Let me get this straight.
You have my permission to be straight.
You guys want unborn babies to be killed.
There's many scenarios that would validate a woman's legal right to have an abortion, writing off the issue as "unborn babies being killed for fun" is a pretty damn low-brow perspective, even for you. If we're going to demand that a gestating egg be granted the same rights as a birthed human being, then we may as well take it a step further and demand that sperm itself is granted the exact same right. You call it "killing babies", we call it "A woman's right to privacy".
You want to give even more money to the government for them to waste.
You're going to have to be a little less vague here. Unless you're a member of the Tea Party, I'm pretty sure that there's some kind of Federal program that you'll admit to taking advantage of. I -- for one -- really do enjoy being allowed to drive on a beautiful paved road to and from work.
You want a healthcare program, which has cost millions of Americans their insurance.
So, so wrong. I have to ask, because you seem to be shooting in the dark here; are you referring to the Affordable Care Act?
You want an education program, which is extremely difficult and teaches a bunch of useless information.
Um, useless information is extremely difficult for you to comprehend?
You want them to take away our guns so we have no protection. Dangerous criminals are going to get them anyway.
Oh good grief. If any type of gun was outright banned today, it wouldn't work retroactively. It's never worked retroactively, not even when automatic rifles were banned. Dangerous criminals will have a heck of an easier time getting guns if they can just trudge into a gunshow and -- without any difficulty -- buy two assault rifles and enough ammunition to start a sovereign nation. Gun control won't
solve gun crimes, but they'll make them a Hell of a lot less prevalent.
You want the government to decriminalize drug use, which has destroyed numerous peoples' lives.
They don't intend to decriminalize drug use in general, a few Democrats want to decriminalize only certain types of drugs like marijuana. Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug, only because of the stigma it had earned in the 1970s based on its recreational use among young people and the false assumption that it was directly responsible for cases of insanity(source;
link).
Hillary's own website states that she intends to treat drug addiction as a public health issue to be remedied in hospitals, and not so much a criminal issue to be remedied in prison. I'm not sure what your take is on that, so I'll leave it at that.
You also disregard her email situation as if it's nothing. It is. It's a huge deal. She sent out classified information on a private server. This is a risk to national security, as an enemy could have easily hacked that server. Also do you not find it a little suspicious that she deleted 30,000+ emails before she turned it over to the FBI. What about the fact that she lied about her sending classified information out? She said she didn't, but she clearly did.
The FBI clearly said that Hillary Clinton had sent classified info after she denied doing so, and I'm with you in leaning toward the findings of the FBI. Though; I'm willing to give her a shred of credit in that she might not have known exactly what could be considered classified and would couldn't. Sometimes an email where you and someone else engage in mindless chit chat can be considered classified later on even though it wasn't classified at the time that it was sent.
If any of those emails amounted to a risk to national security, I'd like to know about that. So far; there's nothing proving that a foreign adversary obtained data that could bring harm upon us and there's nothing proving that her private server was vulnerable to hackers.
The only law that she could have possibly broken was the Federal Records Act, which states that a federal employee can't delete official correspondence. If the FBI found that -- in spite of being considered classified at the time of the investigation -- the emails that were deleted were just private messages between friends and family, then Hillary did
not break the law by deleting those emails.
What about Benghazi? Maybe it was a mistake, but how do you explain this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8INIH0JfNA8
It's Hillary Clinton, so of course it doesn't matter.
I believe that Madame Secretary was pretty damn exhausted from being spun in circles with predatory questioning from an over-zealous Republican panel of ass-hats, as was most American's who were foolishly expecting a fair-minded investigation. Asking "What difference does it make!?" implies that interrogating her should be more focused on her role as Madame Secretary and her actions on that night and not an investigation into whether that incident can be exploited as another reason to demonize Islam and to assassinate the character of a potential Democratic President.
It most certainly does matter, and based on my research, Hillary Clinton did nothing to cause the deaths of J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
