Self deleted. I apologize for using Investors.com as a source. They are very right wing.

[think]

Last edited Thu Apr 7, 2016, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Deleted.

Investors.com has been extremely right wing and has posted many very negative articles about both candidates.

I'm sorry for using them. I thought they were a more neutral source as some business sites are.

[yodermon]

1. And did they release any of those emails between January and April?

Funny, the bulk of the emails only seem to start showing up around end of March:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q=&mfrom=&mto=&title=¬itle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=¬o=&count=50&sort=1&page=8searchresult

[geek tragedy]

2. From noted progressive site Investors Business Daily

Apparently Wall Street doesn't like her

[Dem2]

4. Same right-wing rag article was posted just a few hours ago

This is kind of funny actually.

[highprincipleswork]

5. Funny as death or lost elections.

[Dem2]

6. It's going to happen to me and one of the candidates

Why fret over it?

[think]

7. OK. I'll admit after looking at their postings they are severely right wing. My apologies.

I must be confusing them with another business site.

Will delete.

[geek tragedy]

9. Thank you. Not everyone has your integrity. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Actually this is mirrored from the RW rag called the AP

It is at the top. I know, most people have no clue how to look for that shit, but this is an AP article.

[zappaman]

12. "I know, most people have no clue how to look for that shit..."

Nice insult.
Thank God we have you here.

[geek tragedy]

13. It's an editorial By IBD. nt

[CentralCoaster]

3. Hillary Clinton. Not qualified or disqualified, either way she needs to withdraw. EOM

[Waiting For Everyman]

8. Her political epitaph: she even fucked up email.

Yep, that is SO COMPETENT.

[zappaman]

11. Live and learn.

Thanks for deleting!

[nilram]

14. Yeah, their editorial page is to the right of Atilla the Hun.