In light of the obvious corruption and selling of influence while still on the government payroll then trying to cover up her corrupt activity with her private unsecured email system and then telling lie after lie about it and even lying about lying, a sizable portion of the Democrat Party will stick with her. You get the feeling if she were actually filmed sexually molesting little children or shoving old invalid women in wheelchairs down the stairs it wouldn't matter, as long as they thought she had a chance to win the White House for them. Why? The answer is simple.......they are just as immoral as she is, so her immorality simply is of no concern as long as they feel they can share in the plunder of hard working Americans to which she will have access if she is in the White House. Communism is a deadly form of a corrupt government and socialism is a step midway away from capitalism toward communism. Both communism and socialism require the suspension of moral respect for fellow citizens and the fruits of their labor and property.
Yes. I thought hilariously funny, having been a pilot who lost 6 of them!
Hey, it was fair wear and tear!
(Any anyway, 5 of them returned to service. As my platoon leader once told me, "No Army aircraft is ever 'Shot down.' They are ALL 'Forced to land.'")
Incidentally, I and a dozen or so other proud holders of the Distinguished Flying Cross will be the guests of the Seattle Mariners tomorrow at their game with the Los Angeles Angels. We'll be on the field to demonstrate the proper salute of the U.S. flag during the National Anthem. See you there!
We sure don't want someone who will put religion before state with the aim of creating a theocracy. Hmm, don't you fit that definition Ben?
Latest poll shows Fiorina ahead of Carson, maybe his time has come and gone.
We have a deal. And many of us in the faith community are relieved. After months of negotiations, missing deadlines, and many stressful final days in Vienna, Iran has agreed to halt its nuclear weapons program for a decade or more, and allow credible international agencies to significantly monitor its behavior. In return, sanctions against Iran will be lifted once it demonstrates compliance on its end. Meanwhile, the West is hopeful that a younger Iranian generation might begin to liberalize the country, prompting a fuller entry into the modern world over the next 10 years. That hope remains to be seen. Many of us in the faith community have called for diplomacy instead of the only plausible alternative: war with Iran. Other options simply aren’t possible. The other major world powers in the mix have made it clear they would not agree to harsher sanctions. Military strikes would only provoke more violence, terrorism, and war without solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear escalation. Iran’s nuclear weapons development would likely resume immediately without this deal, accelerated and entrenched by resulting military attacks on Iran.
In April, Sojourners organized a group of more than 50 Christian leaders in support of the Iran Framework Agreement in a statement titled “Hope, but Verify.” We said any agreement must be based on the credible inspections and verifications — which this final agreement seems to have. Skepticism about Iran’s trustworthiness is justified, so the “verify” component is critical to those of us who ascribe to “Christian realism.”
David Cortright, Director of Policy Studies at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, provides a good summary of the facts of the deal: The deal blocks Tehran’s pathways to nuclear weapons capability. Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be largely eliminated. Iran will not produce any highly-enriched uranium suitable for weapons development.
Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
Now it looks as though they're here to stay
Oh, I believe in yesterday
Suddenly, I'm not half as popular as I used to be
There's a shadow hanging over me
Oh, yesterday came suddenly
Why did I have my own secret e-mail
Now I may have to go to jail
I hope Bill will pay my bail
When he’s not out chasing tail
Yesterday, selling influence was such an easy game to play
Now I need a place to hide away
Oh, I believe in yesterday
Why did I have to tell a lie
And let those heroes die
They don’t know and I won’t say
What I did was wrong but that was yesterday
Yesterday, selling out my country was such an easy game to play
My policies, like me, are so old and gray
Because they’re all from yesterday
So now we know: One of the principal reasons Republicans spent so much public money investigating the tragic Benghazi episode was to bring down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a “strategy to fight and win.”
He explained: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”
The Republican-led House hasn’t been particularly good at governing, but perhaps governing has never been the point. Why govern when there’s a future election to influence?
No doubt Republicans will clean up after McCarthy’s comments by insisting that the politics were a side benefit from a necessary investigation. But it would be nice to know more about the House GOP’s internal deliberations as it launched one inquiry into Clinton after another. Did we need another investigation by the select committee headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)? After all, a two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee cleared the military and the CIA of improper behavior in response to the 2012 attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.Taxpayers might be interested in learning whether their hard-earned money — sorry, I could not resist invoking that favorite GOP cliche — was going out the door primarily to affect the chances of one particular candidate for president. How much? Rob Garver of the Fiscal Times has estimated that the select committee “will likely spend some $6 million by next year.”
McCarthy’s statement does not make Clinton’s problems disappear miraculously. She has suffered damage, some of it self-inflicted, from using a private e-mail server during her time at the State Department. Clinton herself has acknowledged that she should have used a government server. Almost no one in her own party believes that she handled the ensuing controversy particularly well. She has recalibrated her response in recent weeks, accepting that she has to answer the questions and meet the challenges thrown her way from journalists and political foes alike.
Fine. But McCarthy’s statement gave Democrats what they have long sought: a rather strong public hint that this investigation was never on the level. “This stunning concession from Rep. McCarthy reveals the truth that Republicans never dared admit in public,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the committee’s ranking Democrat. “The core Republican goal in establishing the Benghazi committee was always to damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and never to conduct an evenhanded search for the facts.” Clinton’s defenders hope McCarthy’s statement might prod the media to pay attention to the current behavior of the accusers and not just the past behavior of the accused.
McCarthy’s admission once again ratified the writer Michael Kinsley’s long-ago but still brilliant observation that a gaffe occurs “when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” But why did McCarthy do it? Consider the nature of the House Republican Party he’d like to lead.
The main objection of right-wingers in the House to Boehner and their other leaders is that they have not been tough enough as partisans and ideologues. As Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), told The Post’s Robert Costa and Mike DeBonis: “We’d be in better shape if we were more rhetorically aggressive with the administration.”
Now, perhaps I lack imagination, but I don’t know how much more rhetorically aggressive the House GOP could be with President Obama than it has already been — short of accusing the entire administration of treason. But McCarthy wants to mollify the right end of his caucus (and the conservative talk-show complex), so notice the end of his statement emphasizing how Republicans had “fought” to bring Clinton’s numbers down. See, McCarthy was telling his party’s ultras, we’ve been really, really partisan — and effective, too. And I’m sure McCarthy was pleased when Hannity gave him a pat on the back. “That’s something good,” Hannity said. “I give you credit for that.”
Bill and Hillary Clinton have been lucky over the years in having a cast of characters arrayed against them who always overplayed their hand. McCarthy, who kept a poker table in his Sacramento house during his days in the California legislature, went all in a bit too early.
Wrong wrong wrong...boeing's planes make more money than airbus ..more valuable and boeing has more deliveries for many years and as for you zipdog...u were fired from boeing...relentless blah blah blah.....get a life dude!!
The one running an old Gray haired White Guy and an old political class White Woman for president or the Party running 2 Cubans, a black neurosurgeon, a female CEO, an Indian-American governor, a white physician, a college dropout governor of a very blue state and a billionaire for president?
Yes... conservatives are sane people!
Conservative author Ann Coulter over weekend compared shark attacks to Mexican immigrants, who she concluded were much more dangerous.
During an interview on Fox News, Coulter argued that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s controversial assertion that immigrants were rapists had been vindicated because a because the suspect in a recent San Francisco killing was an undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times.
“I’m dying to know if Jeb Bush attacks Donald Trump for his comments the actual day [Kate Steinle] was murdered by an illegal immigrant or the next day,” she quipped. “I’m gathering he won’t be speaking at her funeral.”
“You know, going into this weekend, the media was consumed with stories, Americans have to be on the lookout for ISIS attacks and terror attack expected, and oh, shark attacks,” Coulter declared. “I will bet you by the end of the weekend, more Americans will have been killed by Mexicans than by ISIS or by sharks.”
According to Coulter, the story of Steinle’s death had not been “covered up” like most crimes committed by immigrants because it had happened in a liberal city.
“There are so many drunk driving accidents, so many Americans being killed and raped in places liberals don’t go,” she opined. “They just take the cheap labor.”
Coulter argued that Republican candidates were making a mistake by campaigning to Latino voters because it was a lost cause.
“Whether its feminist, the abortion ladies, the gun hysterics, and now they are obsessed with getting the Hispanic vote,” she explained. “It repeatedly doesn’t work. And the most His-pandering president we ever had was George Bush, and it was ‘Oh whoa, he got 40 percent of the Hispanic vote.’ Well that’s still losing.”
Five million public school students in Texas will begin using new social studies textbooks this fall based on state academic standards that barely address racial segregation. In other words, Texas history will omit virtually all mistreatment of African-Americans.
There is also a call to reexamine a quieter but just as contentious aspect of the Civil War in American society — how the history of the war, so central to our nation’s understanding of itself, is presented in public school classrooms and textbooks.
“It’s the obvious question, it seems to me. Not only are we worried about the flags and statues and all that, but what the hell are kids learning?” said Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network, a left-leaning advocacy organization that has been critical of the state’s academic standards in social studies.
If teaching history is how society shows younger generations who they are and where they came from, the Civil War presents unique challenges, especially because of the fundamental differences in the way the cause of the war is perceived 150 years after its last battle.
Nowhere is the rejection of slavery’s central role more apparent than in Texas, where elected members of the state board of education revised state social studies standards in 2010 to correct for what they said was a liberal slant.
Students in Texas are required to read the speech Jefferson Davis gave when he was inaugurated president of the Confederate States of America, an address that does not mention slavery. But students are not required to read a famous speech by Alexander Stephens, Davis’s vice president, in which he explained that the South’s desire to preserve slavery was the cornerstone of its new government and “the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
If you had any proof of the shitella you spread on your toast, you would have produced it by now, putz.
"Incidentally, I and a dozen or so other proud holders of the Distinguished Flying Cross will be the guests of the Seattle Mariners tomorrow at their game with the Los Angeles Angels. We'll be on the field to demonstrate the proper salute of the U.S. flag during the National Anthem. See you there!"
Will be watching, Chris. :-)
"Trump actually may be just what we need to lead our looney tune degenerate federal government back to sanity."
Yes, people around the world look to the Donald as the voice of sanity.
Even though I probably know why but just out of curiosity and confirmation, just to why do you come on this board raging with racial antagonism when a policeman or a private citizen for that matter legally protects them self from attack i.e. Freddie Brown, Treyvon Martin but don't say a peep about a Texas county sheriff being gunned down at a gas station for no apparent reason? Where is your rage?