No that was purely your attempt at a weak diversion. And BTW Hillary was one of the most ardent, vocal and unequivocal supporters of using our military force to remove Saddam so you attempt falls on it's own face.
Who was president and who made the decisions? Was Hillary the Commander in Chief? Did I miss that? 
Topic: Clinton Refuses To Say Whether Or Not She Wiped The Server - page 3. (Read 3655 times)
You created it.
No that was purely your attempt at a weak diversion. And BTW Hillary was one of the most ardent, vocal and unequivocal supporters of using our military force to remove Saddam so you attempt falls on it's own face.So why would you trust her again to make such decisions?
There is no Scientific consensus on "When human life begins".
It's never been in doubt, all the rest is just jumping through hoops and tying ones self in knots to get around it. Embryology is not the "Domain Science". Regardless if "ANY" scientist or textbook wants to claim that the zygote is a living human then they need to give an explanation of why this is so.
ROFL well when it comes to this subject yes it is and the science dictates that life begins at conception when the two haploid organism each produced by a another human being join together and a new life is created at that moment. You don't get to change the science to make your position on abortion more palatable. Oh geez is that really the best defense of her you have?....BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH.
That just says it all.
You created it. Live with the results. At least thousands did not die.That just says it all.
You hold Bush accountable for thousands of lives, and we will hold Hillary accountable for a few. Deal?
Otherwise, you have no leg to stand on.
Well, you must have missed the entire George W Bush presidency. Welcome to the precedent set by that.
Oh geez is that really the best defense of her you have?....BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH.That just says it all.
Quote
OK let's go with the science as was taught to me when I took my embryology classes oh so long ago using texts such as those above in current usage.
It begins at conception in spite of you pro-abortion desperate need for it to start at some other unable to determine time just as long as it is past the time you choose to kill it
It begins at conception in spite of you pro-abortion desperate need for it to start at some other unable to determine time just as long as it is past the time you choose to kill it
What science. You have not presented any. I took Biology and there was a "why" given for stuff that was claimed.
A Homo sapiens is classified as such in relation to various characteristics. The zygote simply does not have the requisite characteristic to make it into that club. Not even close.
If the zygote is not classified as a Homo sapiens then how can it be a living human ? You know about this classification system Kingdom, Domain, Phylum and so on. Why do you pretend such ignorance ?
You repeat the same old fallacy over and over again. I respond to that fallay asking "where is the rational behind the claim?" and you never have an answer. Nor do you have an answer for the real Science I present in relation to the topic.
Taxonomy is the domain science for classification of "what is a Homo sapiens". Clearly the zygote does not fit.
I am willing to accept other explanations for "WHY" you, or anyone else thinks, the zygote should be classified as such but you never give the "Why".
Naked Claims are not worth much. It does not matter if it is the worlds foremost braniac. If they do not back up their claim with reasons showing why their claim is true then that claim is fallacy. "Assumed premise".
What is so difficult to understand about this ?
Quote
Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins
Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to
gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each
of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the
positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of
answers to the question of when human life begins
There is no Scientific consensus on "When human life begins". Even if one agrees with the Genetic Perspective. "When human life begins" is a separate question from " does a living human exist" Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to
gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each
of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the
positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of
answers to the question of when human life begins
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
This quote does not claim the zygote is a living human.
Nothing in the rest of your list gives and explanation of why or how they came to their conclusions nor do they bother to refute claims to the contrary.
As such these are "Naked Claims". Science does not work that way. Science backs up its claims. All you have done is made a fallacious appeal to authority.
Here is what Biology - The Domain Science has to say. https://www.franklincollege.edu/science_courses/bioethics/When%20does%20human%20life%20begin.pdf
The question of "when does human life begin" is addressed. 5 main perspectives are discussed giving arguments for and against each perspective.
The Genetic perspective agrees that human life begins at conception. The other 4 do not.
Why would he do that when science and embryology says otherwise and he is certainly more qualified than you on the matter says.
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
Embryology is not the "Domain Science". Regardless if "ANY" scientist or textbook wants to claim that the zygote is a living human then they need to give an explanation of why this is so.
The above quote does no such thing.
Further .. saying "the development of a human being begins here" does not mean a living human exists at that point.
Being in a phase of product development does not mean that the product exists.
Regardless. There is no "WHY" this claim is true given. No reasons. It is a naked claim.
She is free to talk about whatever she wants to talk about including all the lies she has told about it.
I prefer someone who dosn't engage in malfeasance and threatens our national security to hid their corrupt behavior. But then that's just me.
Oh well THAT settles it then doesn't. She say so so be it end of story. You are joking aren't you? Let's a government official is supposed to oversee her turning over her official documents and separate the personal from the official to make sure ALL official documents are turned and guess what.......SHE is the official who oversaw HER process. My how coosy.
I prefer someone who dosn't engage in malfeasance and threatens our national security to hid their corrupt behavior. But then that's just me.
Oh well THAT settles it then doesn't. She say so so be it end of story. You are joking aren't you? Let's a government official is supposed to oversee her turning over her official documents and separate the personal from the official to make sure ALL official documents are turned and guess what.......SHE is the official who oversaw HER process. My how coosy.
Well, you must have missed the entire George W Bush presidency. Welcome to the precedent set by that. Let's look at the lives cost by that, shall we?
Oh wait, war time president, lives lost do not matter, right? Even if it were for no reason? Even if all the reasons were lies? Hey, no problem.
I'll tell you something right now- I have had friends and loved ones lost in W's pointless war. That resulted in tens of thousands of lives lost. For what?
And you cry about a few diplomats? I have words for you, and they are not kind. Regardless of what happened in your imagination of Benghazi, GW Bush sent many Americans to their deaths for NOTHING. NOTHING about Iraq was true, not one damn thing.
That should (*)(*)(*)(*) you off, but it doesn't. You know why? POLITICS. And the fact that your side was wrong. You're more interested in winning than the truth. That cost a lot of families their loved ones.
I am damn sick and tired of this Benghazi crap from the right. I put people in their graves because of the stupid Iraq war. It was pointless and stupid, and I lost folks for nothing.
You start complaining about the Iraq war stupidity, then we can talk Benghazi. Until then, **** off.
The state must have a compelling interest, like public safety, to violate her privacy rights. All citizens have the right for their personal information to not be publicly scrutinized without a very good reason.
I as a teacher don't have this right to privacy if I'm using a school computer, a school-provided net, or school-provided resources both online or off. They can investigate anything I type or use. Same with my students. We all sign an internet usage form dictating the rules and we know this going in.It is truly incredible how liberals will bend like pretzels defending Hilla. You'd think the Secretary of State would have MORE responsibilities than an ordinary teacher, but it seems it's not the case. Heck, an ordinary 11-year old has more responsibility in following the rules than Hilla. Heck, where IS this right to privacy anyway? Why doesn't it apply to me or my students?
The state must have a compelling interest, like public safety, to violate her privacy rights. All citizens have the right for their personal information to not be publicly scrutinized without a very good reason.
What do you mean violate HER rights, she CHOOSE to put them on her government server which by law is under the control of the government and anything on it is government property. Yes there is good reason, so the person cannot destroy any government property and any classified emails are properly clear off it. That is why there are procedures to separate any private from official and it is done by a third party official NOT THE PERSON THEMSELVES.
Please don't tell me you are falling for her story.
Like all libs, Hillary can't take the heat. So she gets out of the kitchen in a hurry !!
What a loser.
What a loser.
No, you're missing something. It's not about being hardcore left. It's about not wanting the hardcore right, which is quite frankly, horrifying and a joke all at the same time. Donald Trump, Rick Santorum? Need I go on? It's bad, man. Why can't the GOP come up with a decent candidate that does not insult everyone's intelligence?
John Kasich, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, yes even Bush, Pataki even. Forina is head and shoulders over Hillary even without the scandals.............all would make great Presidents in my mind and you have to admit decent even if you oppose most of their polices.This compare to electing someone you KNOW is corrupt and puts their own self interest before the countries and our national security.
A person that can't figure out the difference between having a religious belief, and forcing that belief on others by the age of 60 should not even be allowed to vote never mind electing this dude into office.
OK let's go with the science as was taught to me when I took my embryology classes oh so long ago using texts such as those above in current usage.It begins at conception in spite of you pro-abortion desperate need for it to start at some other unable to determine time just as long as it is past the time you choose to kill it.
But there is another abortion discussion going on the Planned Parenthood thread.
Let's not divert to Republican candidates.
This is about Hillary and that cell door getting closer and closer everyday and angry responses to any questions about it and more and more inane excuses as the last one goes out the window and when are the Democrats going to shove her out the door.
She will be, this has past the point of sweeping it under the rug. She exposed possibly hundreds of classified emails, who knows how much information. She also sold secrets to the Russians for diplomatic favor, etc. She basically WAY outdid Snowden. I don't even know why Clinton hasn't been suponea'd yet.
I mean, if this isn't the definition of Espieonage, then what is? You trust someone with that LACK of core ethics with the Presidency? You trust her not to press the button? Frankly, I don't.
If she gets convicted of a crime, she won't be a candidate.I mean, if this isn't the definition of Espieonage, then what is? You trust someone with that LACK of core ethics with the Presidency? You trust her not to press the button? Frankly, I don't.
And I don't see anyone in the GOP lineup with any ethics above hers. And quite frankly, she had the chance to push the button before.
Again, why can't the GOP come up with a decent candidate? Why do I have to choose between bad and truly scary?
This woman can't be trusted with a security clearance.
She's not someone you want to be defending. Remember it was a Romanian hacker who told us about her little private evade-the-rules scheme.
but here goeswhat if its all a lie and the reason is if you can look at hillary clintons emails the government can now look at any ones emails..
because they want to have the right to check on emails when ever they feel like without reason
hillary could be just doing all this so the government can spy on any one without cause..
its a thought but i could be on the right track tho
plus if no charges are made and she wins the election hmmm i think i could be spot on in my thinking
what you think chaps am i talking poo or what
She will be, this has past the point of sweeping it under the rug. She exposed possibly hundreds of classified emails, who knows how much information. She also sold secrets to the Russians for diplomatic favor, etc. She basically WAY outdid Snowden. I don't even know why Clinton hasn't been suponea'd yet.
I mean, if this isn't the definition of Espieonage, then what is? You trust someone with that LACK of core ethics with the Presidency? You trust her not to press the button? Frankly, I don't.
If she gets convicted of a crime, she won't be a candidate.I mean, if this isn't the definition of Espieonage, then what is? You trust someone with that LACK of core ethics with the Presidency? You trust her not to press the button? Frankly, I don't.
And I don't see anyone in the GOP lineup with any ethics above hers. And quite frankly, she had the chance to push the button before.
Again, why can't the GOP come up with a decent candidate? Why do I have to choose between bad and truly scary?
This woman can't be trusted with a security clearance.
She's not someone you want to be defending. Remember it was a Romanian hacker who told us about her little private evade-the-rules scheme.
This heir of the clinton dynasty will probably get away with wiping that hard drive. If one of us wiped our hard drive you can be our ass would be in jail.
What a great thread...
Jump to: