laid out the facts so that objective, but apparently extinct Martians could draw their own independent conclusions.

Personally, again, I looked at the fact that there is resentment on the Sanders side toward the democratic partiy's increasing coziness with money and the nature of who the missing data involved and came to the conclusion it looked to be no accident such details were withheld and that it took a lawsuit to pry them out. But that, naturally, is because I'm crazy.

I don't think you are crazy, just gullible. For example; you mentioned that details required a lawsuit, which on first glance seems pretty damning. But to a non gullible person, it should raise more questions before coming to a conclusion. Such as, is it common for government (politicians, departments, etc) to be sued for access to information? How common is it? Are most secretaries of state held to this same level of scrutiny? Why or why not? Do we have any precedent of this sort of behavior happening before? What are the reasons for such meetings?

Those are just some of the questions I would need to have answered in order to come to any sort of conclusion, especially when it comes to claims of corruption.

Not only did you not ask any questions you didn't bother answering my questions when I brought them up to you. As some one such as yourself who is capable of introspection, I'd have to ask why? Would you outrage be any less if you knew the details and they confirmed what your gut already told you? Would you maintain your outrage if the details didn't confirm what your gut was telling you?

I always thought of you as someone who was a truth seeker, but lately, you only seem concerned with the truth if it is easy. Have you given up on working hard to find the truth?

 

[LunarRay]

lol +1 Fuzzy pink Christina Aguilera Moonbeam monsters! They're everywhere!

Man, I've missed you here in our little cesspool. Hope everything is well with you and yours.

I'm here reading the posts all the time, however, I don't find I can actually add much to the content.
I can't think of a more enjoyable use of time than to read what folks write here. Also, Moonster insures I'm aware of the more insane 'conversations' while we slay the righteous :\ conservative monsters stalking us in Diablo 3.

All's well here and thanks for your kind thoughts.

 

[LunarRay]

It's just so unfair. Here I am struggling mightily to shed some light on the imbecilic lunacy of his self invented rants and what does he do but reduces it all to me being schizophrenic and in need of mental help. He does seem to need to pay closer attention to what transparent means. . I mean really.....

In what world am I not the doctor and he's not the patient? It reminds me of the first time I saw a psychologist and who told me I was defensive and I responded, "I am not." Ah to be young again. It was to be a while yet before I learned the joys of a padded cell.

If the chimp has but an orange to toss in frustration at its object it will toss that even though it may be hungry for that orange. IOW, you toss what you have and if a logical argument is not available tossed will be what ever is at hand... real or conjured.

When sat or chained in a cave, shadows are seen only during the day sans the fire. What can be seen in a perpetually darkened cave? I suggest only what the mind creates and that can be or usually is only what is feared.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm here reading the posts all the time, however, I don't find I can actually add much to the content.
I can't think of a more enjoyable use of time than to read what folks write here. Also, Moonster insures I'm aware of the more insane 'conversations' while we slay the righteous :\ conservative monsters stalking us in Diablo 3.

All's well here and thanks for your kind thoughts.

A ship can't sail where the water is too shallow. Fortunately the best I can manage is a row boat

 

[LunarRay]

A ship can't sail where the water is too shallow. Fortunately the best I can manage is a row boat

Well, from what I read from some it is the size of the ship rather than the mirage they sail in that is the issue.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, from what I read from some it is the size of the ship rather than the mirage they sail in that is the issue.

Might I suggest that it's the size of the ship for some that is the mirage.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Might I suggest that it's the size of the ship for some that is the mirage.

Your prayers have been answered ... an ark is being built in Kentucky -- should be big enough, hell it could hold all the worlds animals and the food and water they'd need for more than 40 days and nights...


Brian

 

[LunarRay]

Might I suggest that it's the size of the ship for some that is the mirage.

You may. And, you do. hehe

But it seems that regardless of their ship size they use the same size oars. But then it is logical to assume one cannot expect to manipulate an oar whose magnitude is greater than their ability to wield them. I'd suggest trying to use the engine of the mind to limit the size of each to be within their ability to navigate to their destination. That, however, would be futile.

 

[LunarRay]

Your prayers have been answered ... an ark is being built in Kentucky -- should be big enough, hell it could hold all the worlds animals and the food and water they'd need for more than 40 days and nights...


Brian

I once asked Brother Tim (Jesuit friend of my youth) about that Ark thingy... I wondered why God couldn't just find a more reasonable means to an end. Like maybe just selecting the animals and poof.. have them up there in heaven until the rainbow appeared... He said, "Noah and family were being tested." Can you imagine what Noah thought when he heard God tell him to build a boat and go get some animals to ferry about for awhile? I'd have told God that I had enough faith to believe that if God wanted a boat he could build it himself.

 

[Moonbeam]

You may. And, you do. hehe

But it seems that regardless of their ship size they use the same size oars. But then it is logical to assume one cannot expect to manipulate an oar whose magnitude is greater than their ability to wield them. I'd suggest trying to use the engine of the mind to limit the size of each to be within their ability to navigate to their destination. That, however, would be futile.

That it's hopeless is where I start. I look for those gifted rats that that are wont to abandon a ship before it goes down, like a bobbing buoy that goes ding dong.

 

[Moonbeam]

I once asked Brother Tim (Jesuit friend of my youth) about that Ark thingy... I wondered why God couldn't just find a more reasonable means to an end. Like maybe just selecting the animals and poof.. have them up there in heaven until the rainbow appeared... He said, "Noah and family were being tested." Can you imagine what Noah thought when he heard God tell him to build a boat and go get some animals to ferry about for awhile? I'd have told God that I had enough faith to believe that if God wanted a boat he could build it himself.

That reminds me of the time Mulla Nasrudin went to the king to get some money and the King told the Mulla to go ask Allah. The Mulla said I did, He told me to go ask you.

 

[senseamp]

Was it a male firefighter calendar?

 

[LunarRay]

Was it a male firefighter calendar?

An essential element for the propagation of calendars?

 

[LunarRay]

That reminds me of the time Mulla Nasrudin went to the king to get some money and the King told the Mulla to go ask Allah. The Mulla said I did, He told me to go ask you.

You'd think that God would have known that the cheapo king was not going to give Nasrudin a penny.

 

[agent00f]

Personally however, and speaking as a biased fanatic, I thought the AP article very fairly laid out the facts so that objective, but apparently extinct Martians could draw their own independent conclusions.

Can you summarize those facts which are relevant to the basic questions? Preferably quantitatively to some degree so that magnitude is clear. Thanks.

 

[MongGrel]

Was it a male firefighter calendar?

An essential element for the propagation of calendars?

It is essential if you are Lori Petty trying to get in good with the Rippers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Can you summarize those facts which are relevant to the basic questions? Preferably quantitatively to some degree so that magnitude is clear. Thanks.

I sought to bring to the attention of the forum that a news organization had written a piece that drew attention to some missing data. I linked the article I read. My reaction to the article was that's interesting, I think I'll post a link. Since I think the AP is a respected news sourc, I provided a link. As with so much of everything today, the article seems to have generated partisan reactions. Make of it what you will.thats why I posted the link.

 

[agent00f]

I sought to bring to the attention of the forum that a news organization had written a piece that drew attention to some missing data. I linked the article I read. My reaction to the article was that's interesting, I think I'll post a link. Since I think the AP is a respected news sourc, I provided a link. As with so much of everything today, the article seems to have generated partisan reactions. Make of it what you will.thats why I posted the link.

That's obvious enough, which is what prompt my first post: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=38329504#post38329504

Perhaps it can be better understood now when combined with your introspective comment.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think you are crazy, just gullible. For example; you mentioned that details required a lawsuit, which on first glance seems pretty damning. But to a non gullible person, it should raise more questions before coming to a conclusion. Such as, is it common for government (politicians, departments, etc) to be sued for access to information? How common is it? Are most secretaries of state held to this same level of scrutiny? Why or why not? Do we have any precedent of this sort of behavior happening before? What are the reasons for such meetings?

Those are just some of the questions I would need to have answered in order to come to any sort of conclusion, especially when it comes to claims of corruption.

Not only did you not ask any questions you didn't bother answering my questions when I brought them up to you. As some one such as yourself who is capable of introspection, I'd have to ask why? Would you outrage be any less if you knew the details and they confirmed what your gut already told you? Would you maintain your outrage if the details didn't confirm what your gut was telling you?

I always thought of you as someone who was a truth seeker, but lately, you only seem concerned with the truth if it is easy. Have you given up on working hard to find the truth?

Lawsuits? First nail their feet to the floor with budget cuts, then sue when they can't run-

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...onth-delay-in-release-of-clinton-aides-emails

Republicans & inefficient govt are a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think you know what a pathological liar is.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-bosnia-sniper-fire-2016-6

Did she get some details wrong? Absolutely! Is this the sort of lie that would end a politicians career? Hardly.



But if you want to start comparing the lies Hillary has told with the lies other presidents and other presidential candidates have told then lets see how she ranks. If you want we can limit it to the candidate you plan on voting for. I suspect the bar you hold so high for Clinton will be lowered rather quickly when it comes to the candidate you support.

For some perhaps, but unlike you I don't favor any candidate and improper behavior for me doesn't reduce to "well it doesn't matter what my pick does. LOOK AT EVERYONE ELSE". If one person murders one or a hundred they are still murderers. And if you want to go with "well you support the Republicans" you will be soundly laughed at by the informed. I despised Cheney et al.

Getting back to "it's nothing", well Hillary has been caught in some whoppers. It wasn't a matter of convenience (not that being a reason is any excuse) but hiding things. Note the the worry about FOIA.

Now that wouldn't be criminal, but if the investigation shows her personal server was hacked and information related to the defense of the nation (and it would be hard to imagine that a Sec of State wouldn't be privy to that information then she's criminally liable. Oh yes she is and before you go into diversionary tactics you might want to check on that because I certainly have.

 

[Jhhnn]

For some perhaps, but unlike you I don't favor any candidate and improper behavior for me doesn't reduce to "well it doesn't matter what my pick does. LOOK AT EVERYONE ELSE". If one person murders one or a hundred they are still murderers. And if you want to go with "well you support the Republicans" you will be soundly laughed at by the informed. I despised Cheney et al.

Getting back to "it's nothing", well Hillary has been caught in some whoppers. It wasn't a matter of convenience (not that being a reason is any excuse) but hiding things. Note the the worry about FOIA.

Now that wouldn't be criminal, but if the investigation shows her personal server was hacked and information related to the defense of the nation (and it would be hard to imagine that a Sec of State wouldn't be privy to that information then she's criminally liable. Oh yes she is and before you go into diversionary tactics you might want to check on that because I certainly have.

That's a mighty fanciful scenario from an acknowledged legal scholar such as yourself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's a mighty fanciful scenario from an acknowledged legal scholar such as yourself.

Which part in particular? About her liability if hacked?

 

[Jhhnn]

Which part in particular? About her liability if hacked?

Let us begin with the faux purity test & your claims of impartiality. If honesty is a primary concern in our choice this November we'd probably want to consider more than our emotional reaction to any candidate. You know, stuff like this, linked on the previous page-

http://e.infogr.am/05d33198-eeb3-4636-a8b5-fc4b3898f7f5?src=embed

If yu can't see it in shades of grey you can't see it at all.

Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, the Birther in Chief. Each of us can decide for ourselves.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let us begin with the faux purity test & your claims of impartiality. If honesty is a primary concern in our choice this November we'd probably want to consider more than our emotional reaction to any candidate. You know, stuff like this, linked on the previous page-

http://e.infogr.am/05d33198-eeb3-4636-a8b5-fc4b3898f7f5?src=embed

If yu can't see it in shades of grey you can't see it at all.

Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, the Birther in Chief. Each of us can decide for ourselves.

So you can't defend her so you resort to attacking Trump. We've been discussing Hillary and the consequences of her actions. Trump is an idiot, and a POS. Because I'm looking at Hillary does not mean I embrace Trump. All you have to find is where I have.

Now back to Hillary. I've mentioned that she's legally liable for her handling of defense related information. Without diverting, am I right or wrong? One or the other. Other people are responsible for what they do. She is too.