Highmark

That's all you got?

I completely disagree. Trump is not far right by any way shape or form. Neither was Romney or McCain.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president." Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/surviving_a_multitude_of_fools.html#ixzz4De8P2s4C Not so sure I agree anymore if Hillary is voted in. She may be an equal or greater threat than the idiots who vote in a liar like her.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/ Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Federal law designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals — and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton’s State Department did a whole lot of approving. While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term. The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period. American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation — and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton — also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department. Under a directive signed by President Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to take foreign governments’ human rights records into account when reviewing arms deals. Yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses.

Said this from the beginning. You needed to look at this two ways, she was rather lying and broke the law or so fucking stupid its a joke anyone could vote for her. Turns out both were right. Just because the FBI refused to recommend charges doesn't mean she didn't break the law, its obvious now she did in multiple ways.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY July 5, 2016 12:45 PM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

That was nothing more than them informing her of what they were going to do and a plan being put together as to what statement the director would be releasing. From CNN the day of her "interview." The meeting signals the investigation is coming to an end, and sources tell CNN the expectation is Clinton will not face charges.

Come out losers the last 20 years yet have held the house and senate a majority of those years. I won't even get into the lead in Governors.

The FBI wouldn't let anyone take any pictures of him going off and on the plane. Of course the AG and FBI director discussed this case. He's lost all credibility.

Without question not serving in the military. Not sure I could have ever gotten in with asthma even though I was in excellent physical condition. College sports allowed use of an inhaler, not sure the military would have.

So how exactly was the GOP hurt by shutting down the govt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

He concluded Hillary was “extremely careless” in handling our nation’s secrets. He admitted no reasonable person could have believed putting these emails on a private server was at all appropriate or acceptable. He admitted 110 emails on the server were classified at the time they were sent — showing Hillary not only lied, but knowingly endangered national security as secretary of state. He admitted Hillary deleted work-related emails before turning them over to the State Department, despite her claims otherwise. And, most shocking, Mr. Comey even admitted it’s likely foreign governments hacked her emails — and our adversaries could know critical secrets about the U.S. government because of Hillary’s actions. Beyond explanation why no charges were filed. Any other American would have been charged.

Considering what WE left happen in those countries I would agree with him.

To each their own. Rather rural or urban both offer things the other doesn't both good and bad. I know when I drive thru poor area's in cities I thank my lucky stars to be where I'm at. We have seen a large push of people from the Chicago area out to the Dubuque area because of the easier access to section 8 housing, better schools and less crime. Unfortunately some of the crime has came with it. I think in some of our "cities" it has also put stress on other public aide. Rural America will not survive on agriculture alone. Technology allows for a few to farm thousands of acres now. Our successful towns have a number of manufacturing facilities in each. The communities have embraced their importance to the vitality of the town. Sure we might not be growing at the same percentage as large urban area's but we also don't have the issues those area's have as well.

Common sense gets me thru many days. Sorry you are lacking it on this. You deny she was resisting?

Agreed. Nothing wrong with hardwood floors.

First cop was too cautious and can you blame them these days? I've watched it a couple times and each time come to the same conclusion. They were in their right considering what she was suspected of and how she was acting. I'm always critical of police when its due this is not one of those cases. She was not complying. If she would have shut her mouth and let them cuff her this thread wouldn't even be happening.

You can't be serious? She displayed a knife and threatened to kill security staff. They did not use excessive force. If it were my daughter and son I'd go and thank the police and think they he/she hopefully learned a lesson. I tell my kids all the time, right or wrong do as the police say. Its not to fucking difficult. Anyone who thinks she wasn't resisting is on drugs. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/family-says-madison-police-used-unfair-treatment-in-arresting-/article_1f1ddede-adf0-5fa0-9cec-58dbd4040a1f.html

Bet you Tomi's carpet doesn't match the drapes.

They have to keep him "in" if an indictment gets handed down. Bernie has a real problem because the African American vote doesn't go to him it stays home.

Look at companies with strong balance sheets and cash flows.

Proves Bernie is exactly what he preached to hate. The question will be how big of a percentage of his supporters will.

If you threaten people with a knife and resist arrest you are going to get your ass kicked to a point. Why is that so fucking hard to comprehend.

Funny because its true.