That’s wonderful. You don’t take its use as an insult, and I don’t intend it as an insult. A problem that didn’t exist, seems to be solved.
And just to keep this post thread related, the investigation of Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account continues. Is there any chance that Hillary will ever, fully, cooperate with the investigation?
They were told to be sensitive about the most minor insult ever, so they dutifully take offense. Republicans meanwhile, don’t even bother to get insulted at “Repugs”, “Rethuglicans”, “Teabaggers”, etc. We already recognize that our opponents lack maturity.
We make up for it with brains and compassion.
Brains I’ll give you. I’m constantly ashamed at how stupid my side can be sometimes. I won’t give you independence. You guys are smart enough to not parrot talking points. I expect that from the more ignorant members of my side.
The difference, of course, is that those epithets are not used by our elected representatives on the floor of Congress.
As evidenced by the fact that “Teabaggers” was their own invention. 
All I have to do is read your own damn posts, which do indeed use that term. You do know they’re out there for everyone to see, don’t you? :rolleyes:
Then why *do *you use it? Merely an non-native-speaker’s understanding of English grammar? That’s easily fixed, if that’s all it is.
Is there any chance of a Republican investigation into her being legitimate? Or even effective at its *true *purpose?
If there’s nothing to it, cooperation would end it.
I chuckled. 
CNN reports that Clinton lied. Again.
More of that right-wing media.
Of course it would.
You know better.
I meant it would end the controversy. Politicians hide things because they have something to hide.
Of course it would.
You know better than that.
You could ask your English teacher about nouns and adjectives if you don’t believe me.
Or you could continue pouting and reflexively denying everything you’re told - it’s your choice.
It has a nice ring to it. People still seem to know which group I’m referring. I also mispel “embareass”.
Republican’s are investigating Hillary? I’m in favor of investigations. I’m in favor of politicians being fully cooperative with investigations. I’m not in favor of those who suggest that Hillary shouldn’t be investigated.
(I’ve got an off-topic suggestion, maybe you could look into conducting a poll to see if the SDMB should become the word police?)
Just keep on yelling “Benghazi!” for the next year and a half, please. Maybe by then it will start to work, right? 
I think it’s more important to publically point out that Hillary, repeatedly, does not fully cooperate with investigations. It’s only the independents that are in play. Do they want a President who ignores Congressional investigations, and acts as if she’s above the law?
Isn’t that what elections are for? For “We The Voters” to decide who each of us, as individuals, believe would best meet our individual standards?
You know why. Tell us. *Show *you know why.
By “Congressional”, you mean “Republican”. Don’t pretend.
And “investigations” is not an accurate term, either. But you know that too, don’t you?
Investigations are good…when based upon probable cause. Without that, they are politically-motivated fishing expeditions, and no one should be compelled to “cooperate” with their own harassment.
Eric Holder went through the same thing: Congress demanded to see all of his files, even those not relevant to the controversy that was supposedly under investigation. Holder, very rightly, told them no.
Hahahaha. By “Congressional”, I mean “Congressional”. You can interpret your fantasies any way you wish.
“Investigations” is an accurate term. It’s use does not require your permission, or that you agree.