change the subject and insult and you actually think that is a cogent answer?
Making up facts again I see. I have never endorsed Trump.
With The Liar in Chief's injustice department unlikely to indict TWBofW and loons like you will say "She was never indicted so she's innocent.
New article after news article proves she criminally mishandled classified information yet through the corruption of your hero Hussein, The Golfer in Chief, she will never be brought to justice.
Get your head out of the sand! If TWBotW were a Republican you would not only be cursing her you would be demanding her head. Face it you're a hypocrite.
Please give me one example of where I have lied. I can give you examples of where you made up "facts" which is called lying.
Changed the subject and insulted, how typical of you. If fraud is ignorant does changing the subject and insulting make you a genius?
You're the one who defends her even though you know she is a #$%$. You're the one who constantly tells us all of the scandals are false.
You're just another lying hypocrite, not to be trusted. sigh yourself!
Jun 23, 8:58 PM EDT
Clinton failed to hand over key email to State Department
By MICHAEL BIESECKER
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
Couldn't address the main subject of his post, national debt, so you do what you always do, change the subject and insult. So I ask you who is the ignoramus? Hint, look in the mirror.
I get a thumbs down from a loon who can't refute the truth of this post.
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The Underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U.S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
Think of it:
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
Muslims living with Hindus=Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
**********SO THIS LEADS TO *************
They're not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan
******** So, where are they happy? **********
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in Norway
They're happy in India
They're happy in Canada &
They're happy in the USA .
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic!
And who do they blame?
Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves,
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!!
And they want to change the countries they're happy in
to be like the countries they came from where they were
unhappy and finally they will get hammered!
******** So, What are their Major Organizations? ********
Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS/ISIL : AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE!
And We just can't figure out who's causing the problem.
But at least President Obama knows it's not the Muslims.
NOW WE WANT TO BRING IN 180,000 MORE
MUSLIM "REFUGEES" INTO OUR COUNTRY!!
AND HILARY ADVOCATES CONTINUING THE POLICIES OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.
HAS THIS NATION REALLY DESCENDED TO THIS LEVEL OF INSANITY???????
ARE WE THAT CRAZY??????
They wouldn't lie to us. TWBotW never has. Right?
"By MICHAEL BIESECKER and TED BRIDIS
Jun 22, 3:22 PM EDT
Emails: Key security features disabled on
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Newly released emails show State Department staffers wrestled in December 2010 over a serious technical problem with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's home email server. They temporarily disabled security features, which left the server more vulnerable to hackers. Weeks later, hackers attacked the server so seriously it was shut down.
The emails were released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch. The group has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's service as the nation's top diplomat between 2009 and 2013.
The emails show Clinton's staff disabled software intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. The Associated Press reported last year that Clinton later received phishing emails.
Clinton's campaign denies her email server ever was breached."
Are you making things up again? If you disagree with a socialists like yourself the first words out of their usually mouths is "You a racist!" in this case on GW is "You're a shill for the oil companies!"
Can you back it up with proof from a valid source, not Media Matters, Moveon or the Huffington Post?
Also quit doing what you always do when you can't address real facts and that is change the subject. Answer the question! Was NASA lying?
When are you ever going to answer the Harvard study and the physicist who said GW was hooey?
You trust a lying politician , PT Barnum, who has made millions off his GW lie but you won't trust real scientist who say GW is a hoax. And you won't answer how many GW predictions have come true for example the polar caps aren't melting and Antarctica is growing not shrinking and the hurricane seasons are milder not more violent as the alarmist said they would be.
You're a zombie when it comes to following you're socialists masters.
Make up an answer or two for me. Just pull them out of your a s s like you usually do.
False scandals? You are a lemming.
So hypocrite, what Taylor reported on is incorrect and NASA was lying?
Also we can't believe anything you say. You make things up! Where do you get the volume is reduced, out of your a s s?
In the past whenever I give you a hard science report that GW is hooey you don't respond, like the Harvard study or the one from the Nobel Laureate Physicist that said GW is a hoax.
Give me one example that any of PT Barnum's lies has come true, like the Arctic ice cap would be melted by 2014.
You're the one clinging to a lie not me.
You say you don't like her yet you defend her at every turn and in the past you gleefully supported her and told us she was going to beat the Rep nominee and for us to get use to President Clinton. So what is it, you like her or you don't?
How come you don't criticize TWBotW for accepting filthy wall street lucre? You hypocrite, you hammer the republicans for raising money but when a #$%$ like TWBotW take WS money it's OK with you.
Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
James Taylor May 19, 2015 @ 09:53 AM
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.
Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.
A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?
The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:
“Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps”
“2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse”
“An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea”
“New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at ‘unprecedented rate’”
The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.
To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.
The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.
Wall Street cash or Elizabeth Warren: Hillary's choice
5 Hours Ago
Wall Street has an unambiguous message for Hillary Clinton: Don't pick Elizabeth Warren as your vice president if you want to keep getting our money.
That warning came through very clearly in over a dozen interviews I did over the last week with some of the largest Democratic donors on Wall Street who have helped fund Clinton's campaigns over the years as well as funneled cash to Bill Clinton's political career in the 1990s.
"If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her," one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton told me. "They would literally just say, 'We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you've had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can't trust you, you've killed it.'"
The arguments of course are mostly self-serving. The financial services industry loathes Warren, who more than anyone in the last 80 years has channeled the rage against Wall Street that began with the Great Depression and continues to course through the nation following the 2008 financial crisis. Warren wants to break up the nation's largest banks. She created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The mere mention of her name draws groans from bankers.
But there is at least a bit of substance to their arguments. Bankers believe Clinton, should she win, will have an opportunity to make deals with Republicans in Congress to pass major infrastructure spending coupled with international tax reform during her first months in office. And they think Warren in the VP's office would make cutting any such deals harder.
"Clinton is going to face a divided government unless there is a total tsunami," said one moderate Washington Democrat with close ties to the banking industry. "What you want in a vice president is someone who can negotiate for you on the Hill, someone like Joe Biden. And that is not a Warren strength."
The bankers I spoke with also said they thought there was no chance Clinton would tap Warren. The arguments: The two don't really get along; Clinton would never pick a number two who could outshine her; Clinton doesn't want a VP who would create her own power center in both the campaign and the White House.
"First of all, they don't particularly like each other," said one prominent hedge fund manager who has raised millions for Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton before her. But, the manager added, "The absolute predicate for a vice presidential nominee is they have to understand they are No. 2 both during the campaign and once you take office, and I just don't think Elizabeth Warren is that type of person."
The financial considerations for Clinton are significant. Picking Warren could seriously deflate a major source of her campaign cash. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton and outside groups supporting her have raised $289 million so far in the 2016 campaign. The securities and investment industry is easily Clinton's top source of money, donating over $28 million so far.
But proponents of Warren said a bunch of Wall Street bankers whining would actually boost the Massachusetts senator's chances of getting the VP slot. "Great piece," one prominent progressive emailed on Monday. "I'm sure we'll be circulating some of the golden quotes from Wall Street!"
This progressive also noted that a Warren selection could lead to a massive outpouring of small dollar, grassroots donations to the campaign that could more than recoup money lost from Wall Street. In addition, rich liberals who like Warren would be more likely to cut big checks to the DNC and outside groups backing the presumptive Democratic nominee.
One Democrat close to the Clinton campaign said the Wall Street donor story was great for Warren's chances: "I can't think of a dumber strategy to derail Warren than a bunch of Wall Street execs saying she's unacceptable," this Democrat said. "Literally. Like that story couldn't be better for her if she planted it."
Still, a Warren pick remains unlikely. Clinton has a lead over Donald Trump at the moment. The presumptive GOP nominee's campaign is a mess. Trump has no ads on the air at the moment while Clinton's campaign and outside groups are spending tens of millions in swing states. Trump is feuding with the NRA over his comments about how Orlando club goers could have stopped the mass shooting last week if they had been armed. And the Manhattan real estate mogul began the week by firing his campaign manager.
So the last thing a temperamentally cautious Clinton needs or wants to do is go bold and risky with her VP pick. Warren would clearly fire up the liberal base. But she would present a risk on the money front and could turn off moderate Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans.
So the veepstakes betting line still favors a quiet, consensus choice for the number two slot. At the moment, the leading candidate remains Tim Kaine, a popular Virginia senator who speaks fluent Spanish, comes from a swing state, sits on the Armed Services Committee and passes the "I could see this person as president" test.
Warren would be more of a Hail Mary choice for a campaign running from behind. The Clinton campaign is very far from that.
—Ben White is Politico's chief economic correspondent and a CNBC contributor. He also authors the daily tip sheet Politico Morning Money.