waitforufo

No, that's not it. The FBI found classified documents and information in previously reviewed emails. If these previously found classified documents and information were found on Weiner's laptop, that means that at least one person without clearance to receive that information was in possession of it. That's a crime, both for Weiner and those that made it possible.

Comey is a officer of the law. He will look for crimes. He was investigating Anthony Weiner for sex crimes with minors. That investigation requires him to look at every email on that laptop for sex crimes with minors looking for things like kiddie porn and who sent and received such information. From there they found emails related to the Clinton email scandal. Now they have to look at every email on that computer for classified information. 650,000 emails will take time to review. How do I know it will take time. Well look at how much time it takes the state department to clear emails related to FOIA act, court ordered email requests which need to be redacted prior to being made public. Why would this take less time? Makes one think that someone archived their entire email account to their personal computer. 650,000/100/365= 17.8. 100 emails sent and received a day for 17.8 years. If the majority were from Weiner's account, then Anthony and Huma must have been a rather busy.

My guess is that they looked at the email metadata from the discovered emails to and from HRC's private server. They can look at the metadata without a warrant. If their is classified data on that computer heads should roll. I doubt Anthony Weiner has a security clearance. Even if he does, intelligence is on a need to know basis. He would have no need to know. I don't think the American public would be too happy about a pervert like Anthony Weiner having a laptop containing classified information. Who knows, maybe it just has love letters between Huma and Hillary on it. No legal problem there. If there is more however, Hillary better be able to remember what she told the FBI she couldn't remember.

So the difference between this more they get and the more they pay, where does that money come from? Do you really think it comes from the fat-cats and shareholders? Their companies are making more revenue due to higher prices so their stock values go up. Sure, things cost a bit more but at worst it is a wash for them. Likely they will be getting richer. The money to pay that difference will come from reduced hours and fewer jobs. Again poverty stays the same if not gets worse because now the middle class bears the burden. So the fat-cats and shareholders are not hurt, but the middle class and the poor tread water at best. For some, this little game makes them feel better. Go figure. Why not try something bolder. Why not go to a negative income tax and abolish the minimum wage? Now the IRS can do the job of all the dole/welfare workers thereby reducing the size of government and taxes. Wages would then have to be high enough to entice people to work. Those that chose to work will have a chance a living a better life. Those that don't chose to work can't really complain.

Somehow you will pay more for goods, but minimum wage earners won't? What magic makes that happen?

The poor will simply have the same poverty but with more cash which buys less. You will also have to pay more in taxes for the dole because dole payments will also purchase less. My guess is that you will feel better about yourself however, because you championed higher wages. If increasing minimum wages provides so many benefits, why not set the minimum wage at $100.00 per hour? Won't we all then be fat cats? Seattle raised it's minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Now they have these. No minimum wage, no Obamacare, no sick leave.

The money to pay higher wages has to come from somewhere. The question is who is paying? The idea that fat-cats and shareholders are paying is a joke. Consumers pay. Since the poor consumers spend all of their money, higher minimum wages is simply a regressive tax on the poor. A mind boggling concept to some.

Hillary in her own words. https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/hillary-clinton-on-occupying-center-right https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/hillary-clinton-audio Bernie lovers should enjoy both.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that a scientist is a person striving to expand human knowledge of nature, while an engineer is a person who strives to put that knowledge to work. The scientific method has been shown to be an essential tool or process, used by scientist, to expand human knowledge. Engineers also use the scientific method, but generally do so to insure a proper application of knowledge obtained by scientists. Education simply enhances one's ability to act as a scientist or engineer, but is not required. I would argue that most people with science degrees predominately perform a role best described as engineering, while few people with degrees in engineering act primarily as scientists. StringJunky mentions that his father was a pipe fitter. My grandfather was a person that operated a train locomotive. Both of these gentleman were referred to as engineers. Both were also putting knowledge to work.

The media is in the business of selling soap. To do that "news" reporting has to be entertaining. If it is not entertaining, it has to be made so. It's the circus part of bread and circuses. It's only going to get worse.

I started smoking when I was 12 years old. Both of my parents smoked like chimneys. Not only did they not miss one or two, they didn't miss entire packs. Everything in our culture, in the US anyway, said smoking would make me cool, and attract beautiful women. Well I wasn't quite that bad. I quit when I was 20, 28, and just this spring after a year of smoking. Why did I start again? I would like to say stress because I was under stress, but that's just that little addict in my head. My wife was having complications with a pregnancy at 28, and my mom was dying of cancer last year when I started up again. So I was under stress, but I know its because I'm an addict. Both cigarettes and chewing tobacco. When you are quitting smoking there are two addictions you are getting over. One is physical and the other is psychological. The physical one is tough but it's over in about month. In that time all the nicotine and predominant metabolite cotinine has left the body. In my opinion cold turkey is the way to go. You will just be torturing yourself gradually quitting or using a patch. You are just postponing getting that crap out of your system. After that you have to work on the psychological addiction. For me that never really goes away. No I don't always want to have s smoke or a chew, but I want to at least once a day. It's like my body and brain have a perfect memory of nicotine. That memory tells me, wouldn't it be great? At those times I just try to remember the physical addiction. That one that gets you up in the morning to have a smoke, That one that pushes you to take a break for a smoke. That one that cause you to burn holes in everything you own. Also, that psychological addiction is not that bad when the physical addiction has been gone for months and then years. You get used to saying no. Just writing this post makes me want to have one. So if you are like me, don't go looking for that day when you don't want to having one. Look forward to the day when you don't need to have one.

I believe the is sufficient evidence in both her past and present to convince any thinking person that Hillary Clinton is not truthful. Her lack of truthfulness extends into important issues like national security (email), defending American soil (Benghazi), and pursuing criminal prosecution of an innocent individual (Billy Dale). I don't care if she is the "least qualified" I simply care if she is qualified or not. I think she is not truthful and therefore not qualified.

I think to be qualified to be president, the electorate needs to believe you are truthful. Hillary is not believed to be a truth teller. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-who-tells-dreadful-lies/2016/09/19/cd38412e-7e6a-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.80e74832f6ca The Washington Post is pay walled, but you can view this article by switching to an incognito window.

This topic isn't about "the other candidate". It's about Hillary's fitness for office. If you want to talk about her qualifications, feel free. For example you could try to explain her accomplishments as Secretary of State. You know things like Libya, the Russian reset, and talks with Iran. Good luck with that. My posts explain why she us unfit for office, which are in line with the OP. Have I and MigL not both requested that this discussion on drugs be stopped in this topic because it is irrelevant to the OP? Yet it continues to drone on, so my previous comment is not 100% innuendo. If there is interest in this discussion on drugs and such, please put it in it's on topic.

The moderators would obviously prefer that Hillary Clinton not be discussed at all. That's why they prefer to let this obvious diversion from the OP to continue.

Would the moderator please move the drug use discussion to a new topic. It really has no place in this Hillary Clinton topic. The above is an excellent post. Their have been several posts in this topic regarding the ethics of our current presidential candidates. Many of the pro Hillary folks out there seem to base their ethics on "well everybody does it." A country with such ethics cannot survive for long in my opinion. I believe the better way is to at least set some ethical standards a candidate should meet or exceed to earn your vote. Is their any ethical standard that should apply to Hillary Clinton? Should a candidate who put her personal convenience ahead of national security be elected president even if that conduct was not considered prosecutable by the FBI? Should a candidate who had her supporters within her party put their thumb on the scale in order to win her party's nomination be elected president? Should a candidate who won't disclose her speeches to banks and wall street be elected president? What did she tell them that she now feels important to hide from the general public? Should a candidate who tried to send an innocent person to prison, so she could provide a crony job to her political financial supporters be elected president? Should a candidate who promised to isolate herself from a charitable foundation her family controls, but then used her personal aides and agents to maintain contact with that charitable foundation, and then gave special access to foundation donors to lobby the state department be elected president? Should the answer to that question really be well we can't find any quid pro quo so its okay even though that same person destroyed over 30000 emails she considered personal? The list goes on and on. At what point do you say "not only will I not vote for this candidate, but this candidate has to be stopped? I'm sure may who read this will want to respond by providing a similar list of ethical issues related to Donald Trump and then fall back on the "well everybody does it" ethical line of reasoning. Feel free to do that in the Donald Trump topic. It can be found here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93445-donald-trump/page-32.

Really? So you are going to get a partner when you want to buy a car, or a house, or go to college? This is a huge problem in muslim countries. Your partner concept just make you a surf to your partner. Zero usury is also at the origin of the Zionist/Muslim problem. Muslims couldn't borrow money to buy land from there former feudal lords, now land owners, so the land was sold to Zionists. Then the Zionists kick the former Muslim surfs, now tenants, off the land they purchased. Ever wonder why Palestinians claim a right of return against Zionists instead of Israelis. The Palestinians want to go back to what they consider to be illegal or immoral lands sold by their former feudal lords, now land owners, to the Zionists pre 1948.

Probably the number one economic problem caused by Islam is their prohibition of usury. Not just unreasonably high rates of interest, money cannot be borrowed or lent at any interest rate. No country can have a modern economy without borrowing and lending money at interest. Linked to the above is Islam's preference for feudalism. Probably the only political system that can function without usury. It's like muslims long to be surfs.

Search from the home page. Not from within this topic.

I have commented many times on Science Forums regarding marriage equality or gay marriage. Science Forums has a search engine. Try searching "waitforufo, gay marriage." Please report back your findings.

Again, the topic is criticism of Islam. Again, I see lots of criticism of the US, and Christians. For those criticizing the US and Christians, try substituting caliphate, and Muslim for US and Christian and speculate how well that would work out.

I'm not talking about my church group. I'm talking about Christians in the police and the military. Virtually all the Christians in the US, both civilian and military, would support crushing White Christian Identity groups if they were acting as you suggest. Your suggestion is simply paranoid ranting. Radical Islamic terrorist are attacking us right now, and the same Christians are doing their best to crush them as well. Also my criticism wasn't just directed at Muslim extremists. You saw the chart provided earlier. In many Muslim countries, a large majorities of Muslims would prefer a Sharia government over secular government. My criticism was directed at those main stream Muslims. Thank you. Homonym errors are very common with dyslectics. Do you make fun of people with downs syndrome as well? Also, how did marriage equality work out in the end?

Very few Catholics in the Southern US. Other than that great post. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150917-data-points-how-catholic-population-has-shifted-in-the-united-states/ Abortion is legal in the US and will remain so regardless of what the leaders in Christian churches want. Why? Because we have a secular government. That "lynched blacks" is past tense. The KKK was only proficient at the atrocities you mention when they were the terrorist wing of the Democratic party. No Christianity is not a political ideology particularly in the US. If they were, christian churches would be taxed. No, laws restricting abortion in the US are based on judicial rulings. Edit: Christmas is a national holiday in the US and is therefor a secular holiday. Saying Merry Christmas is no different than saying Marry Arbor Day. We have the right to bear arms in the US. All the groups you mention can freely purchase weapons. If they did that and pushed for a White Christian Only society, they would be crushed primarily by Christians. Edit: I went to Catholic school and the worst thing a nun ever did to me was rap my knuckles with a wooden ruler. I deserved it. Now isn't this topic "Do liberals think Islam should be protected from Criticism?" I have heard a lot of criticism of Christians from people who seem to be liberals, but no criticism of Islam. If the the answer to the topic is No liberals to not think Islam should be protected from criticism, then please give me an example. Criticism provides an opportunity for individuals and groups to improve. I provided my criticism. Islam should promote secularism so it can join the modern world. So let's hear some criticism of Islam from you liberals out there.

And they blame the west for the fact that they live in backward, oppressive countries that refuse to join the modern world. Hey here is a question for you. What's the religion of the people that blow up people at Boston marathon, or government employees in San Bernardino, or shoot up bars in Florida? That's just the US. Europe has suffered more. Where they Christians? Where they Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, or Methodists? Were they members of the KKK or Christian Identity followers? Islam has always been more than just a religion. Islam is also a political ideology.

Force or subject no, but all of them believed the United States should be ruled under Sharia law. It would make us happier I was always told. I always told them it would lead to bloodshed. They seemed okay with that.