PDA

View Full Version : Something I don't get about this Clinton email nonsense



iustitia
01-22-2016, 11:51 AM
In the Army I can get in deep shit for using my personal email to work with classified information. We're almost always expected to forward classified information through encrypted government/military email. Even if it's unclassified material we're still not supposed to fuck around with it.

Now don't get me wrong, unless it's sensitive information like social security numbers or specific unit operations I don't even agree with classified information. I don't like the idea of the government keeping secrets from the public.

But my thing is this. If a whistleblower like Showden gets chased around the globe as a traitor for disclosing government crimes, and any yahoo grunt in the military is expected to always follow the proper channels when dealing with classified or unclassified information, why in the FUCK does the Secretary of State get off the hook for doing whatever the fuck she wants with government information? That's kind of bullshit that a low-level mook could lose a security clearance for operating incorrectly with information but one of the highest public officials in the nation can shug it off like whatevs.

Private Pickle
01-22-2016, 11:57 AM
She represents the power elite. They are not accountable like we are.

valley ranch
01-22-2016, 01:09 PM
iustitia, You are or were in the service? Thank you. My respects!

Peter1469
01-22-2016, 01:38 PM
In the Army I can get in deep shit for using my personal email to work with classified information. We're almost always expected to forward classified information through encrypted government/military email. Even if it's unclassified material we're still not supposed to fuck around with it.

Now don't get me wrong, unless it's sensitive information like social security numbers or specific unit operations I don't even agree with classified information. I don't like the idea of the government keeping secrets from the public.

But my thing is this. If a whistleblower like Showden gets chased around the globe as a traitor for disclosing government crimes, and any yahoo grunt in the military is expected to always follow the proper channels when dealing with classified or unclassified information, why in the FUCK does the Secretary of State get off the hook for doing whatever the fuck she wants with government information? That's kind of bullshit that a low-level mook could lose a security clearance for operating incorrectly with information but one of the highest public officials in the nation can shug it off like whatevs.


The attorney general is appointed to office by the president. The AG is the one to bring charges against the Sec of State.

HoneyBadger
01-22-2016, 01:42 PM
The attorney general is appointed to office by the president. The AG is the one to bring charges against the Sec of State.

And we all know that's never going to happen.

Ethereal
01-22-2016, 02:24 PM
In the Army I can get in deep $#@! for using my personal email to work with classified information. We're almost always expected to forward classified information through encrypted government/military email. Even if it's unclassified material we're still not supposed to $#@! around with it.

Now don't get me wrong, unless it's sensitive information like social security numbers or specific unit operations I don't even agree with classified information. I don't like the idea of the government keeping secrets from the public.

But my thing is this. If a whistleblower like Showden gets chased around the globe as a traitor for disclosing government crimes, and any yahoo grunt in the military is expected to always follow the proper channels when dealing with classified or unclassified information, why in the $#@! does the Secretary of State get off the hook for doing whatever the $#@! she wants with government information? That's kind of bull$#@! that a low-level mook could lose a security clearance for operating incorrectly with information but one of the highest public officials in the nation can shug it off like whatevs.

Because the political class are criminals and treating their crimes as crimes would cause the entire system to crumble.

Tahuyaman
01-24-2016, 11:13 PM
And we all know that's never going to happen.

It looks like the current Attorney General is much less partisan than the last. I don't know if that means that she's more Independent though.

Chris
01-25-2016, 10:01 AM
Rule of law is a thing of the past in America.

texan
01-25-2016, 10:12 AM
The gov has to have Conf info, I don't understand wth you are saying there.

Truth Detector
01-25-2016, 10:18 AM
In the Army I can get in deep $#@! for using my personal email to work with classified information. We're almost always expected to forward classified information through encrypted government/military email. Even if it's unclassified material we're still not supposed to $#@! around with it.

Now don't get me wrong, unless it's sensitive information like social security numbers or specific unit operations I don't even agree with classified information. I don't like the idea of the government keeping secrets from the public.

But my thing is this. If a whistleblower like Showden gets chased around the globe as a traitor for disclosing government crimes, and any yahoo grunt in the military is expected to always follow the proper channels when dealing with classified or unclassified information, why in the $#@! does the Secretary of State get off the hook for doing whatever the $#@! she wants with government information? That's kind of bull$#@! that a low-level mook could lose a security clearance for operating incorrectly with information but one of the highest public officials in the nation can shug it off like whatevs.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE; she's special and is the mainstream media's annointed FIRST female President!

Truth Detector
01-25-2016, 10:21 AM
Rule of law is a thing of the past in America.

Yeah that's it; there's no rule of law in AmeriKa.

http://i1152.photobucket.com/albums/p497/Arek56/Eatherliver.gif

Chris
01-25-2016, 10:22 AM
Yeah that's it; there's no rule of law in AmeriKa.

http://i1152.photobucket.com/albums/p497/Arek56/Eatherliver.gif



I doubt you understand the concept. Stop trolling.

Truth Detector
01-25-2016, 10:27 AM
I doubt you understand the concept. Stop trolling.

I doubt you comprehend how stupid that post was. Do you have anything to support the loony claim that the rule of law in AmeriKa is a thing of the past. Or is it just because you say it's so.

Chris
01-25-2016, 10:30 AM
I doubt you comprehend how stupid that post was. Do you have anything to support the loony claim that the rule of law in AmeriKa is a thing of the past. Or is it just because you say it's so.

Let's try discussion. Can you define rule of law? Do you know what it is?

del
01-25-2016, 10:36 AM
:rofl:

Truth Detector
01-25-2016, 10:38 AM
Let's try discussion. Can you define rule of law? Do you know what it is?

Seriously? You need a definition of what the rule of law is? :rofl:

Chris
01-25-2016, 10:54 AM
Seriously? You need a definition of what the rule of law is? :rofl:

So I take it you do not know what it means.

It means the law is applied to everyone equally, that no one is above the law. It originates with the Jews who held their kings to the same law as everyone else. It's what the DoI means by everyone is created equal.

As per the many comments above, Hillary is getting special treatment as member of the political or ruling class.

Are you able to discuss that or will you continue to merely troll?

Truth Detector
01-25-2016, 11:05 AM
So I take it you do not know what it means.

It means the law is applied to everyone equally, that no one is above the law. It originates with the Jews who held their kings to the same law as everyone else. It's what the DoI means by everyone is created equal.

As per the many comments above, Hillary is getting special treatment as member of the political or ruling class.

Are you able to discuss that or will you continue to merely troll?

I'm fairly certain that Hillary is being investigated by the FBI. If she is found to have broken laws, I'm also certain that charges will have to be brought forth.....unless, of course, you have some kind of special access to information everyone else is not privy to.

But here's the most important rule of law that you, and many liberals, seem to forget when you engage in your loopy bloviating; one is PRESUMED innocent until they have been PROVEN guilty. Try to remember that.

Now, is this administration dragging its heels and engaging in less than transparent behavior; of course it is. Is it criminal; prove it.

Now that you've provided a weak definition, how does this make your loopy case that the rule of law no longer exists in AmeriKa? Here, let me help you because comprehending the obvious appears to be difficult for you; it doesn't.

Private Pickle
01-25-2016, 11:08 AM
I'm fairly certain that Hillary is being investigated by the FBI. If she is found to have broken laws, I'm also certain that charges will have to be brought forth.....unless, of course, you have some kind of special access to information everyone else is not privy to.

But here's the most important rule of law that you, and many liberals, seem to forget when you engage in your loopy bloviating; one is PRESUMED innocent until they have been PROVEN guilty. Try to remember that.

Now, is this administration dragging its heels and engaging in less than transparent behavior; of course it is. Is it criminal; prove it.

Now that you've provided a weak definition, how does this make your loopy case that the rule of law no longer exists in AmeriKa? Here, let me help you because comprehending the obvious appears to be difficult for you; it doesn't.

Even if all this comes true Obama will pardon her....

Chris
01-25-2016, 11:15 AM
I'm fairly certain that Hillary is being investigated by the FBI. If she is found to have broken laws, I'm also certain that charges will have to be brought forth.....unless, of course, you have some kind of special access to information everyone else is not privy to.

But here's the most important rule of law that you, and many liberals, seem to forget when you engage in your loopy bloviating; one is PRESUMED innocent until they have been PROVEN guilty. Try to remember that.

Now, is this administration dragging its heels and engaging in less than transparent behavior; of course it is. Is it criminal; prove it.

Now that you've provided a weak definition, how does this make your loopy case that the rule of law no longer exists in AmeriKa? Here, let me help you because comprehending the obvious appears to be difficult for you; it doesn't.




Now, is this administration dragging its heels and engaging in less than transparent behavior; of course it is.

That violates rule of law. Thank you. You just provided the best argument against your arguments.


Ignoring the remaining bloviating fluff.

Bo-4
01-25-2016, 11:36 AM
:biglaugh:

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/52132564.jpg

Truth Detector
01-25-2016, 04:21 PM
Even if all this comes true Obama will pardon her....

That would be the death knell of the Democratic Party in my opinion. It would expose Obama as the corrupt partisan hack that he is.

domer76
01-25-2016, 04:24 PM
Rule of law is a thing of the past in America.

It's OK. No natural laws were violated, so what's the problem?

Chris
01-25-2016, 04:32 PM
It's OK. No natural laws were violated, so what's the problem?

Another one who doesn't understand what rule of law is.

domer76
01-25-2016, 04:39 PM
Another one who doesn't understand what rule of law is.

What natural law was broken, Chris? After all, those are the only ones that really count, right?

Tahuyaman
01-25-2016, 04:47 PM
Another one who doesn't understand what rule of law is.

They actually do understand it. They just selectively dismiss it when it suits them. With some, an end always justifies a means.

Chris
01-25-2016, 04:50 PM
What natural law was broken, Chris? After all, those are the only ones that really count, right?

The fact you ask about natural law at all in response to a statement on rule of law demonstrates you do not understand rule of law.

Chris
01-25-2016, 04:52 PM
They actually do understand it. They just selectively dismiss it when it suits them. With some, an end always justifies a means.

I don't think so. The entire liberal/progressive agenda is to create equality, for special minorities, by unequal means. Take company hiring and college entrance quotas for example.

domer76
01-25-2016, 05:03 PM
The fact you ask about natural law at all in response to a statement on rule of law demonstrates you do not understand rule of law.

You need to pick a lane, Chris ol' boy. When I discussed the rule of law, you commenced to shit your pants and were all over the natural law thing. Now you're beginning to do the same in the opposite direction.

So, which is it, pal? Or are you just going to be a chronic pants spoiler?

Peter1469
01-25-2016, 05:04 PM
That would be the death knell of the Democratic Party in my opinion. It would expose Obama as the corrupt partisan hack that he is.

Do you think the typical democrat would bat an eye if Obama pardoned Hillary? They would likely say "good."

Chris
01-25-2016, 05:06 PM
You need to pick a lane, Chris ol' boy. When I discussed the rule of law, you commenced to shit your pants and were all over the natural law thing. Now you're beginning to do the same in the opposite direction.

So, which is it, pal? Or are you just going to be a chronic pants spoiler?

You discussed rule of law? Where? You have discussed positive law, not rule of law. Rule of law applies to both natural and positive law.

You seem to have a lot of foul, shitty thoughts.

Tahuyaman
01-25-2016, 05:06 PM
I don't think so. The entire liberal/progressive agenda is to create equality, for special minorities, by unequal means. Take company hiring and college entrance quotas for example.. That actually supports my view that with them, the ends always justifies the means.

domer76
01-25-2016, 05:12 PM
You discussed rule of law? Where? You have discussed positive law, not rule of law. Rule of law applies to both natural and positive law.

You seem to have a lot of foul, shitty thoughts.

Living in your basement causing some dementia, brah?

Chris
01-25-2016, 05:14 PM
Living in your basement causing some dementia, brah?

Did you have something to say about rule of law? Or does your mind wander about with all those shitty thoughts?

domer76
01-25-2016, 05:14 PM
You discussed rule of law? Where? You have discussed positive law, not rule of law. Rule of law applies to both natural and positive law.

You seem to have a lot of foul, shitty thoughts.

You never answered. What natural law, the only law that REALLY counts, was broken? And while we're at it, what is the penalty for breaking a natural law?

Chris
01-25-2016, 05:15 PM
. That actually supports my view that with them, the ends always justifies the means.

I think it's more pointed in that certain groups cannot be considered oppressed minorities and treated special. Muslims are, Christians are not, for instance.

domer76
01-25-2016, 05:17 PM
Did you have something to say about rule of law? Or does your mind wander about with all those shitty thoughts?

I must say, you are consistent. You'll argue the opposite just for the sake of arguing. Even when you argue against your previous positions.

Chris
01-25-2016, 05:18 PM
I must say, you are consistent. You'll argue the opposite just for the sake of arguing. Even when you argue against your previous positions.

What opposite is that? Can you clarify what you make up there?

domer76
01-25-2016, 05:24 PM
What opposite is that? Can you clarify what you make up there?

What natural law was broken here? Are there natural penalties for breaking them? There must be. After all, it IS the law!

Chris
01-25-2016, 05:27 PM
What natural law was broken here? Are there natural penalties for breaking them? There must be. After all, it IS the law!

So instead of explaining you circle around and repeat yourself like a broken record.

del
01-25-2016, 05:30 PM
So instead of explaining you circle around and repeat yourself like a broken record.

sounds like trademark infringement to me.

call alyosha; she'll take your case pro bono

Chris
01-25-2016, 05:38 PM
sounds like trademark infringement to me.

call alyosha; she'll take your case pro bono

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Peter1469
01-25-2016, 05:42 PM
The Army JAGs taught Rule of Law to local attorneys in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Might as well have been attempting to teach them brain surgery for all the good it did.

del
01-25-2016, 05:47 PM
Do you even know what you're talking about?

yes, i do.

you should try it

Don
01-25-2016, 05:54 PM
She represents the power elite. They are not accountable like we are.

Yet. If we don't change that we deserve to live under a dictatorship.

Hal Jordan
01-25-2016, 05:54 PM
*twitch*

domer76
01-25-2016, 05:55 PM
So instead of explaining you circle around and repeat yourself like a broken record.

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

Private Pickle
01-25-2016, 05:57 PM
Yet. If we don't change that we deserve to live under a dictatorship.

Sure. That and $4 will buy ya a Starbucks!

Chris
01-25-2016, 05:58 PM
yes, i do.

you should try it

Why don't you try and connect Clinton emails with trademark infringement? I'd love to hear that.

del
01-25-2016, 06:00 PM
Why don't you try and connect Clinton emails with trademark infringement? I'd love to hear that.

because that's not what i'm talking about.

:rofl:

another six and you'd have a half dozen

Chris
01-25-2016, 06:01 PM
The Army JAGs taught Rule of Law to local attorneys in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Might as well have been attempting to teach them brain surgery for all the good it did.

While it's origins are Judaic, it seems to be mainly a Western idea, promoted much by Christian notions of equality, and liberal notions of justice. The rest of the world has yet to abandon hierarchical social order.

Chris
01-25-2016, 06:01 PM
because that's not what i'm talking about.

:rofl:

another six and you'd have a half dozen


And I thought you said you knew what you were talking about.

Chris
01-25-2016, 06:02 PM
Yet. If we don't change that we deserve to live under a dictatorship.

We don't? Take away the facade of democracy.

del
01-25-2016, 06:07 PM
And I thought you said you knew what you were talking about.

i do- you don't

try harder, skippy

Chris
01-25-2016, 06:27 PM
i do- you don't

try harder, skippy

Now if you could just put that in intelligible, understandable words. Something above the level of See Spot Run.

del
01-25-2016, 06:48 PM
Now if you could just put that in intelligible, understandable words. Something above the level of See Spot Run.

your inability to understand simple declarative sentences isn't my problem.