Topic: Clinton Refuses To Say Whether Or Not She Wiped The Server - page 4. (Read 3649 times)

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]

"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]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html

Well she isn't but you do have several well qualified accomplished Repbulicans running so why not just hold your nose and let's rid the executive branch of the corruption that has been rearing it's ugly head there. Time for a Nixonian washing out.

But doesn't that video pretty much seal the deal? If not why not?

She allowed our national secrets to be transferred to a private server in a bathroom in an loft apartment, and then when her activities as SecState came under proper Congressional oversight she destroy that government property over which she was the custodian she didn't just deletion the information that was already under Congressional scrutiny she had it professional wiped in an attempt to hide what is on it from federal investigation.

And you would STILL vote for her?

A neurosurgeon that can't figure out that a single human cell is not a living human ?

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.

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.

She is free to talk about whatever she wants to talk about including all the lies she has told about it.

Please demonstrate. We will wait.

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.

"basically insane" there is a difference. That Carson is a loony bird is a demonstrable fact.

Lets see some kind...any kind...of evidence against John Kasich...suggesting he was involved in a scandal of any kind. Are you remotely familiar with his record and accomplishments in Ohio? How dare you question his ethics without any knowledge of the man or his record? What ethical improprieties has Carly Fiorina committed? She layed people off at HP? Sometimes, as sad as it is to do, it has to be done. HP was struggling in a changing market before she took the helm. How about Marco Rubio? How is he ethically challenged? How about Ben Carson? One of him is worth more than 1000 of you...or Hillary...and you have the gall to compare him to her?

If you are going to question the integrity of the entire republican candidate pool, especially comparing them to the scandalous Clinton, you better have some specific links to examples.

Ben Carson is insane?

I said criminal democrat. You equated that to Hillary not me. I was just asking a valid question based on your previous responses.

She shouldn't have to be convicted for you to know she's bat(*)(*)(*)(*) insane, and it'd be bat(*)(*)(*)(*) insane to trust her with that ability to push it.

And if we don't like the Dems/GOP. Go Third Party. I know one Dems can throw their hat around: The Green Party. I mean, Dems are pro-environmental right? Why not throw your weight around the Greens, and for the first time get someone truly NEW into Washington. Not just the POTUS, but the congressional seats. Real major change.

If she gets convicted of a crime, she won't be a candidate.

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?

I damn righted it because the GOP candidates are basically insane. That's not much of a "gotcha".

HILLARY CLINTON PARODY: Scandal In The Wind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR4ivVy6gz0

Question to Hillary.
"Did you wipe your servers?"

Hillary,
"You mean with a cloth or something?"

What's up with that?

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.

I missed the part where Clinton was convicted of any crimes.

Anyway, I tried to show you an example of how the GOP can win my vote. Maybe you should focus on that. We might get somewhere.

She's getting used to her prison outfit a bit early ahead of schedule