Why are conservatives so afraid to say Hillary, CIA and TORTURE in the same sentence? If your not asking the questions that the WaPo and DailyKOS asked, then please explain why? Seriously, someone should ask Obama and Hillary the questions and don’t act like no ones going to listen to conservatives, that’s so wuzzyfied and it only guarantees the left will never get more serious. Except for the liberal media who have the balls to do it, they’ve already asked yet the right was silent.

The Washington Post has discussed whether or not
Hillary Clinton and Obama were torturing terrorists in Libya at a secret CIA site. Call her out for torture.

Bill Clinton tortured 3 terrorists, did Hillary sit in on torture talks, Bubba has never been investigated like Bush and there’s no
Statute of Limitations on torture or water boarding. How do we know Clinton didn’t break any laws or violate the Civil Rights of the so called humans as liberals portray them. Hit Hillary and generate buzz talk because the liberal media are still curious.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

http://www.democraticundergrou…
http://www.alternet.org/story/…

http://pubrecord.org/torture/7…

No two so-called “white” people are the same “color,” no two so-called “brown” people are the same “color,” and no two so-called “black” people are the same “color” either. Also, NO ONE is qualified to say where the “white” category ends and the “brown” category begins. No one. Neither can ANYONE determine where the “brown” category ends and the “black” category begins. No one. The truth is, that we are ALL “people of color.” All of us. We are all some shade of brown. Some lighter, some darker. Collectively, we human beings are all varying shades of the SAME smoothly gradient brown color palette or spectrum. We are ALL brown. Get over it.

Humanity’s ridiculous, senseless (almost childish) habit of grouping, categorizing, and then labeling people (regardless of the intent/motive) can be extremely problematic — and irritating. And it is usually very divisive, in the end.

‘Hispanics’ are NOT latino if they have origin in the following countries: Spain, Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Portugal, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and Puerto Rico.

Persons with family origin in Mexico, the Dominican Republic are considered to be ‘latino’ only if their skin color is dark enought that they would be considered ‘mestizo’ in their family’s country of origin. If, for example, they have family origin in Mexico, but have blue eyes and light hair, they cannot be ‘latino’.

So you see the racial preferences game gets very complex and very ugly very fast.

Bottom line is Louis’s grades sucked…..

I’m fine with Alejo talking his way in, I think it shows moxie and seriousness.
No it doesn’t.

It doesn’t show “moxie” or seriousness, it shows an applicant who was able to game the system and get an advantage no other applicant was able to get- a face to face interview…typical gov manipulation.

I know lawyers who scored in the 99th percentile on the LSAT and couldn’t draft a compliant nor litigate a real case if their life depended on it.

I know gov lawyers just as bad.

Agreed, but I know someone who got into UC Berkeley the same way. After his “in person” interview with the Admissions coordinator, she deemed him Berkeley material and let him in.
I was referring specifically to the UC law schools, Boalt, Hastings, King and UCLA (before UC Irvine opened up shop), they did NOT do interviews, in fact I don’t know of ANY of the 200 ABA LS that do give face to face interviews (they SHOULD!).

I would bet undergrad is the same, as the number of applicants per open slot staggering. Were you referring to undergrad or LS?

Just as people come in different heights, and all have respect, and value, people come in different IQs, colors, and educations, and all have respect and value.