Page 22 of 254 FirstFirst ... 121819202122232425263272122 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 3802
  1. #316
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I see v8 is as prone to the "I'm the only one here with an open mind who posts original thoughts" bullsh*t as all the previous versions. For a guy who spent a lot of time regurgitating the headlines off the little green monkey website.... it's still a comical claim. You should go back to posting under patriot4us.. at least that version of you is an admitted liberal with a smidgen of intellectual honesty.
    Love how your mind works in clueless ways and off topic ways with absolute authority.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    So your point is Clinton is an idiot who never read the manual and could not tell the difference between classified and non classified material?
    No, apparently that would be you dealing with your opinion before the facts are in.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I'm pretty sure what he's saying is they cannot talk about it... because the information is classified. Maybe you should read his post & the information at the links you provided about handling classified material. As an aside.. the FBI criminal investigation underway ain't about nothing.
    Thanks for sharing your opinion regarding what SteveW was posting about. I'll ignore your typical childish attempt at trolling me with imaginary tales not relevant to this topic. More classy stuff?

    Did you miss the point that I lived under classified guidelines or is this more smoke to blow up my butt because you mention...
    ...Ahh, an FBI criminal investigation that is under way, that no one knows what is about, nor has no conclusion. But sure enough, it's concluded in your mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    With you so far...

    Abut that... not so much a "fact"...

    The material was "classified when sent" and "as soon as it's written".. not reclassified "after they were found".
    Those were facts as I had them and true. Remember, I was asking for proof to convince me this is more than the rage of the day.

    LOL, priceless. And what do you give? An unlinked quote from the NYT. Afraid we might poke fun at you? Naw, I'd rather ignore your typical cherry picking and pull the next few paragraphs you omitted from the lede in your typical absolute conclusion based on half stories.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us...ons-email.html
    Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

    On Monday, the Clinton campaign disagreed with the conclusion of the intelligence review and noted that agencies within the government often have different views of what should be considered classified.

    “Our hope remains that these releases continue without being hampered by bureaucratic infighting among the intelligence community, and that the releases continue to be as inclusive and transparent as possible,” said Nick Merrill, a campaign spokesman.

    John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, echoed Mr. Merrill.

    “Classification is rarely a black and white question, and it is common for the State Department to engage internally and with our interagency partners to arrive at the appropriate decision,” he said in a statement. “Very often both the State Department and the intelligence community acquire information on the same matter through separate channels. Thus, there can be two or more separate reports and not all of them based on classified means. At this time, any conclusion about the classification of the documents in question would be premature.”
    And tell me, how does a Rueters investigation jive with the FBI investigation other than throw water on SteveW's "we'll never know" hypothesis? Thanks for that one.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0R22C120150902
    U.S. government regulations examined by Reuters say this sort of information, whether written or spoken, must be classified from the start, and handled through secure, government-controlled channels.

    The Clinton-Mitchell correspondence is one of 57 email threads found by Reuters in the latest batch of emails released on Monday that the State Department has marked as including the same type of information.

    In all the 87 email threads examined by Reuters, the State Department has blanked out the confidential information in the public copies, adding the classification code "1.4(B)", denoting foreign government information.

    UNCLEAR HOW CLOSELY REGULATIONS FOLLOWED

    It is not clear if Clinton approached classified information differently than other secretaries of state before or after.

    Several career diplomats, who joined the department before Clinton's tenure, also sent foreign government information through their unclassified .gov email accounts, the marked redactions on Clinton's emails show, suggesting that the regulations may be commonly ignored in favor of speedier communications.
    Ahh, it's OK until Clinton does it. There we have it, thanks.

    Here's what I think, defender of all that is right and usually wrong:
    Hillary Clinton's emails: classified or not?
    Foreign government information

    Even though the State Department has said the now-redacted emails were not classified at the time they were sent, Reuters and some others have questioned whether that’s accurate -- primarily because 87 of them contain foreign government information. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual (an employee rulebook) stipulates that foreign government information, if delivered in confidence, must be deemed classified.

    Reuters and others point to a November 2009 email containing a memo about Afghanistan written by then British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. In the email -- sent to Clinton aide Huma Abedin, then forwarded to Clinton -- a Miliband aide writes that the memo is intended for Clinton’s eyes "only."

    This seems like an obvious indicator that the information was provided in confidence, and thus should be deemed classified, as required by the Foreign Affairs Manual.

    "I cannot think of a clearer sign of an expectation that this was to be treated in confidence," former Information Security and Oversight Office director J. William Leonard told our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker.

    But not all experts agree that Clinton’s handling of foreign government information is an obvious violation.

    First of all, the confidentiality of the email is not 100 percent clear. Yes, the memo was intended solely for Clinton. But Miliband’s aide sent the email from his own personal account to Abedin at her state.gov email address -- not the State Department’s secure system. The memo also didn’t carry a marker indicating the British equivalent of classification.

    If the confidentiality of the information is not explicit, there’s room for disagreement about whether there was a violation, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

    Also, information can’t be classified until someone with the proper authority declares it so. Because the memo didn’t come with an official British classification marker, someone in the U.S. government would have had to make that call. So even if the memo required classification, it was not classified when it landed in Clinton’s email -- meaning it does not necessarily go against the claim that she did not receive classified material, Goitein said.

    While Abedin may have misstepped in forwarding the memo along, "Clinton’s own culpability in simply receiving the email is a much murkier question," Goitein said.

    Our conclusion

    We’ve noticed several Republican candidates claiming that Clinton negligently handled classified information. But they’re jumping the gun. There isn’t enough evidence to prove that. Some evidence suggests Clinton and her team went to some trouble to keep classified information out the email system.

    This is not to say Clinton’s email setup was allowed or appropriate -- for example, it skirted open records laws and presents challenges to archivists. And subsequent investigations may yield surprises or other unexpected evidence. But because of the way classification works and because of the incomplete record of her emails, we continue to reserve judgment.


    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Sure.. but who was the original birther? Circa Clinton 2008...
    Seriously? Now you're using Slate as a source with your cherry picking? Damn. Your game is off.
    But the more fitting precedent was set by other Hillary Clinton staffers earlier in the campaign. In December, the campaign asked two of its employees to resign after they proliferated rumors that Obama was a Muslim . If the campaign is consistent, we should see Clinton undress another staffer’s career in a few days.
    Yup, not Hillary the birther, but campaign aids: and they got fired. How about your guy Trump? He hasn't gotten fired, just keeps high in the polls which really gives us insight to the mind of the GOP base.

    Still mimicking my closing smilies I see. Try being original for a change.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  2. #317
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    433

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I'm pretty sure what he's saying is they cannot talk about it... because the information is classified. Maybe you should read his post & the information at the links you provided about handling classified material. As an aside.. the FBI criminal investigation underway ain't about nothing.


    The material was "classified when sent" and "as soon as it's written".. not reclassified "after they were found".




    Isn't AMD so cute, he is stuck in the mud even when it is explained in detail. As you would guess if he says it enough times it must be true.

    AMD, you can say it a trillion times, it isn't what you think (the big problem is you thinking) and it still won't be true.. Oh please let's see it again and again and again and again and again.

    Now we under stand why these types of people have so much trouble understanding anything even when it is totally explained as you would have to a 2 year old. That is the problem it is very hard to explain things that takes higher brain development to them than a 2 year old has.

    For those with higher brain development




    Does this following quote from AMD make any sense to those with a brain development higher than a 2 year old. Is there some misfiring going on here?
    The material was "classified when sent" and "as soon as it's written".. not reclassified "after they were found".
    Last edited by Clearwater; 09-20-2015 at 07:19 PM.

  3. #318
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    ^^^ Hey... ya sutprised me, otoc. Kinda snippy and void of truth, but at least ya didn't avoid it entirely.

  4. #319
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Seriously, since we had to endure a few long winded posts about nothing, how does it sit with the members here from the right that the two top candidates in the polls for the GOP are doing everything possible to alienate anyone who's not a White Evangelical Birther? Seems pretty counterproductive to getting elected to me. But what do I know. That's why I ask.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  5. #320
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ Hey... ya sutprised me, otoc. Kinda snippy and void of truth, but at least ya didn't avoid it entirely.
    Snippy? I guess you'd know all about snippy. Snippy seems to be what you guys give around here and more. I'd like to think it was toned down and more like what we used to give around here. I didn't avoid anything by my count, other than being held back by the 10,000 letter post limit.

    Thanks for your opinion that it was void of truth. Is that the new mantra around here, dutch? If the opinion differs and is backed by supporting quotes, it simply can't be true? Cue BD's bubble comment.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  6. #321
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ We can always count on you to refer to adversaries as "sir" when playing the innocent victim card and avoiding a persuasive take-down of your other post.

    Deja vu.
    Wow, sorry I missed this while I was composing a post that had thought and content beyond simple trolling. Thanks for yet another example of my earlier point(s) to you.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  7. #322
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Seriously, since we had to endure a few long winded posts about nothing, how does it sit with the members here from the right that the two top candidates in the polls for the GOP are doing everything possible to alienate anyone who's not a White Evangelical Birther? Seems pretty counterproductive to getting elected to me. But what do I know. That's why I ask.
    Trump not defending Obama as a Christian is what l suppose you're refering to. Meh. I don't care.

    I don't see Trump as an evangelical Christian. Maybe his is but l haven't noticed.

    Carson on the other hand, seems to do anything but alienate people.

    The other up and comer... Fiorina... doesn't strike me as pounding the evangelical thing at all.

    So l don't see where your question even comes from.

    What they all three have is a distance from the Republican establishment, which conservatives have lost trust in.

  8. #323
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    village of idiots
    Posts
    2,314

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveW View Post
    So you found the only group of Liberal Minded vets in the known universe.....good job!!!! Bet they all had Top Secret Security Clearances too!!!
    since i fall into your definition of a liberal, i also had carried a top secret clearance in the military.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ecurity_Agency

    These occupations, which required a top secret clearance (or higher) with Special Intelligence/crypto special clearances, were essential to U.S. Cold War efforts. ASA units usually operated in four groups called 'tricks', using revolving shifts to provide coverage twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. ASA troops were not allowed to discuss their operations with outsiders – in fact, they could not talk among themselves about their duties unless they were in a secure location. Even today, some of the missions still cannot be discussed. ASA personnel processing out of sensitive operations were debriefed and signed a document specifying a thirty-year elapsed time before they could discuss what they had done or observed. Note: Information other than XGDS (eXempt from General Declassification Schedule) is automatically declassified after 30 years.
    bb

  9. #324
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Clearwater View Post
    Coffee with other vets this morning made the comment "good circle jerk they got going on" then another said "do they ejaculate in unison or in order".

    We are all waiting for the replies
    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    "Classy" again, sir. Also pointless. Thanks for proving my earlier points to Dutch who only seems to want to point out classless and genital related posts when it comes from those who express differing opinions.
    So tell me TT, does your boy get the same useless drivel for "Taking it there first"? Or, the usual "Whining Liberal" free pass?

    Him, you - clueless.

    You guys both play the "Whine Card" exceptionally well. Too bad it fails so miserably here.
    Last edited by SteveW; 09-20-2015 at 08:52 PM.

  10. #325
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,279

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Love how your mind works in clueless ways and off topic ways with absolute authority.
    And as usual I love your projection and sidestepping. For what it's worth, I was replying to your inferences. It was the topic because you made it so, go flog yourself with a wet noodle. It's not a patriot4us/otoc post if you arent playing the victim card.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    No, apparently that would be you dealing with your opinion before the facts are in.
    Ah.. the rubber-n-glue defense. How original.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Thanks for sharing your opinion regarding what SteveW was posting about. I'll ignore your typical childish attempt at trolling me with imaginary tales not relevant to this topic. More classy stuff?
    Someone needs their binky. Not my fault ur slow on the whole reading and comprehension thang.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Did you miss the point that I lived under classified guidelines or is this more smoke to blow up my butt because you mention...
    Miss it, no. I simply dismissed it as there seems to be a lot of people flogging access to classified material and it's simply not pertinent to the discussion. I've had a security clearance as well. Active duty military with access to stuff... I'm sure you understand completely having once had a draft card and all that.

    The question here is whether or not cankles mishandled classified information.


    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    ...Ahh, an FBI criminal investigation that is under way, that no one knows what is about, nor has no conclusion. But sure enough, it's concluded in your mind.
    The FBI, State Department and a Federal judge seem to know there is an investigation underway.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...b-drive-213326

    State Department asks FBI about records on Hillary Clinton server, thumb drive

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Those were facts as I had them and true. Remember, I was asking for proof to convince me this is more than the rage of the day.
    Then maybe you should put a few "**" after your "FACT" statements saying these are the facts... as otoc has them. Not to be confused with the actual facts.

    Your boilerplate is so weak and feeble it's embarrassing. Honestly, I'm embarrassed for you. You obviously have no shame after having been outed as a sock puppet so long ago. Yet you keep showing up with the same tired arsed schtick.

    To get some utility from your posts we should start a drinking game for every time you inject the word "rage" into a conversation where there is none.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    LOL, priceless. And what do you give? An unlinked quote from the NYT. Afraid we might poke fun at you? Naw, I'd rather ignore your typical cherry picking and pull the next few paragraphs you omitted from the lede in your typical absolute conclusion based on half stories.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us...ons-email.html
    It was a requote from a post neither you or bongwater read just a few posts up that had a linky-dinky.

    But golly.. who to believe? The results of the IG and special review by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency who deal with classification.

    -OR-

    otoc's state dept. spokesperson who says there is some ambiguity?

    Sure does seem one of us is pretty close minded.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    And tell me, how does a Rueters investigation jive with the FBI investigation other than throw water on SteveW's "we'll never know" hypothesis? Thanks for that one.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0R22C120150902
    I thought you said no one knew about the FBI investigation... are you breaking those classification guidelines you were just pimping?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Ahh, it's OK until Clinton does it. There we have it, thanks.
    Clinton did it back in 2008, you did not seem to have an issue with cankles so why is it an issue for you now?

    Because centrism.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Here's what I think, defender of all that is right and usually wrong:
    Hillary Clinton's emails: classified or not?
    Ah.. politifact. No thanks. I'll stick with the determination of the IG & results of the special review by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. All of whom say cankles screwed the pooch.

    But don't let their findings dissuade you.. they are just the experts. I mean... golly.. you actually lived under the guidelines they enfoce! And trust me... many here are mightily impressed.

    I'm sure that state department spokesm and and politifact are proof positive of her majesty's innocence in your mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Seriously? Now you're using Slate as a source with your cherry picking? Damn. Your game is off.


    Yup, not Hillary the birther, but campaign aids: and they got fired. How about your guy Trump? He hasn't gotten fired, just keeps high in the polls which really gives us insight to the mind of the GOP base.

    Still mimicking my closing smilies I see. Try being original for a change.
    Oh I see.. it was just her campaign. My mistake.

    As far a mimicking you.. no thanks. One professional sock puppet in TLR has always been one too many..

    Last edited by AMDScooter; 09-20-2015 at 09:11 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #326
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,279

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Seriously, since we had to endure a few long winded posts about nothing, how does it sit with the members here from the right that the two top candidates in the polls for the GOP are doing everything possible to alienate anyone who's not a White Evangelical Birther? Seems pretty counterproductive to getting elected to me. But what do I know. That's why I ask.
    As they were replies to your long winded posts.. we are in agreement. Same could be said about cankles and Bearnie pitching to the extremens in your party. The obvious answer is these are the primaries. Both sides lean far to one side then pitch to the center for the general election.

    The only thing unique here is you pitching it as if it's some new tactic exclusive to the right just so you can pitch the idea they are only courting "whitey birthers".

    Why do you suppose cankles lies so much? Seems counterproductive to getting elected to me. No one trusts her, even women voters are turned off.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b042295e372a41

    Support For Clinton Drops Among Female Voters
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #327
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    .........The question here is whether or not cankles mishandled classified information.
    That's the beginning and end of it. Bottom line is simple, her personal email server was not authorized to process classified US government data. When, where and how is totally irrelevant.

  13. #328
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    433

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveW View Post
    That's the beginning and end of it. Bottom line is simple, her personal email server was not authorized to process classified US government data. When, where and how is totally irrelevant.

    Here is how ignorant these people are ^^^^ Any classified material sent to Clinton by way of email would have been encrypted. That being said it would have been encrypted on her server, thus Clinton would have had to hand over the encryption code for the emails to be viewed. To further explain to this crowd, if Clinton didn't have the code for the encrypted messages she wouldn't have been able to view the email, and encryption codes are changed regularly. That being said she was authorized to handle secret messages as the policy/protocol calls for. It would be silly to have this email account and server if she can't handle encrypted messages which BTW was the only email account she had that we know of for government work.

    Your muddy water has now become clear.

    OO7

  14. #329
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    ^ Bond's the name, James Bond... Nice rant of Hyperbole.

  15. #330
    Joined
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    138

    Re: Whoever is Running in 2016 ... ?

    Yeah then I sleep with his women

    SScrew bond, god save the queen!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •