What has my statement got to do with the judicial system? A system, incidentally, where judges get appointed by cronies and not for their acumen.
If Carson met with Westmorland in February, it's an error in his recollection of timing. Politico and other sources have confirmed a February meeting could have taken place. This wasn't 2009, but instead,1969. We're talking 56 years ago. A very, very long time ago. Still, you're jumping up and down calling an honest mistake in time recollection a lie. Sorry, you get a Pinocchio on this one. Actually, you get a Pinocchio for every accusation of a lie you've made so far. Every time you've claimed a lie, there has been shown to be plausible explanation. Not just by me, but by major news organizations and/or journalists who have done far more research than you. Whenever there is a credible alternate explanation, there can't be an absolute conclusion of a lie. That's fact, and not disputable. Unless you come up with some fresh revelations, I don't see a need to continue this. Still, it was a fun exercise in mental gymnastics.
Because you referenced murder in American homes. Murder in American homes is an illegal act handled by our judicial system. mmkay?
I see that some desperate Republicans, moaning about the prospect of a Clinton presidency, are attempting to resurrect Willard Romney. Hell, now that his individual-mandate-based health coverage scheme is doing so well nationally, he might have a chance this time. They could obviously do far worse.
Again I didn't make the claim. Carson did. His claim in his book was false. The only "proof" that we have is his word that he met with Westmoreland in February but he only made that claim AFTER it was proven that this was the only time Westmoreland was in Detroit. You can try to deflect anything you want onto me I don't care. I am not the one who lied Carson is. The detailed recollection delivered in his book does not indicate any lapse in memory but a complete fabrication. He can remember the name of the person who introduced him to Westmoreland but somehow forgot it wasn't on the day he marched in the parade with all his ribbons flowing????? Spare me the rhetoric...he was padding his resume in the book for the military crowd and got busted.
It must be because of her classic beauty And great laugh [video=youtube;44zwRfXxi5s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44zwRfXxi5s[/video] [video]http://www.cc.com/video-clips/1xwx9x/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-hillary-s-laugh-track[/video]
The question of this thread was "Why do people support Hillary Clinton"? Maybe they don't care for the alternatives....
This is what you said "Why do American deaths in Benghazi mean more to Americans than daily American murders at home." Murders at home matter. We have an entire system dedicated to serving it. It is mandatory for every citizen to partake in the process through Jury Duty, my next service is in February. We already know who killed the Americans in Benghazi. The reason Benghazi is an issue is because Obama and Hillary lied to us about the cause. As with Murder cases here at home, we investigate each one. Obama and Hillary have yet to explain the lie. Hillary told her family one thing and told our families another. While investigating the death of four Americans, when someone has been caught lying we need to know why or we haven't served those four Americans who gave their lives serving us. If it was your child who was murdered would you let the youtube lie suffice? I wouldn't.
I think Clinton is a bit different than Carson. Most members of the two major parties are going to support candidates of their party regardless of shortcomings or even if their party's candidate is worst than the other party's. Clinton was known to be the presumptive nominee for 2016 even prior to the 2012 election. Hence no one with any salt challenged her. Her main challenge which is a minor one is a guy who is not a registered Democrat or party member, he is there just to make the coronation look like it isn't. So loyal party members are going to back Hillary, they were going to back here more than 4 years ago, shortcomings, blemishes, whatever is a no never mind for party members. Carson, a lot of Republicans are fed up with the Republican establishment and most of their current batch of elected officials. It has been outsider and non-establishment time, Republicans looking for someone to stand up to the president as they perceive their own elected officials very weak in this aspect. First it was Ron Paul at the beginning of the year that became their darling. Paul is more a Libertarian than Republican and thus pre-Trump and Carson fit the bill. Then around May Carson came along and he looked better than Paul, more of an outsider and the darling label passed to him. In July came Trump, a surprise entry into the nomination race and the anti-establishment folks jumped on his bandwagon. Perhaps today the bombastic egotist is starting to grate on some of these folks and hence, some returned to Carson. Still there is a lot of dislike for the do nothing establishment type Republicans and together Carson and trump have about half of the Republican primary vote. Both outsiders and very anti-establishment which is what half of the Republicans are looking for. Trump's in your face politics, always on the attack and Carson's quiet confidence in different ways inspire those looking for the anti-establishment types. The feeling is either of these two will take the fight to Obama or to the Democrats as a whole and stick up for their beliefs which they think their establishment people have rolled over and played dead way too many times. Stances on issues is not nearly as important as the perception of a candidate standing up to Obama and the Democrats are. Trump is probably the most liberal of all the GOP candidates, but he has that fighting spirit which seems to be lacking in the others and that is what is important. Carson is the speak softly and carry a big stick kind of guy. He breeds confidence even in his soft spoken style he is a fighter. Both have their shortcomings, many in fact which will be overlooked for that fighting spirit. The Democrats are behind the old guard, the establishment, the GOP seems to be going for an outsider, the new comer, the anti-establishment. One could say the GOP is after real change, not just a bit of controlled change if that brought by the candidate of hope and change. Establishment candidates do not bring change, just more of the same.
... and Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with the politicians they have sent to Washington. Dub Bush was a disaster in the White House, and Congressional Republicans are currently registering 12% approval/83% disapproval - vs the Executive's consistently polling around 45 points higher. Give that enormous gap in the level of voter satisfaction, is it more likely that Americans would elect a leader that would largely follow the course of one they twice favoured with popular majorities and consistently assign mediocre numbers or draw from the very unpopular GOP? Since the answer to that question is obvious, they abandon their experienced politicians. They swarm around one novelty act with no political resumé after another. I still expect their fickle, frivolous dalliances to be symbolic acts of rebellion, torrid flings with the bad boys, before they settle down with a nice, young old man who espouses the stale notions of his parents' generation Looking forward to bygone days is not a promising prospect. The times they are a-changin'.
I have no trouble with a turn left or right. Where I have issues is where we seem to have accepted overt corruption and flat lying as long as votes can be bought.
What's just as important as his word that they met in February is the fact that it's been acknowledged that it could have happened, by Politico and other sources. In a court of law, that's called reasonable doubt. As a prosecuting attorney, you wouldn't get a conviction. You're still trying to project your personal biases as fact. You're not an expert witness on the the fallibility of memory, and what he should and shouldn't remember. You're not qualified to make the assessment. Period. You can personally believe he should have remembered, but that's not a standard for proof. If you examine Hillary's current claim that she tried to join the Marines, it has most of the elements of doubt that you personally would immediately label lies. I'd love to nail her as a liar on her claims. But I can't. I can't because I can't prove any of her claims are absolutely false. There is a lot of fishy stuff, and circumstances surrounding her claims that make the whole event very unlikely. But in the end, there is the possibility she could have tried to join the Marines. Without irrefutable proof, there is no bases to claim lies. At least if you're intellectually honest. Let this one go. By your own admission, you're a rabid leftist, and your motivations for attacking Carson are beyond clear. I'm politely asking you to bring me something fresh if you want to continue this subject. Otherwise it's a waste of time.
If lying to Congress and the American people to start a war is constitutional, I surely don't want to know what is unconstitutional.
The malcontented pantywaists' incessant mewling about Clinton will not stop the American people electing her to lead the nation. Only presenting them with an alternative candidate they prefer can achieve that.
I really don't want to rehash this issue, but the Senators had the same information as the Administration, much of which came from sources outside the US. Can you give me the votes from Congress to over throw the Governments of Libya or Egypt.
OK. I'll rephrase. Why do American deaths in Benghazi mean more to Americans than daily American murders in America?