Julian Assange in trouble? [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 07:15 AM

No you petty little tool, it was before he started working with Russia to sway US democratic elections.

I think your tin foil hat is on so tight it's restricting blood flow to your brain.

Also how is Assange attempting to "sway" US Democratic elections? By releasing the truth? I mean shit, are you even being for real? Hey, if you want to make the argument that Assange is releasing bullshit fake emails then make that argument and state why you think he suddenly decided to start releasing fake information (and no saying he's working with Russia isn't a good enough argument), but if you're honestly saying that THE TRUTH can't be told because it might "sway" elections unfavorably towards your candidate then...then you are quite possibly the biggest moron to ever walk on this planet.

I also love your faux outrage of someone attempting to sway Democratic elections in another country when Obama/his administration actually sent US taxpayer dollars to a group that used the funds to try and prevent Netanyahu from being reelected in Israel. But I'm sure in typical time4fun fashion you'll either have some bullshit reason for why it's different when a Democrat does these things you claim to be enraged about, you'll just drop some "witty" one liner, or you'll just ignore this post altogether.

Which one will it be? I'm all atwitter with anticipation.

kutter

10-17-2016, 07:18 AM

No you petty little tool, it was before he started working with Russia to sway US democratic elections.

You mean kind of like how the Clinton campaign colludes with mass media to do so?

Methais

10-17-2016, 07:33 AM

No you petty little tool, it was before he started working with Russia to sway US democratic elections.

God, you are genuinely one of the saddest people. You are incapable of understanding things objectively.

http://i.imgur.com/avHnbUZ.gif?noredirect

You of all people here talking about being objective is hilarious as fuck.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 08:31 AM

Warriorbird

10-17-2016, 09:31 AM

Seems logical to have a dead man's switch. It's like what he had before with the 2013 data. It also appeals to his supporters for him to seem persecuted... boosting his brand.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 09:39 AM

It also appeals to his supporters for him to seem persecuted... boosting his brand.

..........

BriarFox

10-17-2016, 09:41 AM

It's absolutely unarguable that Assange has been releasing info that he thinks will hurt Clinton. That's no surprise, either, given the background there. What is surprising is that Assange is happy to be the cat's paw for Russia to meddle in the election.

And for all of you Trump supporters, I am baffled as to why you don't take the fact that Russia *likes* Trump as a sign of how flawed he is. A weak US president would give Russia much larger rein in the world.

Fortunately, it's looking like Hillary is going to win in a landslide.

time4fun

10-17-2016, 10:41 AM

Yeah- let's be really careful here about conflating Wikileaks leaking official government documents outlining unconstitutional abuses of power and leaking hacked emails from a PRIVATE US citizen's mailbox about non-governmental information in order to sway the election towards an isolationist candidate who would dissolve NATO- which is basically the only thing that keeps Russia from going batshit crazy and invading half of Europe. (Especially since Assange has made it very clear he has a personal vendetta against Clinton).

What is truly terrifying is the way pinheads like Tgo are so blinded by their partisan rage that they don't understand the gravity of this situation. For the first time ever, the US Presidential Elections are being tampered with by foreign powers. And it's not just the Wikileaks abuses, it's also actively trying to hack into our damn voter registration databases. This is dangerous and unprecedented.

And the fact that Trump is so happily playing along coupled with the insane number of people with Putin ties who have magically shown up in his campaign at various points is part of what makes him so deeply unfit. He's destroying and disrupting our democracy right now- alongside Putin.

Please remove head from sphincter and then put your country before your candidate.

Kembal

10-17-2016, 10:50 AM

..........

So serious question: how was Assange's Internet connection severed? Does he have a separate connection from the Ecuadorean embassy? If so, did someone physically cut the cable? Is he the target of a DDoS attack?

Utilization of the dead man's switch when he's not actually dead prompts these sorts of questions.

time4fun

10-17-2016, 10:56 AM

So serious question: how was Assange's Internet connection severed? Does he have a separate connection from the Ecuadorean embassy? If so, did someone physically cut the cable? Is he the target of a DDoS attack?

Utilization of the dead man's switch when he's not actually dead prompts these sorts of questions.

I would imagine that Wikileaks is required to run on its own network. The Ecuadorean government would be potentially liable if Wikileaks were running these files through the embassy's own network. And on one is going to consent to having Russia accessing their government network.

Parkbandit

10-17-2016, 11:11 AM

No you petty little tool, it was before he started working with Russia to sway US democratic elections.

God, you are genuinely one of the saddest people. You are incapable of understanding things objectively.

Holy shit....

The irony in this post is as delicious as it is stupid.

You have entered Backlashian level of stupidity at this point and even surpassed that which we thought could never be passed.

Backlash, you better step up your game.. your title is on the line.

Parkbandit

10-17-2016, 11:13 AM

Taernath

10-17-2016, 11:14 AM

Theoretically, if the deadman's switch was pulled it would be damaging to both parties. Theoretically.

Parkbandit

10-17-2016, 11:15 AM

What is truly terrifying is the way pinheads like Tgo are so blinded by their partisan rage that they don't understand the gravity of this situation.

FROM THE TOP TURNBUCKLE!

And the fact that Trump is so happily playing along coupled with the insane number of people with Putin ties who have magically shown up in his campaign at various points is part of what makes him so deeply unfit. He's destroying and disrupting our democracy right now- alongside Putin.

OH SHIT, FROG SPLASH!

Please remove head from sphincter and then put your country before your candidate.

FINISHING MOVE!

Winner.

Parkbandit

10-17-2016, 11:16 AM

So serious question: how was Assange's Internet connection severed? Does he have a separate connection from the Ecuadorean embassy? If so, did someone physically cut the cable? Is he the target of a DDoS attack?

Utilization of the dead man's switch when he's not actually dead prompts these sorts of questions.

You're serious here?

Personally, I think he's an attention whore piece of shit that should be in jail, but watching you liberals go from "OMG HE'S A HERO" to "OMG WE NEED TO KILL HIM BECAUSE HE'S DESTROYING OUR WORLD" is hilarious.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 11:22 AM

Watch out, PB's having a stroke.

Parkbandit

10-17-2016, 11:28 AM

Watch out, PB's having a stroke.

http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/sites/statesymbolsusa.org/files/primary-images/011fishchannelcatfish.jpg

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 12:24 PM

Picture that doesn't apply but words have proven very challenging for PB

https://media.giphy.com/media/m2EiTjM1Zt5DO/giphy.gif

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 01:44 PM

If exposing our government's emails is enough to negatively influence an election, perhaps it's time to replace our government.

.

Warriorbird

10-17-2016, 01:48 PM

I've got no problem with it being exposed. We delude ourselves if we think most governments' wouldn't be problematic, however, or fail to consider the effort/intent behind the exposure.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 01:51 PM

time4fun

10-17-2016, 02:03 PM

I've got no problem with it being exposed. We delude ourselves if we think most governments' wouldn't be problematic, however, or fail to consider the effort/intent behind the exposure.

The question here is, what's the "it" that we're okay with?

Hacking private citizens to sway an election is a massive problem that undermines our democracy.

Hacking government file servers to reveal illegal government activity shores up and protects our democracy.

There are lines here. Russia and Assange do NOT get a vote in this election. And that's what they're trying to do. The target is just as problematic as the intent, no?

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:07 PM

Has Russia been indicted for this yet?

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:11 PM

NSA whistleblower William Binney and others have been saying for awhile now that some of these leaks are coming from within the US intelligence agencies.

Warriorbird

10-17-2016, 02:12 PM

1. Everyone else does it so who cares?
2. The Russians! The Russians!

Sound logic, champ.

You're a bit confused. It is probably due to your siege mentality. We should absolutely care.

Pretending that Putin isn't himself is Neville Chamberlain level weakness.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:15 PM

You're a bit confused. It is probably due to your siege mentality. We should absolutely care.

Pretending that Putin isn't himself is Neville Chamberlain level weakness.

Pretending that this is all to blame on Russia is McCarthy level weakness.

time4fun

10-17-2016, 02:15 PM

time4fun

10-17-2016, 02:18 PM

Pretending that this is all to blame on Russia is McCarthy level weakness.

This isn't an assumption PK. This is what all of the evidence has pointed to. Our intelligence agencies are positive here. We're talking about Russian data centers, Russian hacker teams, and Russian political goals.

Seriously- take off the partisan hate blinders. We're in trouble. Putin is trying to undermine the election results right now. And he's having too much success for comfort.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 02:18 PM

Has Russia been indicted for this yet?

Yes, they have been. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-administration-accuses-russian-government-of-election-year-hacking-229296

Unless, of course, you mean literally indicted. If you are--which would imply mind-boggling ignorance on your part--then no, the US has no ability to "indict" a nation, and a trip to, say, the ICC or UN ICJ would be either pointless or counterproductive.

And just in case you don't read the article -- which would actually require you to be interested in the subject and not just insofar as you think you can attack a political party -- even Republican lawmakers who've had the same briefings from the intelligence community have come to the same conclusion.

Will you be treating us with your parroting of the Russian administration's spin again today, or will you be thinking critically?

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:20 PM

And he's having too much success for comfort.

Kind of sad that we need Russia's assistance to help stop a crooked warmonger from cheating her way to the presidency.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:21 PM

Yes, they have been. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-administration-accuses-russian-government-of-election-year-hacking-229296

That is an indictment, it's an accusation. When has Russia been found guilty in a court of law?

Whirlin

10-17-2016, 02:24 PM

That is an indictment, it's an accusation. When has Russia been found guilty in a court of law?
What court would that take place in?

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 02:25 PM

Oh. You did mean literally indicted. You actually are that ignorant. Well, carry on then, basking in willful ignorance about how countries actually interact with each other, basking in willful ignorance about the many Republicans -- in charge of viewing intelligence -- have stated agreement that the hacking's been Russian.

It's just nice to know that any interest in reality or even an identity as an American's been thrown out the window as soon as an adversary of the US attacks a politican or party that you dislike.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:31 PM

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:33 PM

How many foreign elections has the US government influenced? How many foreign governments has the US openly and covertly help topple? If you think this is Russia's first rodeo at trying to influence internal US affairs I have some bridges I'd love to sell you.

Warriorbird

10-17-2016, 02:35 PM

BriarFox

10-17-2016, 02:36 PM

If exposing our government's emails is enough to negatively influence an election, perhaps it's time to replace our government.
.

In general, any democratically minded citizen has to agree that governments should be generally transparent, and so exposing emails seems like a good idea. It stops seeming like a good idea when you realize that this isn't really an issue of transparency but instead a witchhunt for any comment that can be taken out of context or misconstrued.

Let me flip things around a little bit. Say you write an email to the married woman you're banging in which you comment about how you'd punch her husband's face in because your dick is bigger. Unfortunately, the husband picks up her phone and sees your comment, and he's actually 275lbs of linebacker-quality muscle. You try and try to explain that you didn't *really* mean that your dick was bigger and you wanted to punch his face in, and that you were just flexing your e-peen for your bang-buddy, but he's not buying it and he gets on a plane to come find you. Now, you didn't actually mean for him to ever see that email, and you never on your life would have said it to his face, but it was appropriate (you thought) in the private and secure context in which you said it.

That's the sort of email people are trying to find in Hillary's camp.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 02:41 PM

What is surprising is that Assange is happy to be the cat's paw for Russia to meddle in the election.

Why is that "surprising"? So Assange shouldn't do what he does depending on where the information comes from? If Iran gave them information that proves the US is torturing people all over the world you would admonish Assange for releasing said information because of where it came from? Something tells me you're full of shit on this.

And for all of you Trump supporters, I am baffled as to why you don't take the fact that Russia *likes* Trump as a sign of how flawed he is. A weak US president would give Russia much larger rein in the world.

The 80's called and they want their foreign policy back.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:43 PM

So you think this is good? You're using the same argument you just claimed I was.

Wrong. You said other countries would be problematic if they had internal documents released. I asked questions.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:44 PM

In general, any democratically minded citizen has to agree that governments should be generally transparent, and so exposing emails seems like a good idea. It stops seeming like a good idea when you realize that this isn't really an issue of transparency but instead a witchhunt for any comment that can be taken out of context or misconstrued.

Let me flip things around a little bit. Say you write an email to the married woman you're banging in which you comment about how you'd punch her husband's face in because your dick is bigger. Unfortunately, the husband picks up her phone and sees your comment, and he's actually 275lbs of linebacker-quality muscle. You try and try to explain that you didn't *really* mean that your dick was bigger and you wanted to punch his face in, and that you were just flexing your e-peen for your bang-buddy, but he's not buying it and he gets on a plane to come find you. Now, you didn't actually mean for him to ever see that email, and you never on your life would have said it to his face, but it was appropriate (you thought) in the private and secure context in which you said it.

That's the sort of email people are trying to find in Hillary's camp.

And you've completely jumped the shark.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 02:49 PM

Yeah- let's be really careful here about conflating Wikileaks leaking official government documents outlining unconstitutional abuses of power and leaking hacked emails from a PRIVATE US citizen's mailbox

So you openly admit that you don't think facts should be released if said facts might hurt the person you want to win? Unfuckingbelievable.

Journalists USED to do exactly this type of shit and people such as you used to applaud them. Now journalists and people such as you are attacking people who do this type of shit. Again, unfuckingbelievable.

sway the election towards an isolationist candidate who would dissolve NATO- which is basically the only thing that keeps Russia from going batshit crazy and invading half of Europe.

FEAR MONGERING!

For the first time ever, the US Presidential Elections are being tampered with by foreign powers.

By releasing facts? So you're honestly saying publishing facts are bad if it harms your candidate?

Also I highly doubt you were bitching when Wikileaks was busy releasing material that made Bush (and by extension Republicans) look bad, were you? No, of course not. Wikileaks were the good guys then!

BriarFox

10-17-2016, 02:49 PM

Why is that "surprising"? So Assange shouldn't do what he does depending on where the information comes from? If Iran gave them information that proves the US is torturing people all over the world you would admonish Assange for releasing said information because of where it came from? Something tells me you're full of shit on this.

The 80's called and they want their foreign policy back.

1) Releasing Podesta's emails isn't an insight into official governmental policy; it's at best a witch-hunt for inflammable material. The fact that Assange is willing to do it to hurt Clinton is no surprise, since she represents everything he hates, but the fact that he's releasing this sort of information in support of the exact sort of back-channel politicking he ostensibly hates is ironic beyond belief.

2) We do not live in the '80s. Instead, we live in the 2010s, during which Russia has taken over a neighboring country and is influencing political regimes throughout the world.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:50 PM

Uncovering tens of thousands of federal records isn't a matter of transparency, it's a witchunt!

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 02:52 PM

Personally, I think he's an attention whore piece of shit that should be in jail, but watching you liberals go from "OMG HE'S A HERO" to "OMG WE NEED TO KILL HIM BECAUSE HE'S DESTROYING OUR WORLD" is hilarious.

That pretty much sums up my position too. I thought Assange was a piece that should have been in jail long before he started going after Hillary this election cycle. But it's so funny watching liberals turn on him as fast as they have.

BriarFox

10-17-2016, 02:54 PM

Uncovering tens of thousands of federal records isn't a matter of transparency, it's a witchunt!

... you do realize that Podesta is not a federal employee (although he has been formerly), and his emails aren't federal records, right?

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:54 PM

Aww, briarfox's feelings have been hurt.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:55 PM

... you do realize that Podesta is not a federal employee (although he has been formerly), and his emails aren't federal records, right?

HRC. Do try and keep up.

BriarFox

10-17-2016, 02:55 PM

Aww, briarfox's feelings have been hurt.

I made a New Year's Resolution a few years back not to argue with children on the internet. Congratulations on just passing that bar.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 02:57 PM

In general, any democratically minded citizen has to agree that governments should be generally transparent, and so exposing emails seems like a good idea. It stops seeming like a good idea when you realize that this isn't really an issue of transparency but instead a witchhunt for any comment that can be taken out of context or misconstrued.

Exposing emails sounds like a good idea...unless of course the emails might hurt the chances of the Democrat nominee.

Let me flip things around a little bit. Say you write an email to the married woman you're banging in which you comment about how you'd punch her husband's face in because your dick is bigger. Unfortunately, the husband picks up her phone and sees your comment, and he's actually 275lbs of linebacker-quality muscle. You try and try to explain that you didn't *really* mean that your dick was bigger and you wanted to punch his face in, and that you were just flexing your e-peen for your bang-buddy, but he's not buying it and he gets on a plane to come find you. Now, you didn't actually mean for him to ever see that email, and you never on your life would have said it to his face, but it was appropriate (you thought) in the private and secure context in which you said it.

Holy shit, weren't you one of the people attacking Trump for his "hot mic" comment? Do you not see how you are basically defending Trump here, yet you...attacked...Trump?

I I I I. What?

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 02:58 PM

I made a New Year's Resolution a few years back not to argue with children on the internet. Congratulations on just passing that bar.

And yet you're the one that felt compelled to bring up your friend msconstrew and her husband. Well done, kid.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 02:59 PM

2) We do not live in the '80s. Instead, we live in the 2010s, during which Russia has taken over a neighboring country and is influencing political regimes throughout the world.

Yeah I know, just funny because Obama said this in 2012, and this was after Russia invaded Georgia so what's the difference now?

I mean if you think Russia hasn't been influencing regimes all over the world since like forever then I don't know what to tell you.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 02:59 PM

Also after reading all of time4fun's posts in this thread and seeing how she specifically referred to me but didn't reply to this post of mine...

But I'm sure in typical time4fun fashion you'll either have some bullshit reason for why it's different when a Democrat does these things you claim to be enraged about, you'll just drop some "witty" one liner, or you'll just ignore this post altogether.

It's like I'm psychic or something.

BriarFox

10-17-2016, 03:01 PM

Holy fucking shit, weren't you one of the people attacking Trump for his "hot mic" comment? Do you not see how you are basically defending Trump here, yet you...attacked...Trump?

I I I I. What?

Yeah, that's a good point, actually. Trump was speaking off the cuff there, and I'd generally let him get away with those comments, except for two things: 1) He was bragging about sexually assaulting women, and 2) Numerous women state that he's actually assaulted them. So, there's something very legitimate, and ugly, behind his comments, and that makes them worth talking about.

BriarFox

10-17-2016, 03:03 PM

And yet you're the one that felt compelled to bring up your friend msconstrew and her husband. Well done, kid.

Just putting in terms that will work for you, "kid." It's clear to me why you like Trump so much.

Whirlin

10-17-2016, 03:03 PM

Uncovering tens of thousands of federal records isn't a matter of transparency, it's a witchunt!
I'm confused... Hillary saved her e-mails on a private server, which was not breached, and Republicans lose their minds.
A foreign organization commits cyber-terrorism, and releases e-mails from a federal employee, and it's all ok, and that person is a defender of justice

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 03:06 PM

Just putting in terms that will work for you, "kid." It's clear to me why you like Trump so much.

Except your terms made no fucking sense, and if it's clear to you that I "like Trump so much" then you're a bigger idiot than I thought. I've stated numerous times since this election cycle began that I think Trump is a complete moron and I don't want him to be POTUS. Try again, kid!

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 03:07 PM

I'm confused... Hillary saved her e-mails on a private server, which was not breached, and Republicans lose their minds.
A foreign organization commits cyber-terrorism, and releases e-mails from a federal employee, and it's all ok, and that person is a defender of justice

It doesn't matter that it was on a private server, they're still federal records owned by the federal government. And you can't say it wasn't breached as it most certainly was.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 03:08 PM

Yeah, that's a good point, actually. Trump was speaking off the cuff there, and I'd generally let him get away with those comments, except for two things:

It's different when we're talking about a Democrat.

1) He was bragging about sexually assaulting women

First of all, saying women ALLOW you to grab them by the pussy isn't really sexual assault.

Second of all, even if it were, talking about it in what Trump thought was a private conversation with 1 other person, doesn't mean the sexual assault actually happened.

Trump didn't *really* mean he did those things, he was just flexing his e-peen in front of his buddy.

2) Numerous women state that he's actually assaulted them. So, there's something very legitimate, and ugly, behind his comments, and that makes them worth talking about.

And numerous people have come forward with information that Hillary is corrupt, so let's look at those emails and see how far it goes.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 03:08 PM

Yeah, that's a good point, actually. Trump was speaking off the cuff there, and I'd generally let him get away with those comments, except for two things: 1) He was bragging about sexually assaulting women, and 2) Numerous women state that he's actually assaulted them. So, there's something very legitimate, and ugly, behind his comments, and that makes them worth talking about.

How often do you talk about Bill Clinton and his rape victims?

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 03:09 PM

Trump didn't *really* mean he did those things, he was just flexing his e-peen in front of his buddy.

:lol2:

time4fun

10-17-2016, 03:13 PM

Also after reading all of time4fun's posts in this thread and seeing how she specifically referred to me but didn't reply to this post of mine...

It's like I'm psychic or something.

Hey Sarcasmo, I actually TWICE pointed out that this is different and why. Sorry your fragile ego missed it. You know- you can read posts even when your name isn't in them.

Do try to keep up.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 03:17 PM

Hey Sarcasmo, I actually TWICE pointed out that this is different and why.

But I'm sure in typical time4fun fashion you'll either have some bullshit reason for why it's different when a Democrat does these things you claim to be enraged about, you'll just drop some "witty" one liner, or you'll just ignore this post altogether.

It's like I'm psychic or something.

But no, seriously, you specifically referenced Obama influencing an election in another country's Democratic elections? One of our closest allies no less? Do you mind pointing me to exactly this post, because I just went through all of your posts in this thread again and didn't see any mention of this.

Thanks.

BriarFox

10-17-2016, 03:18 PM

First of all, saying women ALLOW you to grab them by the pussy isn't really sexual assault.

It is, actually, even if the women don't press charges. As for Hillary being corrupt, it's always possible, but you're trying to draw a false equivalency. On the one hand, we have a guy bragging about assaulting women, which fits into a very ugly pattern of behavior on his part (even with respect to his own daughter), and on the other, we have a foreign government hacking into private and federal emails in a desperate attempt to discredit a presidential candidate against whom there *is no evidence*. After 40 years in politics and numerous political witch-hunts, Hillary is still amazingly clean.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 03:20 PM

It is, actually, even if the women don't press charges.

How is it sexual assault if a woman allows you to grab them by the pussy? Isn't that like the exact opposite of sexual assault?

As for Hillary being corrupt, it's always possible, but you're trying to draw a false equivalency. On the one hand, we have a guy bragging about assaulting women, which fits into a very ugly pattern of behavior on his part (even with respect to his own daughter), and on the other, we have a foreign government hacking into private and federal emails in a desperate attempt to discredit a presidential candidate against whom there *is no evidence*. After 40 years in politics and numerous political witch-hunts, Hillary is still amazingly clean.

So basically what you're saying is...the difference is we don't have Hillary on an audio recording admitting she's corrupt?

Also Hillary is amazingly clean? What? WHAT?

WWWWHHHHAAAATTTT?

time4fun

10-17-2016, 03:24 PM

How is it sexual assault if a woman allows you to grab them by the pussy? Isn't that like the exact opposite of sexual assault?

So basically what you're saying is...the difference is we don't have Hillary on an audio recording admitting she's corrupt?

Also Hillary is amazingly clean? What? WHAT?

WWWWHHHHAAAATTTT?

You're such a disgusting human being.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 03:26 PM

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 03:26 PM

You're such a disgusting human being.

It's like I'm psychic or something.

But no, seriously, you specifically referenced Obama influencing an election in another country's Democratic elections? One of our closest allies no less? Do you mind pointing me to exactly this post, because I just went through all of your posts in this thread again and didn't see any mention of this.

Thanks.

.

Whirlin

10-17-2016, 03:29 PM

It doesn't matter that it was on a private server, they're still federal records owned by the federal government. And you can't say it wasn't breached as it most certainly was.
That's fine... so... the individual who didn't protect the information is a criminal, and the individual who hacked/manipulated/breached the server is a defender of the public?
So... According to you, hacking into government systems and releasing whatever information you find makes you an upstanding citizen.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 03:30 PM

The fact that you can't distinguish between someone "consenting to have their genitals grabbed" and someone having it done to them, but not freaking out/attacking the assaulter/immediately calling the cops and pressing charges, says everything about you, Tgo.

Wait what? Trump literally said women ALLOW him to grab them by the pussy, didn't he? Did he really say they allow him in the sense that they don't freak/attack him/immediately call the cops? Or is that just you pulling shit out of your ass like you do with all of your arguments? I still haven't seen someone explain to me how a woman ALLOWING someone to grab them by the pussy is sexual assault.

Seriously, though: After decades of trying to discredit Hillary, you've got her classified e-mail scandal -- the only legitimate issue

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I actually kind of miss Back now. These Back wannabes (Ashliana and time4fun) just aren't as good as the original.

Like I could see Back actually trying and putting forth some effort, but his replacements just come off as puppets who are having their strings pulled directly by the DNC.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 03:30 PM

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 03:38 PM

Wait what? Trump literally said women ALLOW him to grab them by the pussy, didn't he? Did he really say they allow him in the sense that they don't freak/attack him/immediately call the cops? Or is that just you pulling shit out of your ass like you do with all of your arguments? I still haven't seen someone explain to me how a woman ALLOWING someone to grab them by the pussy is sexual assault.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I actually kind of miss Back now. These Back wannabes (Ashliana and time4fun) just aren't as good as the original.

Like I could see Back actually trying and putting forth some effort, but his replacements just come off as puppets who are having their strings pulled directly by the DNC.

Spoiler Alert: Those women not freaking out about Trump assaulting them, and Trump inferring that his actions weren't assault, doesn't magically transform his actions. Trump doesn't unilaterally decide whether or not his actions are assault. You are mind-blowingly stupid.

I actually kind of miss Back now. These Back wannabes (Ashliana and time4fun) just aren't as good as the original.

Like I could see Back actually trying and putting forth some effort, but his replacements just come off as puppets who are having their strings pulled directly by the DNC.

I've talked about this in several places. Remember? Probably not, with your meth-addled brain. Hillary's actions with regard to her emails are indefensible; you might've been able to make people care about them if the GOP hadn't hysterically spent the last few years trying to make a scandal out of a complete non-event (Benghazi). Conservatives have only themselves to blame.

Random video

Remind me: Is she one of the people who's come forward and said Trump assaulted her? Even if so, doesn't address the issue with regard to the many other women (How many is it now? 9? 10? More?) that have come forward about the actions to which Trump freely admitted.

Wrathbringer

10-17-2016, 03:38 PM

I made a New Year's Resolution a few years back not to argue with children on the internet. Congratulations on just passing that bar.

Shart repping asap.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 03:40 PM

That's fine... so... the individual who didn't protect the information is a criminal, and the individual who hacked/manipulated/breached the server is a defender of the public?
So... According to you, hacking into government systems and releasing whatever information you find makes you an upstanding citizen.

It sounds like you're trying to blame the IT guy. Hillary decided to have all of her State Department business (highly classified material included) stored on a non-government, unauthorized server, exposing it to the entire world. The hacking of the server, whether good intentions or not, is still a crime in itself.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 03:41 PM

Remind me: Is she one of the people who's come forward and said Trump assaulted her? Even if so, doesn't address the issue with regard to the many other women (How many is it now? 9? 10? More?) that have come forward about the actions to which Trump freely admitted.

She is the one Trump is talking about when he said grabbing her pussy.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 03:43 PM

Trump doesn't unilaterally decide whether or not his actions are assault. You are mind-blowingly stupid.

You're right, the woman decides that. So did they tell him to stop? Object? Go to the police? Or did they, in fact, let him, as Trump claims?

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 03:44 PM

You're right, the woman decides that. So did they tell him to stop? Object? Go to the police? Or did they, in fact, let him, as Trump claims?

No, she went on TV and bragged about it.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 03:48 PM

You're right, the woman decides that. So did they tell him to stop? Object? Go to the police? Or did they, in fact, let him, as Trump claims?

1) Man walks up to woman, grabs her by the pussy.
2) Woman is mortified, outraged, but never says anything about it. A million reasons could go into why she doesn't ever say anything. Never sees the guy again.
3) Man interprets her lack of protest as consent.

Question: Did the man assault the woman? The answer, which shouldn't need to be provided to you, is yes.

When you grab at someone's genitals without their consent, it's assault. A person doesn't need to tell their assaulter to stop, for it to be assault. They don't need to object, they don't need to go to the police. The attacker doesn't decide whether or not it was assault.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 03:49 PM

So mortified and outraged that she goes on national TV and brags about flirting with the guy.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 03:51 PM

1) Man walks up to woman, grabs her by the pussy.
2) Woman is mortified, outraged, but never says anything about it. A million reasons could go into why she doesn't ever say anything. Never sees the guy again.

Except this is not at all how it happened. As pk pointed out she went on TV and bragged about flirting with Trump and how she enjoyed it.

But by all means! Don't let facts get in the way of your righteous indignation, Ashliana! You have to appear to be the "good guy" here and defend women everywhere!

http://www.inkjava.com/images/KapowSuperFeminist-thumb.png

Whirlin

10-17-2016, 03:53 PM

It sounds like you're trying to blame the IT guy. Hillary decided to have all of her State Department business (highly classified material included) stored on a non-government, unauthorized server, exposing it to the entire world. The hacking of the server, whether good intentions or not, is still a crime in itself.

Well, you're blaming the victim. It's similar to a rape victim being responsible for 'asking for it'. She's responsible for violating IT policies by the central government, but is not directly responsible for breaches that may have occurred. In my line of work, that's an erroneously written policy if there was no form of preventative or detective control implemented along with the policy to identify situations where 'shadow IT' was supporting individuals' business processes. Furthermore, there should be defined consequences within that policy for non-conformity, or a reference to another, more global enforcement policy.

Since Assange may not be the executor of the act of cyber terrorism, he has, at a minimum, acted as the accomplice and is accountable for the release of the Federal Information, would that not make him (at a bare minimum) an accomplice to treason. While reviewing your posts, you have never definitively defended him, but strongly implied that he is not to blame. So I'll come out and directly ask... Who do you think is most responsible for treason in this situation: Assange who released the information, the Hacker who obtained the information, or HRC who violated a policy?

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 03:53 PM

She is the one Trump is talking about when he said grabbing her pussy.

And where, precisely, is that established? The woman Trump's referring to at the beginning of the tape, is Nancy O'Dell. Zucker later joins them, but Trump is clearly talking about a generalized ability to do whatever he wants to the women he deals with. Not a single incident with Zucker, wherein his behavior is apparently welcomed.

No, she went on TV and bragged about it.

See above: And also, doesn't address the many other women who have come forward and stated Trump had assaulted them.

Except this is not at all how it happened. As pk pointed out she went on TV and bragged about flirting with Trump and how she enjoyed it.

You get 10/10 points for trying the historical revisionism, but see above. Try again.

But by all means! Don't let facts get in the way of your righteous indignation, Ashliana! You have to appear to be the "good guy" here and defend women everywhere!

Ooh. Is this where you act like an MRA and accuse me of "White Knighting"? Because I, a gay guy, am clearly after all that liberal-leaning vagina? :rofl: Or perhaps I'm just "virtue signaling." Keep at it.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 03:57 PM

Well, you're blaming the victim. It's similar to a rape victim being responsible for 'asking for it'. She's responsible for violating IT policies by the central government, but is not directly responsible for breaches that may have occurred. In my line of work, that's an erroneously written policy if there was no form of preventative or detective control implemented along with the policy to identify situations where 'shadow IT' was supporting individuals' business processes. Furthermore, there should be defined consequences within that policy for non-conformity, or a reference to another, more global enforcement policy.

Since Assange may not be the executor of the act of cyber terrorism, he has, at a minimum, acted as the accomplice and is accountable for the release of the Federal Information, would that not make him (at a bare minimum) an accomplice to treason. While reviewing your posts, you have never definitively defended him, but strongly implied that he is not to blame. So I'll come out and directly ask... Who do you think is most responsible for treason in this situation: Assange who released the information, the Hacker who obtained the information, or HRC who violated a policy?

This isn't blaming the victim. She was grossly negligent with classified information. End of story. Hillary is the one who is most responsible for all of this.

Taernath

10-17-2016, 03:58 PM

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 04:05 PM

Or perhaps I'm just "virtue signaling." Keep at it.

Pretty much, yeah.

Here is you:

I take Trump's words at face value that he grabbed women by the pussy!!!!!!

I do not take Trump's words at face value that women allowed him.

Wait, what?

How convenient that you cherry pick what you will and will not believe from the same source.

Whirlin

10-17-2016, 04:05 PM

This isn't blaming the victim. She was grossly negligent with classified information. End of story. Hillary is the one who is most responsible for all of this.
So... Gross Negligent. She knowingly prepared a server on her own with no forms of protection, fully aware of all of consequences, threats, and took no steps to implement any protective safemeasures, and later validated her full understanding and knowledge of cyber threats available, typical protections, and validated her decision to not seek the use of any standard protocol, and then proceeded?

Whereas the hacker that went looking for, and specifically targeted her server... knowing that it was her server, with the explicit purpose of extracting data in order to perform harm to HRC and the entire US government, is not even as responsible as her?

Yes... is blaming the victim.
If a woman walks down the street in a short skirt... well,, she's inviting deplorables, so its her own fault if she gets raped.
If an individual forgets to lock his car, well, that's on him because he just made his car an easy target for theft. The person that broke into his car and stole it isn't to blame.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 04:05 PM

Dude... no...

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/33524740.jpg

It applies here too so I'll just quote myself:

Here is you:

I take Trump's words at face value that he grabbed women by the pussy!!!!!!

I do not take Trump's words at face value that women allowed him.

Wait, what?

How convenient that you cherry pick what you will and will not believe from the same source.

Kind of how Democrats love to bring up one of Trump's ex wives who says he raped her, yet she later changed her story and said she never meant rape in the legal sense and now supports Trump in his presidential bid. Only believe the woman when it's convenient for your narrative, right?

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 04:06 PM

Pretty much, yeah.

Here is you:

I take Trump's words at face value that he grabbed women by the pussy!!!!!!

I do not take Trump's words at face value that women allowed him.

Wait, what?

How convenient that you cherry pick what you will and will not believe from the same source.

Reality:

Trump: I can do whatever I want to women. Start kissing them. Grab their genitals, whatever. If you're a star, you can get away with it.
Women who have come forward: Trump did those things to me.
Tgo01: THOSE BITCHES CONSENTED! DONALD SAID THOSE BITCHES CONSENTED!

You are deranged.

Khariz

10-17-2016, 04:07 PM

1) Man walks up to woman, grabs her by the pussy.
2) Woman is mortified, outraged, but never says anything about it. A million reasons could go into why she doesn't ever say anything. Never sees the guy again.
3) Man interprets her lack of protest as consent.

Question: Did the man assault the woman? The answer, which shouldn't need to be provided to you, is yes.

When you grab at someone's genitals without their consent, it's assault. A person doesn't need to tell their assaulter to stop, for it to be assault. They don't need to object, they don't need to go to the police. The attacker doesn't decide whether or not it was assault.

Actually, a lot people seem to have a misinformed idea of what "consent" actually is. Everyone always talks about "consent" as if it can ONLY mean "explicit consent", which is not the case. Consent comes in more than one flavor. Informed consent, implied consent, explicit consent, active consent, passive consent, written consent, oral consent, etc. These are not all mutually exclusive. They can be mixed and matched, etc. Sorry, but the attorney inside me cannot allow this discussion to continue without correcting some of the bullshit.

Here are some scenarios by which I could claim that I had "consent" to grab a pussy:

1. I walk up to a woman and ask "Can I grab your pussy?" The woman replies, "Yes, you may grab my pussy."

2. I walk up to a woman and ask "Can I grab your pussy?" She seems to comprehend my question, but unbeknownst to me, the woman has a bluetooth earpiece in the ear that I cannot see, and says "yes" while looking me in the eye, but I didn't know she wasn't talking to me.

3. I walk up to a woman and ask "Can I grab your pussy?" She spreads her legs, licks her lips, and looks down while grinning.

4. I walk up to a woman and hold out my hand in a honking motion toward her vagina, she smiles at me, and props a leg up on the counter next to me.

5. I'm Brad Pitt, and because I'm famous, women walk up to me and practically place their vaginas into my hand for me. I've even been asked to SIGN a vagina with a sharpie.

Seriously though, I could go on and on. Despite what the media and millennials would like you to think, there is more than one way to gain consent to do something. Some ways are more clear than others. The whole notion that you should have to obtain only "explicit consent" before engaging in any kind of sexual activity with another person is absolutely ridiculous, and would pretty much ensure that nobody would ever have sex with anyone, ever.

When a boyfriend and a girlfriend are making out with each other on the bed, and he reaches over and grabs a tit, thats NOT sexual assault. She gets to choose how to react to that though. If she smacks his hand and says "no", then it's a no. If he does it AGAIN, he's crossing that line. If she moans and moves more deeply into his hand, guess what he's probably going to try next? He's going for the other tit, or putting the mouth on the tit, or trying to slip his hand into her pants. Again, her move. If she backs up and says "no, I'm not ready for this.", that's her prerogative. If she moans, and guides his hand down to her vagina...that's what she wanted. If nobody ever "made a move" on anyone, only a tiny fraction of consensual sexual activity would ever happen. That's not a world I care to live in.

Explicit consent is not the only legitimate type of consent.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 04:08 PM

So... Gross Negligent. She knowingly prepared a server on her own with no forms of protection, fully aware of all of consequences, threats, and took no steps to implement any protective safemeasures, and later validated her full understanding and knowledge of cyber threats available, typical protections, and validated her decision to not seek the use of any standard protocol, and then proceeded?

Whereas the hacker that went looking for, and specifically targeted her server... knowing that it was her server, with the explicit purpose of extracting data in order to perform harm to HRC and the entire US government, is not even as responsible as her?

Yes... is blaming the victim.
If a woman walks down the street in a short skirt... well,, she's inviting deplorables, so its her own fault if she gets raped.
If an individual forgets to lock his car, well, that's on him because he just made his car an easy target for theft. The person that broke into his car and stole it isn't to blame.

Dude, we're not talking about rape. We're talking about classified information. Hillary knowingly violated federal statutes. She isn't a victim in any sense.

Whirlin

10-17-2016, 04:09 PM

Dude, we're not talking about rape. We're talking about classified information. Hillary knowingly violated federal statutes. She isn't a victim in any sense.
Did she send the information to Assange to release on the internet?

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 04:11 PM

Khariz grabbed me by the log once.

Khariz

10-17-2016, 04:11 PM

Khariz grabbed me by the log once.

Word.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 04:12 PM

Reality:

Trump: I can do whatever I want to women. Start kissing them. Grab their genitals, whatever. If you're a star, you can get away with it.
Women who have come forward: Trump did those things to me.
Tgo01: THOSE BITCHES CONSENTED! DONALD SAID THOSE BITCHES CONSENTED!

You are deranged.

So Trump's own words, in a private conversation he had no reason to believe would ever become public knowledge, says women let him do those things. But clearly he was really describing sexually assaulting women because reasons.

Got it. I'm beginning to see a pattern with you, Ashliana; something is only fact if it fits your worldview.

Weren't you the one who claimed Trump raped one of his ex wives too? That was you, right? Keep on virtue signaling!

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 04:12 PM

Did she send the information to Assange to release on the internet?

Irrelevant.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 04:13 PM

Explicit consent is not the only legitimate type of consent.

What you're saying is true, but it's a non-sequitur (and a straw man argument, though I know you don't mean it as such). Yes, other forms of consent exist. However, there is intrinsic risk in relying on those other forms of consent -- no, one doesn't always need to explicitly state their consent.

The behavior Trump's admitting to in the tape, however, isn't what you're describing. He's very clearly describing pushing himself on women who aren't expecting or desiring of it, knowing that he'd likely get away with it due to his star power. That's a far cry from campus social justice activists claiming that kids who hook up are raping each other if they don't flatly state their consent.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 04:16 PM

I have a packet of highly classified information. I'm not allowed to bring it out of the SCIF but I do anyways. I go to a bar to get a drink. A Russian honeypot drugs my drink and steals said packet of classified information. Do you really think the drugged person is going to be treated as a victim by the federal government? Not in the slightest, he/she has just won a free trip to federal prison.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 04:16 PM

So Trump's own words, in a private conversation he had no reason to believe would ever become public knowledge

That doesn't mean anything. If anything, it's more damaging, as it reveals his thought processes and actual feelings.

says women let him do those things.

An attacker doesn't decide whether or not his actions are consensual.

But clearly he was really describing sexually assaulting women because reasons.

Those reasons being his statements.

Got it. I'm beginning to see a pattern with you, Ashliana; something is only fact if it fits your worldview.

If one bases their worldview on evidence, that tends to happen organically. You, with ideological blinders on the size of Mars, wouldn't know anything about that.

Weren't you the one who claimed Trump raped one of his ex wives too? That was you, right? Keep on virtue signaling!

Nope, wasn't me. The claims of virtue signaling are amusing, though. Maybe you should look more into what that's actually supposed to mean.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 04:21 PM

He's very clearly describing pushing himself on women who aren't expecting or desiring of it

Ashliana knows what's best for women!!!!

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 04:21 PM

Ashliana knows what's best for women!!!!

Donald Trump respects women more than anyone. He's got the BEST respect for women.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 04:24 PM

He's got binders full of respect for women.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 05:18 PM

Wikileaks is now saying it was Ecuador that cut off their internet access after they published Hillary's Goldman Sach speeches on Saturday.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 05:36 PM

Wikileaks is now saying it was Ecuador that cut off their internet access after they published Hillary's Goldman Sach speeches on Saturday.

So Ecuador had no problem thumbing their nose at the US in protecting Assange for years now, but as soon as he dared go against Hillary then all bets were off.

Nothing to see here folks! No corruption going on here! Hillary is one of most clean politicians the world has ever known!

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 05:43 PM

No doubt under incredible pressure (and threats) via the Obama administration.

m444w

10-17-2016, 05:44 PM

Or the far more likely scenario:

Goldman Sach's was given control of ~50% of Ecuador's gold reserves for 3 years in 2014, I imagine they don't like this kind of publicity (being tied in any way to the muddy Louisianan water that is Donald Trump), since they have enough of an image problem as it is.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 05:46 PM

Whirlin

10-17-2016, 06:01 PM

Irrelevant.
The end result absolutely is not irrelevant. The intent of the statute is to reduce the likelihood of data breaches that could result in the leaking of classified information.

Lets draw another analogy. Drunk driving. Why is that a crime? Because it increases the likelihood of events such as reckless endangerment, property destruction, and vehicular manslaughter.

But by presumption that the result is irrelevant, Drunk Driving should be held equally in the eyes of the law as vehicular manslaughter, because the end result could have been the same.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 06:04 PM

The end result absolutely is not irrelevant. The intent of the statute is to reduce the likelihood of data breaches that could result in the leaking of classified information.

Lets draw another analogy. Drunk driving. Why is that a crime? Because it increases the likelihood of events such as reckless endangerment, property destruction, and vehicular manslaughter.

But by presumption that the result is irrelevant, Drunk Driving should be held equally in the eyes of the law as vehicular manslaughter, because the end result could have been the same.

Please stop comparing classification laws with other crimes.

time4fun

10-17-2016, 06:17 PM

Please stop comparing classification laws with other crimes.

Please stop comparing a US Government contractor releasing formal government documents in order to protect US citizens from illegal encroachment on constitutional protections with a foreign power hacking into a US citizen's email inbox and leaking the information in order to sway the US elections towards someone whom they view as less threatening to their illegal occupations.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 06:19 PM

Please stop comparing a US Government contractor releasing formal government documents in order to protect US citizens from illegal encroachment on constitutional protections with a foreign power hacking into a US citizen's email inbox and leaking the information in order to sway the US elections towards someone whom they view as less threatening to their illegal occupations.

It's like I'm psychic or something.

But no, seriously, you specifically referenced Obama influencing an election in another country's Democratic elections? One of our closest allies no less? Do you mind pointing me to exactly this post, because I just went through all of your posts in this thread again and didn't see any mention of this.

Thanks.

.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 06:24 PM

Whirlin

10-17-2016, 06:58 PM

Please stop comparing classification laws with other crimes.
Why? Are some laws more applicable than others?
Statutes are laws just like any other.

Many laws are created to reduce the likelihood of adverse effects happening, and tend to be minimal in consequences compared to the realized threat. I'll repeat the example of drunk driving being a victimless crime compared to vehicular manslaughter, but penalties are imposed on drunk driving to help reduce the likelihood of occurring, and subsequently reduce the likelihood of manslaughter.

Properly classifying documents isn't the end objective for having data classification standards, prevention of data breaches is. So I'm uncertain why you feel it's necessary to push the full extent of the law on a regulation who'se intent was to minimize the potential for cyber terrorist attacks, when that full adverse effect was never realized.

Why does the intent of the law not matter to you for this instance, when there's clear precedent that it matters in other instances? Are you holding HRC to a higher standard than others?

Parkbandit

10-17-2016, 07:03 PM

How did we get to a point in American politics where Russia can be actively hacking citizens and releasing the information while trying to hack our voter registration databases and have 40% of the country cheering them on?

Probably at the same point where we have a government official who's paranoia made her create her own server so she could tell the government which emails they can and cannot read.

It's really unthinkable. And yet -here we are.

I imagine most things are unthinkable for you.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 07:04 PM

You're trying to insinuate that Hillary is a victim for breaking a law.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 07:07 PM

And yes, considering that as Secretary of State Hillary was one of the foremost authorities on classification authorization she absolutely should be held to a higher standard.

Whirlin

10-17-2016, 07:09 PM

And yes, considering that as Secretary of State Hillary was one of the foremost authorities on classification authorization she absolutely should be held to a higher standard.
That's fine, and I agree. I just want you to understand that you're placing higher standards and higher expectations on her compared to the person she's running against. You're setting her bar extraordinarily high, and his bar extraordinarily low. I'm not saying it's not justified, just wanted to hear you say that.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 07:19 PM

That's fine, and I agree. I just want you to understand that you're placing higher standards and higher expectations on her compared to the person she's running against. You're setting her bar extraordinarily high, and his bar extraordinarily low. I'm not saying it's not justified, just wanted to hear you say that.

Did Trump expose highly classified information to people around the world?

Parkbandit

10-17-2016, 07:25 PM

Parkbandit

10-17-2016, 07:29 PM

Ashliana knows what's best for women!!!!

Ain't nobody going to tell him what to do with his uterus!

Parkbandit

10-17-2016, 07:30 PM

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 07:35 PM

Probably at the same point where we have a government official who's paranoia made her create her own server so she could tell the government which emails they can and cannot read.

I imagine most things are unthinkable for you.

Oh, look. It's Parkbandit's patented Romnesia™ rearing its head again. Remind me: Was Hillary Clinton the first politician to think of using personal e-mail to circumvent FOIA? Were/are they all "paranoid"?

I imagine most things are unthinkable for you.

You're right. She gave Republicans far too credit over the depths to which neocons will sink in order to overlook and apologize for anything they think harms Hillary.

In this roleplay.. which one are you again? Ain't nobody going to tell him what to do with his uterus!

You spend a LOT of time sending angry, sexualized messages to (almost exclusively) men on the Internet, PB, as shown in the rep thread. Maybe you should look in a mirror, 'cause that's the only person pretending here.

Did Trump expose highly classified information to people around the world?

No, but neither did Hillary. Did she risk it being exposed? Yep. Was it actually exposed? We don't have evidence to that effect, no. ... You do realize the e-mails hacked by Russia weren't the ones stored on Hillary's unauthorized server, right? I mean, you're not that mind-bogglingly uninformed. Right? Right?

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 07:45 PM

Oh, look. It's Parkbandit's patented Romnesia™ rearing its head again. Remind me: Was Hillary Clinton the first politician to think of using personal e-mail to circumvent FOIA? Were/are they all "paranoid"?

But REPUBLICANS!

Also what sort of classified material did Mitt Romney expose to potential hackers during his time as governor of Massachusetts? The Celtics game schedule?

No, but neither did Hillary. ... Was it actually exposed? We don't have evidence to that effect, no. ...

I can't even make this shit up. In a span of 2 sentences you go from "Hillary didn't expose classified information to anyone!!!!" to "Well we have no evidence so did anyways..."

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 07:46 PM

No, but neither did Hillary. Did she risk it being exposed? Yep. Was it actually exposed? We don't have evidence to that effect, no. ... You do realize the e-mails hacked by Russia weren't the ones stored on Hillary's unauthorized server, right? I mean, you're not that mind-bogglingly uninformed. Right? Right?

Oh sure, the server that was completely left unguarded for months at a time was totally left untouched, especially after one of the IT guys working on it posted the servers IP address on Reddit. Yup. I mean, you're not that mind-bogglingly uniformed. Right?

drauz

10-17-2016, 07:46 PM

Remind me: Was Hillary Clinton the first politician to think of using personal e-mail to circumvent FOIA? Were/are they all "paranoid"?

Yes.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 07:47 PM

We've gone from "There was no classified information on the server!" to "There was classified information on the server but no one hacked the server!"

Talk about moving the goalposts..

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 07:51 PM

But REPUBLICANS!

Nowhere did I say "Republicans breaking the law means that Democrats breaking the law don't matter." If I had, you'd have a point. But you don't. PB, though, identified Hillary's action as the point at which politics "sunk" to that point when, in reality, she didn't invent that particular brilliant tactic.

Also what sort of classified material did Mitt Romney expose to potential hackers during his time as governor of Massachusetts? The Celtics game schedule?

/facepalm

Mitt Romney didn't do anything. I'm referring to the other politicians, like Colin Powell, who did the same thing. And he wasn't the first, either.

I can't even make this shit up. In a span of 2 sentences you go from "Hillary didn't expose classified information to anyone!!!!" to "Well we have no evidence so did anyways..."

Hillary mishandled classified and introduced it to an unclassified system (called a "spillage"). Once again you've been felled by your imprecise word choice. You asked: "Did Trump expose classified information to the world" -- the answer to which is no, but you worded it so badly that the answer for Hillary, who did mishandle classified, is also no. She risked its exposure by not properly protecting it. That doesn't mean it was ACTUALLY exposed.

How can you be this stupid? How? How can an adult, presumably with a job and at least a high school education be so bad at reading comprehension? You play a text-based roleplaying game, for fuck's sake. Incredible.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 07:52 PM

I didn't get any sexualized rep from PB :(

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 07:54 PM

Nowhere did I say "Republicans breaking the law means that Democrats breaking the law don't matter."

Uhhhhhhhhh no, it was a distraction on your part. My God. Are you really this fucking thick?

/facepalm

Mitt Romney didn't do anything. I'm referring to the other politicians, like Colin Powell, who did the same thing. And he wasn't the first, either.

"Romnesia" wasn't you attempting to equate Hillary's use of a private email server to Romney's use of a private email while he was governor?

Okay...

But, no, Colin Powell by no means "did the same thing" as Hillary Clinton. Do you even have the slightest idea of what we are discussing here? Do you know what day of the week it is?

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 07:55 PM

Yes.

Do you mean no? Because that's the answer you're looking for, at least with regard to the first question.

We've gone from "There was no classified information on the server!" to "There was classified information on the server but no one hacked the server!"

Talk about moving the goalposts..

And where, pray tell, did I establish the first goalpost, only to move it? Where did I ever deny Hillary mishandled classified? Spoiler Alert: I didn't. If you can't keep track of who says what, perhaps you shouldn't throw out those claims.

Oh sure, the server that was completely left unguarded for months at a time was totally left untouched, especially after one of the IT guys working on it posted the servers IP address on Reddit. Yup. I mean, you're not that mind-bogglingly uniformed. Right?

You don't know what safeguards the servers had. The FBI director, Comey, stated in his findings that there was no evidence they'd been hacked. Y'know, precisely the same way I just stated in the posts you're referring? Oh. One of our positions is informed by reality. The others, yours, is based on what you fantastically wish it were.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 07:57 PM

You don't know what safeguards the servers had.

He's got you there, pk. Remember the servers were guarded by secret service agents.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 08:01 PM

Uhhhhhhhhh no, it was a distraction on your part. My God. Are you really this fucking thick?

You just broke the scale for measuring lack of self-awareness. I was addressing Parkbandit in his fallacious implication that Hillary magically invented the tactic of circumventing FOIA with personal e-mail. Spoiler Alert: She didn't.

"Romnesia" wasn't you attempting to equate Hillary's use of a private email server to Romney's use of a private email server while he was governor?

Okay...

It wouldn't surprise me if Romney had done the same thing (actually, you're right, he did (http://www.businessinsider.com/governor-mitt-romney-used-personal-email-like-secretary-of-state-clinton-2015-3)), I was referring to the general Republican penchant for selective memory.

But, no, Colin Powell by no means "did the same thing" as Hillary Clinton. Do you even have the slightest idea of what we are discussing here? Do you know what day of the week it is?

Hillary's actions were more egregious, but Powell (and many others) have similarly relied on personal e-mail to avoid scrutiny, which, again, Parkbandit's implied Hillary somehow invented. Which she didn't. Not a particularly complicated point, but you've doubled down so many times, I'm sure you believe you've never been mistaken, about pretty much anything.

drauz

10-17-2016, 08:02 PM

Do you mean no? Because that's the answer you're looking for, at least with regard to the first question.

No.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 08:03 PM

No.

Oh. Then you're just an idiot wallowing in self-imposed ignorance. Gotcha.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 08:04 PM

You don't know what safeguards the servers had. The FBI director, Comey, stated in his findings that there was no evidence they'd been hacked. Y'know, precisely the same way I just stated in the posts you're referring? Oh. One of our positions is informed by reality. The others, yours, is based on what you fantastically wish it were.

That's why General Hayden, former director of the CIA and director of the NSA said he would lose respect for intelligence agencies around the world if they didn't have access to Hillary's server while she was Secretary of State. Now go on and tell me how you know more than this guy about what did and what didn't happen, along with your job credentials to back up your experience over this guys.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 08:05 PM

I was addressing Parkbandit in his fallacious implication that Hillary magically invented the tactic of circumventing FOIA with personal e-mail. Spoiler Alert: She didn't.

I went ahead and reread ParkBandit's post again; can you quote the exact part where he implied Hillary invented the tactic of circumventing FOIA?

Hillary's actions were more egregious, but Powell (and many others) have similarly relied on personal e-mail to avoid scrutiny

Again, no. Powell did not. Stop saying this, you just keep proving you know less than shit about the topic at hand, but for some reason you act like you know all of the details of the conversation.

Go back to just linking directly to opinion articles to tell you how to think, watching you flounder this badly on your own is almost painful.

drauz

10-17-2016, 08:06 PM

Oh. Then you're just an idiot wallowing in self-imposed ignorance. Gotcha.

No.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 08:12 PM

That's why General Hayden, former director of the CIA and director of the NSA said he would lose respect for intelligence agencies around the world if they didn't have access to Hillary's server while she was Secretary of State. Now go on and tell me how you know more than this guy about what did and what didn't happen, along with your job credentials to back up your experience over this guys.

Now, you go on and tell me where Hayden's estimation of what did and didn't happen translates to evidence of something happening. Remember earlier today, when you were being super-retarded and asserting you wouldn't believe Russia hacked those e-mails unless they were "convicted in a court of law"? (Rooted, as though that notion might actually be, in your mind-bogging ignorance of either American or international legal systems) -- But it's funny how your standards for evidence shift as your partisan needs require.

No.

If only your unilateral declarations had the power to rewrite history, you might have been right. Sadly, they don't.

I went ahead and reread ParkBandit's post again; can you quote the exact part where he implied Hillary invented the tactic of circumventing FOIA?

I already did that.

Time: "How did we get to a point in American politics where Russia can be actively hacking citizens and releasing the information while trying to hack our voter registration databases and have 40% of the country cheering them on?"
PB: "Probably at the same point where we have a government official who's paranoia made her create her own server so she could tell the government which emails they can and cannot read."

Clearly referring to Hillary's actions, though in the reality we actually live in--the one you're allergic to--Hillary was by no means the first to do that.

Again, no. Powell did not. Stop saying this, you just keep proving you know less than shit about the topic at hand, but for some reason you act like you know all of the details of the conversation.

Go back to just linking directly to opinion articles to tell you how to think, watching you flounder this badly on your own is almost painful.

Your ignorance of history might be amusing, but it doesn't make you right. Yes, Powell did use personal e-mail, specifically to avoid FOIA. Your denial of that reality doesn't change reality. There's a lot of conservative wishful thinking going on in this thread, but, fortunately for the rest of us, you're merely mortal.

drauz

10-17-2016, 08:14 PM

If only your unilateral declarations had the power to rewrite history, you might have been right. Sadly, they don't.

Save me from my ignorance.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 08:17 PM

But it's funny how your standards for evidence shift as your partisan needs require.

It's funny how you can't tell I'm poking fun at the Hillarist defense of no indictment = no crime committed.

You say the server wasn't hacked. Hayden and others in the business say it was. Why should I listen to your opinion over their opinion?

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 08:17 PM

Save me from my ignorance.

Right. Because other people should educate you while you simultaneously, belligerently, argue for no reason over a stance you can't substantiate.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 08:18 PM

It's funny how you can't tell I'm poking fun at the Hillarist defense of no indictment = no crime committed.

You say the server wasn't hacked. Hayden and others in the business say it was. Why should I listen to your opinion over their opinion?

I didn't say it wasn't hacked, you fucking idiot. Point out where I said that. Spoiler Alert: You can't. I said there was no evidence. Holy crap, you've got shit for brains.

drauz

10-17-2016, 08:29 PM

Right. Because other people should educate you while you simultaneously, belligerently, argue for no reason over a stance you can't substantiate.

I am saying something didn't happen... Can you provide evidence of a negative?!

How have I been belligerent? Actually YOU are the one who was belligerent to me, but since YOU feel like the victim because people aren't agreeing with you I'm the one who's belligerent.

Oh. Then you're just an idiot wallowing in self-imposed ignorance. Gotcha.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 08:30 PM

I didn't say it wasn't hacked, you fucking idiot. Point out where I said that. Spoiler Alert: You can't. I said there was no evidence. Holy crap, you've got shit for brains.

:lol2:

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 08:32 PM

So the classified information was exposed and hacked but because the hackers didn't leave a trace on the plain text log files it doesn't matter. Gosh you liberals are awfully nutty.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 08:32 PM

I am saying something didn't happen... Can you provide evidence of a negative?!

How have I been belligerent? Actually YOU are the one who was belligerent to me, but since YOU feel like the victim because people aren't agreeing with you I'm the one who's belligerent.

You're right. Simply saying "No," repeatedly, without even trying to back up your laughable stance, isn't being belligerent. Except in the reality we live in.

:lol2:

I know, I know. It's hard not straw manning people, but maybe you'll find a way to do it in the future.

So the classified information was exposed and hacked but because the hackers didn't leave a trace on the plain text log files it doesn't matter. Gosh you liberals are awfully nutty.

It was at risk of exposure; you don't have evidence that it was exposed. You clearly wish that were the case, out of political expedience. And conservatives clearly don't have a problem with Trump calling on foreign powers to intervene in his election -- but no, it's liberals who are nutty. :clap:

drauz

10-17-2016, 08:36 PM

You're right. Simply saying "No," repeatedly, without even trying to back up your laughable stance, isn't being belligerent. Except in the reality we live in.

I just did, again how should I defend a negative? I am saying that no one else did. That is my "laughable" stance. The onus is on you to prove your point. If someone says there is no god, do they have to prove there is no god, or do you have to prove there is one?

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 08:40 PM

I just did, again how should I defend a negative? I am saying that no one else did. That is my "laughable" stance. The onus is on you to prove your point. If someone says there is no god, do they have to prove there is no god, or do you have to prove there is one?

Ashliana: Remind me: Was Hillary Clinton the first politician to think of using personal e-mail to circumvent FOIA? Were/are they all "paranoid"?
Drauz: Yes. ("Yes," you clarified to mean the first question)

Drauz's position: Clinton was the first politician to think of using personal e-mail to circumvent FOIA.
Reality: Clinton wasn't the first to do so, and in fact, Colin Powell gave her tips on how to do so (http://www.wsj.com/articles/colin-powell-gave-hillary-clinton-tips-on-how-to-avoid-email-scrutiny-1473297040) when she became Secretary of State.

And he wasn't the first, either. You picked an INCREDIBLY stupid hill to die on.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 08:42 PM

I'm not a conservative.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 08:42 PM

I'm not a conservative.

I definitely believe that.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 08:44 PM

I definitely believe that.

Because I voted for Obama?

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 08:45 PM

Your ignorance of history might be amusing, but it doesn't make you right. Yes, Powell did use personal e-mail, specifically to avoid FOIA.

Even your good buddies at Politifiact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-her-email-pra/) disagree (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/) with you that Powell and Clinton did similar things.

And here's what Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/07/there-are-legitimate-political-arguments-to-make-about-clintons-emails-these-arent-them/)has to say:

Powell himself and Rice staff members (not Rice herself) received a limited number of emails containing classified information on their private accounts -- two in Powell's case and 10 in the case of Rice's staff -- but neither used private email on the scale that Clinton did. And the number of emails in Clinton's case is much larger because of it: 110 that included classified information, Comey said.

Powell had 2 classified emails forwarded to his private email account. Powell used a private email account for personal emails and, as he put it, "housekeeping" for business, and used his state department email for more official use and for classified material.

This in contrast to Hillary who set up her own private server and used it exclusively for all emails.

So no, what Powell did is not even close to what Hillary did.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 08:48 PM

Even your good buddies at Politifiact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-her-email-pra/) disagree (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/) with you that Powell and Clinton did similar things.

And here's what Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/07/there-are-legitimate-political-arguments-to-make-about-clintons-emails-these-arent-them/)has to say:

Powell had 2 classified emails forwarded to his private email account. Powell used a private email account for, as he put it, "housekeeping" for business, and used his state department email for more official use and for classified material.

This in contrast to Hillary who set up her own private server and used it exclusively for all emails.

So no, what Powell did is not even close to what Hillary did.

The first one doesn't apply. The second is accurate -- they didn't do precisely the same thing. I already conceded that Clinton's action were more egregious. However, that doesn't pertain to Parkbandit's statement, which is what this has been centered around. I know you're dense -- denser than a neutron star -- but please, try to follow the conversation.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 08:50 PM

However, that doesn't pertain to Parkbandit's statement, which is what this has been centered around.

Oh you're still sticking to this pathetic strawman?

Alright let's go back to my other question that you never answered; when did Parkbandit say Hillary was the first person to try and circumvent FOIA?

And while we're at it, where is your proof that Powell set up a private email server specifically to avoid FOIA? Surely you have a Politico article at the ready.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 08:53 PM

Oh you're still sticking to this pathetic strawman?

Debunking Parkbandit's statement isn't a straw man. How retarded can you be?

Alright let's go back to my other question that you never answered; when did Parkbandit say Hillary was the first person to try and circumvent FOIA?

Your unwillingness or inabiliy to read only reflects on you.

And while we're at it, where is your proof that Powell set up a private email server specifically to avoid FOIA? Surely you have a Politico article at the ready.

This would be a straw man. They both circumvented FOIA by using personal e-mail; how they did it does have relevance in how egregious their actions were, but doesn't change the underlying problem, nor does it relate to PB's statement and its accuracy.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 08:59 PM

There were different record keeping requirements when Powell was Secretary of State. Derp derp..

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 09:04 PM

Debunking Parkbandit's statement isn't a straw man. How retarded can you be?

No, the strawman is insisting PB said Hillary was the first person to try and circumvent FOIA, which is interesting considering he never used the word "first" nor the term "FOIA." But hey, since when do you let pesky things like facts get in your way?

This would be a straw man. They both circumvented FOIA by using personal e-mail;

Source? Also you said Powell used his private email specifically to circumvent FOIA. So again, source?

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 09:08 PM

There were different record keeping requirements when Powell was Secretary of State. Derp derp..

This statement neither clears Powell of wrongdoing, nor Hillary of wrongdoing, and nor--even if it did--would Parkbandit's assertion be true.

Incidentally, Powell knew he was skirting FOIA, and knew he was telling Clinton about doing the same. The e-mails are public (http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/DOS-HOGR-09022016-000001%20to%20000003.pdf).

drauz

10-17-2016, 09:09 PM

Ashliana: Remind me: Was Hillary Clinton the first politician to think of using personal e-mail to circumvent FOIA? Were/are they all "paranoid"?
Drauz: Yes. ("Yes," you clarified to mean the first question)

Drauz's position: Clinton was the first politician to think of using personal e-mail to circumvent FOIA.
Reality: Clinton wasn't the first to do so, and in fact, Colin Powell gave her tips on how to do so (http://www.wsj.com/articles/colin-powell-gave-hillary-clinton-tips-on-how-to-avoid-email-scrutiny-1473297040) when she became Secretary of State.

And he wasn't the first, either. You picked an INCREDIBLY stupid hill to die on.

"“There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it (sic) government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law... Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”

Is this the quote you are basing this off of?

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 09:11 PM

No, the strawman is insisting PB said Hillary was the first person to try and circumvent FOIA, which is interesting considering he never used the word "first" nor the term "FOIA." But hey, since when do you let pesky things like facts get in your way?

Source? Also you said Powell used his private email specifically to circumvent FOIA. So again, source?

Being deliberately obtuse doesn't constitute an argument. Powell's e-mail to Clinton is publicly available, and linked to above.

Amazing prediction: Your inevitable response will be "HE DOESN'T SAY EXPLICITLY STATE: 'I CIRCUMVENTED FOIA, HERE'S HOW YOU CAN CIRCUMVENT FOIA'! THAT MEANS YOU'RE WRONG, ASHLIANA!'"

If only "pretending" to be an idiot was a method of building a defensible argument, Tgo, you'd be the king.

drauz

10-17-2016, 09:15 PM

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 09:21 PM

"“There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it (sic) government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law... Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”

Is this the quote you are basing this off of?

To me it sounds like he is saying to be careful because if you use a blackberry for personal and gov't business that the personal e-mail will be able to have FOIA requests as well as the gov't e-mails.

It's funny how you expect someone to simultaneously educate you and refute the inevitable nonsensical objection that you come up with. Analysis over Powell's actions is easily available, and covers the entire political spectrum. But by all means, pretend that it's just me and my lonesome, along with this e-mail, which, in your mind, has no context and doesn't mean exactly what I'm saying.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 09:22 PM

To me it sounds like he is saying to be careful because if you use a blackberry for personal and gov't business that the personal e-mail will be able to have FOIA requests as well as the gov't e-mails.

That is what he was saying. The same thing was told to Hillary by department officials when they offered her a secure phone to use, saying that all records would be subject to FOIA requests. She declined to use their phone for that reason.

drauz

10-17-2016, 10:01 PM

It's funny how you expect someone to simultaneously educate you and refute the inevitable nonsensical objection that you come up with. Analysis over Powell's actions is easily available, and covers the entire political spectrum. But by all means, pretend that it's just me and my lonesome, along with this e-mail, which, in your mind, has no context and doesn't mean exactly what I'm saying.

I merely offered you the context I got from the e-mail. You can accept my reading of the e-mail or you can try to bash me for it. I honestly don't care what you think.

You ended up not educating me. I already knew that Colin Powell had used a separate e-mail address, I wanted to see if there was something I didn't know about. You haven't offered any substantial evidence that he used it to get around FOIA. Therefore, to me, my initial one word answers are still correct and your statement is wrong.

Now go fuck yourself you condescending cum guzzling gutter whore.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/ZCnBUZM3ZgLMQ/200.gif

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 10:02 PM

Being deliberately obtuse doesn't constitute an argument. Powell's e-mail to Clinton is publicly available, and linked to above.

Amazing prediction: Your inevitable response will be "HE DOESN'T SAY EXPLICITLY STATE: 'I CIRCUMVENTED FOIA, HERE'S HOW YOU CAN CIRCUMVENT FOIA'! THAT MEANS YOU'RE WRONG, ASHLIANA!'"

If only "pretending" to be an idiot was a method of building a defensible argument, Tgo, you'd be the king.

To me it sounds like he is saying to be careful because if you use a blackberry for personal and gov't business that the personal e-mail will be able to have FOIA requests as well as the gov't e-mails.

I was gonna say this, but yeah. This.

Analysis over Powell's actions is easily available, and covers the entire political spectrum.

Let me guess...Politico, Politifact, and SNOPES??!?!?!?

But by all means, pretend that it's just me and my lonesome, along with this e-mail, which, in your mind, has no context and doesn't mean exactly what I'm saying.

It's hilarious you mention context because you don't seem to be looking at the context of that email.

So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

Sure sounds like he's discussing personal emails or as he said before "housekeeping" with other people. Yes he does mention "business" with "some foreign leaders" but this doesn't sound like discussing nuclear strike tactics or CIA operative locations, does it? No really, does it?

So then later when he says this, the "smoking gun":

However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law. Reading about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.

Notice when he says if you use a government Blackberry, and you're using it "government or not", it may become an official record and subject to law. So, yes, looking at context he appears to be advising her to be careful about using her government Blackberry for non-government work because even non-government/work related emails might be subject to FOIA requests.

But I'm sure SNOPES!!!! says differently so carry on.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 10:16 PM

I merely offered you the context I got from the e-mail. You can accept my reading of the e-mail or you can try to bash me for it. I honestly don't care what you think.

You ended up not educating me. I already knew that Colin Powell had used a separate e-mail address, I wanted to see if there was something I didn't know about. You haven't offered any substantial evidence that he used it to get around FOIA. Therefore, to me, my initial one word answers are still correct and your statement is wrong.

Now go fuck yourself to condescending cum guzzling gutter whore.

Oh, I'm so sorry, but sticking in your head in the sand and declaring "But I don't see anything!" doesn't constitute an argument, nor does your hilariously poor reading comprehension. Have fun with those mental gymnastics, my hilariously deluded friend. And be sure to enjoy the inevitable eight years of Hillary you have to look forward to.

Position that requires you 1) have no ability to read English, and 2) have read absolutely nothing about the events at hand, 3) give stratospheric levels of charity to Powell

And we've already established what you think is the only reputable source: Breitbart. Not all of us can have such an informed world view, enlightened by the totally-not-conspiracy-theorists there.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 10:20 PM

And we've already established what you think is the only reputable source: Breitbart. Not all of us can have such an informed world view, enlightened by the totally-not-conspiracy-theorists there.

Snopes.com /ˈsnoʊps/, also known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is a website covering urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other stories of unknown or questionable origin

That's where I go for all of my political information.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 10:21 PM

You liberals are extra angsty today.

drauz

10-17-2016, 10:24 PM

Oh, I'm so sorry, but sticking in your head in the sand and declaring "But I don't see anything!" doesn't constitute an argument, nor does your hilariously poor reading comprehension. Have fun with those mental gymnastics, my hilariously deluded friend. And be sure to enjoy the inevitable eight years of Hillary you have to look forward to.

Seeing as though that isn't what I said... Maybe I'm not the one with reading comprehension problem, eh?

Is "hilariously poor reading comprehension" the new racist or bigot?

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 10:27 PM

You liberals are extra angsty today.

That tends to happen when the resident conservatives' strategy of the day is: dogpile, argue as dishonestly as humanly possible, quickly pivot from non-sequitur to non-sequitur, pretend you can't read English, ignore everything the other person says, then act dumbfounded when people repay your consideration with anything short of gratitude. Oh, but I'm sorry. You're totally not a conservative.

Seeing as though that isn't what I said... Maybe I'm not the one with reading comprehension problem, eh?

Is "hilariously poor reading comprehension" the new racist or bigot?

Your reading of the e-mail goes beyond charity, and requires that you discount even conservative analysis of Powell's actions. You don't care about the reality. Also: Lol@"talking point." Debunking a random horseshit claim from PB isn't a "talking point." You're a jackass.

Kembal

10-17-2016, 10:30 PM

You're serious here?

Personally, I think he's an attention whore piece of shit that should be in jail, but watching you liberals go from "OMG HE'S A HERO" to "OMG WE NEED TO KILL HIM BECAUSE HE'S DESTROYING OUR WORLD" is hilarious.

Pretty sure I've never been in favor of his work and believe he should be in jail.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 10:31 PM

Parkbandit

10-17-2016, 10:32 PM

I didn't get any sexualized rep from PB :(

It wishes. I send a rep saying "Go suck a dick" and "he" "thinks" it's a sexual invitation.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 10:34 PM

I'm not sure why you think I'm a conservative.

Yeah really, it wasn't too long ago you were still holding out hope the DNC was going to replace Hillary with Sanders. How anyone can think you're a conservative is beyond me. You just make it clear you don't like Hillary, which makes you an enemy of regressives like time4fun and Ashliana.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 10:37 PM

Pretty sure I've never been in favor of his work and believe he should be in jail.

Why should he be in jail?

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 10:38 PM

Yeah really, it wasn't too long ago you were still holding out hope the DNC was going to replace Hillary with Sanders. How anyone can think you're a conservative is beyond me. You just make it clear you don't like Hillary, which makes you an enemy of regressives like time4fun and Ashliana.

Wait, are you telling me Sanders isn't a Republican? Fuck!

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 10:44 PM

That's why I voted for Obama in 2008. I was confused and thought McCain was a liberal.

Kembal

10-17-2016, 10:53 PM

Why should he be in jail?

I'll amend my statement to that he should be tried in a court of law, in Sweden, on rape charges, to which I suspect he'll be convicted on.

drauz

10-17-2016, 10:54 PM

Oh, I'm so sorry, but sticking in your head in the sand and declaring "But I don't see anything!" doesn't constitute an argument, nor does your hilariously poor reading comprehension. Have fun with those mental gymnastics, my hilariously deluded friend. And be sure to enjoy the inevitable eight years of Hillary you have to look forward to.

I just don't see what you see.

You're dumber than a box of rocks.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 10:55 PM

I'll amend my statement to that he should be tried in a court of law, in Sweden, on rape charges, to which I suspect he'll be convicted on.

Good answer. Due process is always a nice thing.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 10:55 PM

I'm not sure why you think I'm a conservative. I voted for Rand Paul in some primaries but other than I've mostly voted Democrat my entire life. Newsflash, there are millions of democrats who won't vote for HRC because they can't stand her. Does that make all of them conservatives too?

I don't like Hillary, either. I've stated so repeatedly on here (and listed the reasons why). The reason I "think" you're a conservative is the predictable nature by which you consistently take up positions that just coincidentally are popularized by far-right media, and belligerently, endlessly, argue those positions.

Yeah really, it wasn't too long ago you were still holding out hope the DNC was going to replace Hillary with Sanders. How anyone can think you're a conservative is beyond me. You just make it clear you don't like Hillary, which makes you an enemy of regressives like time4fun and Ashliana.

See above. Also: :rofl: Okay. Keep throwing those buzzwords around. Unless, of course, you can identify how I'm supposedly "regressive."

I just don't see what you see.

You're dumber than a box of rocks.

Or what even conservative media sees. Okay, shit-for-brains. Have fun with that sand your head's buried in.

Tgo01

10-17-2016, 10:57 PM

See above. Also: :rofl: Okay. Keep throwing those buzzwords around. Unless, of course, you can identify how I'm supposedly "regressive."

Buzzwords are fun when they're true. Believe me, Ashliana, you are quite literally the definition of a regressive.

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 10:58 PM

Buzzwords are fun when they're true. Believe me, Ashliana, you are quite literally the definition of a regressive.

Nice way to not actually respond. 3/10 for effort.

Androidpk

10-17-2016, 11:00 PM

I don't like Hillary, either. I've stated so repeatedly on here (and listed the reasons why). The reason I "think" you're a conservative is the predictable nature by which you consistently take up positions that just coincidentally are popularized by far-right media, and belligerently, endlessly, argue those positions.

Pretty much everyone I know that is involved in the research into Hillary's server is a diehard Democrat outraged over her actions. Just because right-leaning media uses the same talking points as anti-Hillary leftists doesn't mean they're conservative, just that they have a common enemy.

drauz

10-17-2016, 11:02 PM

Or what even conservative media sees. Okay, shit-for-brains. Have fun with that sand your head's buried in.

Link me a source then. No, I'm not going to try to sift thru the hundred of articles to find the one you speaking of.

The sad thing is that you think ignorance is something to be ashamed of.

"You have a horrid boyfriend, bad friends, and you're pretty goddamn fat."

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 11:08 PM

Link me a source then. No, I'm not going to try to sift thru the hundred of articles to find the one you speaking of.

The sad thing is that you think ignorance is something to be ashamed of.

"You have a horrid boyfriend, bad friends, and you're pretty goddamn fat."

Willful ignorance is an entirely different matter. Your expectation really is that I simultaneously educate you while you argue in completely bad faith in response to anything someone says. No thanks.

drauz

10-17-2016, 11:18 PM

Willful ignorance is an entirely different matter. Your expectation really is that I simultaneously educate you while you argue in completely bad faith in response to anything someone says. No thanks.

I'll just take this as, I don't have the that information.

"People don't loathe you because you're grotesquely disgusting. Don't get me wrong you are astonishingly grotesquely disgusting, that's just not why people loathe you."

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 11:23 PM

I'll just take this as, I don't have the that information.

"People don't loathe you because you're grotesquely disgusting. Don't get me wrong you are astonishingly grotesquely disgusting, that's just not why people loathe you."

Right. Because you're totally interested in "discussion," after participating in bad faith at every turn. That ship not only sailed; you threw Molotov cocktails at it.

drauz

10-17-2016, 11:29 PM

Right. Because you're totally interested in "discussion," after participating in bad faith at every turn. That ship not only sailed; you threw Molotov cocktails at it.

It is not bad faith when someone says something you disagree with (with zero sources) and you say no. I was interested in new information. I now see you don't actually have any, so this is pointless. Now when asked for your sources you try this BS distraction crap.

"Just gargle a cup of cocksmilk, you slut."

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 11:31 PM

It is not bad faith when someone says something you disagree with (with zero sources) and you say no. I was interested in new information. I now see you don't actually have any, so this is pointless. Now when asked for your sources you try this BS distraction crap.

"Just gargle a cup of cocksmilk, you slut."

Drauz: "Yes."

Drauz: "No."

Drauz: "No."

Right. Interested in new information.

"Because my brain's been addled on meth, I presume everyone else has the memory of a goldfish."
-Drauz

You've repeatedly displayed a total lack of interest, and now, you demand that I fish up sources for you to categorically reject and refuse to read, like the rest of your ilk. You're an idiot.

drauz

10-17-2016, 11:44 PM

Drauz: "Yes."

Drauz: "No."

Drauz: "No."

Right. Interested in new information.

"Because my brain's been addled on meth, I presume everyone else has the memory of a goldfish."
-Drauz

You've repeatedly displayed a total lack of interest, and now, you demand that I fish up sources for you to categorically reject and refuse to read, like the rest of your ilk. You're an idiot.

Lets not get this twisted you smelly taint face. Here is your "good faith" argument. Notice how after 2 responses and because I didn't agree with what you said, I got insulted? It looks like I entered the conversation in good faith and you did not.

Oh, look. It's Parkbandit's patented Romnesia™ rearing its head again. Remind me: Was Hillary Clinton the first politician to think of using personal e-mail to circumvent FOIA? Were/are they all "paranoid"?

ME: Yes.

Do you mean no? Because that's the answer you're looking for, at least with regard to the first question.

ME: No.

Oh. Then you're just an idiot wallowing in self-imposed ignorance. Gotcha.

ME: No.

"You are disfigured, foul, half-witted, you smell and even your friends secretly hate you."

Ashliana

10-17-2016, 11:46 PM

drauz

10-18-2016, 12:09 AM

You responded with three one-word, totally substance-free responses. I even tried to clarify what you were saying, and you kept responding like that. Then, your subsequent derangement. You are the personification of bad faith, and a complete jackass.

I answered your questions. The length of my response doesn't indicate bad faith.... You're responses do though. Hell, the third response isn't even about the subject it's an answer to you calling me an idiot. You know instead of saying "Here's an article that says otherwise". I've just been putting a random insult from http://www.insultgenerator.org/ in quotes at the end now, to be directed at you.

"You're the first cunt I've ever wished to eradicate."

Ashliana

10-18-2016, 12:18 AM

drauz

10-18-2016, 12:33 AM

The length of your responses, as you presented them, absolutely does. And we're back to your expectation that people simultaneously educate you even as you're being belligerent for its own sake.

You do realize that responding to insults with insults isn't "for its own sake", right? RIGHT?! You started the belligerent behavior and now try to condemn me for it. The height of hypocrisy!

And FYI, this thread doesn't magically exist in a vacuum from your other behavior.

Right back at ya.

Best of luck kicking that meth addiction.

Thanks! I've been clean for thirty some years now! Your enthusiastic well wishing means everything to me!

"Hey lardass, I find your giant flabby arms repulsive."

Ashliana

10-18-2016, 12:37 AM

You started the belligerent behavior

Not even close. Your one-word answers were belligerent.

Tgo01

10-18-2016, 12:41 AM

Not even close. Your one-word answers were belligerent.

Ashliana redefining words again I see.

drauz

10-18-2016, 12:43 AM

Not even close. Your one-word answers were belligerent.

Racist and homophobic too probably, huh?

Maybe next time, don't ask yes or no questions.

Androidpk

10-18-2016, 08:11 PM

Ecuador confirmed that they were the ones that cut off the internet connection.

Latrinsorm

10-18-2016, 09:14 PM

That pretty much sums up my position too. I thought Assange was a piece that should have been in jail long before he started going after Hillary this election cycle. But it's so funny watching liberals turn on him as fast as they have.Which liberals specifically do you think used to laud Assange? The earliest mention of him I can find on this forum comes in 2010, and even then the reaction was ambivalent at best.
How is it sexual assault if a woman allows you to grab them by the pussy? Isn't that like the exact opposite of sexual assault?As you've been told many times, sexual assault is legally defined by the absence of consent, not the existence of dissent. This is "really" what sexual assault is. If your definition is different, it is factually incorrect.
Seriously though, I could go on and on. Despite what the media and millennials would like you to think, there is more than one way to gain consent to do something. Some ways are more clear than others. The whole notion that you should have to obtain only "explicit consent" before engaging in any kind of sexual activity with another person is absolutely ridiculous, and would pretty much ensure that nobody would ever have sex with anyone, ever.Nobody is requiring explicit consent. The point is that you can claim you had implied consent all you want, if your inference was wrong you are in fact guilty of sexual assault in New York state, and the onus is not on the victim to express dissent. It's black letter law (http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm#p130.05).

Khariz

10-18-2016, 09:18 PM

The point is that you can claim you had implied consent all you want, if your inference was wrong you are in fact guilty of sexual assault in New York state, and the onus is not on the victim to express dissent. It's black letter law (http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm#p130.05).

Eh, you still have to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. If your inference was reasonable, and believable, and the jury can put themselves in your place and understand why you you thought you had consent, it's as good as having had consent. Granted...thousands of dollars, an arrest, an indictment, and a social shaming later, as good as.

Edit: In my state, we have caselaw that us criminal defense attorneys refer to as the "one free touch rule". It's not in the statutory law, but judges have decided essentially that if you grab a tit, and she balks at you, as long as you don't grab a tit again, you are fine. I've gotten many people acquitted with that caselaw. I'm not presuming something like that exists in every state though.

drauz

10-18-2016, 09:22 PM

Which liberals specifically do you think used to laud Assange? The earliest mention of him I can find on this forum comes in 2010, and even then the reaction was ambivalent at best.As you've been told many times, sexual assault is legally defined by the absence of consent, not the existence of dissent. This is "really" what sexual assault is. If your definition is different, it is factually incorrect.Nobody is requiring explicit consent. The point is that you can claim you had implied consent all you want, if your inference was wrong you are in fact guilty of sexual assault in New York state, and the onus is not on the victim to express dissent. It's black letter law (http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm#p130.05).

(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse or forcible touching,
any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to
consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce
in the actor's conduct;

Unless I am reading that wrong, they do have to express dissent. I definitely could be though, legal stuff is hard.

BriarFox

10-18-2016, 09:26 PM

(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse or forcible touching,
any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to
consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce
in the actor's conduct;

Unless I am reading that wrong, they do have to express dissent. I definitely could be though, legal stuff is hard.

Other way around. There's a lack of consent if the victim does not expressly or impliedly (stupid word - should be implicitly) acquiesce. Of course, you can debate what implied consent is as Khariz noted a ways back.

drauz

10-18-2016, 09:40 PM

Other way around. There's a lack of consent if the victim does not expressly or impliedly (stupid word - should be implicitly) acquiesce. Of course, you can debate what implied consent is as Khariz noted a ways back.

But doesn't that mean if they acquiesce then it wouldn't be sexual abuse or forcible touching? Meaning unless they voice a protest (physical or verbal) then it wouldn't be considered forcible touching/abuse?

Latrinsorm

10-18-2016, 10:17 PM

Eh, you still have to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. If your inference was reasonable, and believable, and the jury can put themselves in your place and understand why you you thought you had consent, it's as good as having had consent. Granted...thousands of dollars, an arrest, an indictment, and a social shaming later, as good as.Sure, but then we're discussing whether the "I'm a star so they'll let me" inference flies with a jury.
Edit: In my state, we have caselaw that us criminal defense attorneys refer to as the "one free touch rule". It's not in the statutory law, but judges have decided essentially that if you grab a tit, and she balks at you, as long as you don't grab a tit again, you are fine. I've gotten many people acquitted with that caselaw. I'm not presuming something like that exists in every state though.We certainly agree there could be such case law in New York as well.
But doesn't that mean if they acquiesce then it wouldn't be sexual abuse or forcible touching? Meaning unless they voice a protest (physical or verbal) then it wouldn't be considered forcible touching/abuse?No. This is the whole point of not requiring explicit dissent: compare the language in part (c) with part (d).

Tgo01

10-18-2016, 10:28 PM

As you've been told many times, sexual assault is legally defined by the absence of consent, not the existence of dissent.

Yeah no shit. But as Khariz pointed out there is more to consent then explicitly saying "I give you permission to grab me by the pussy."

drauz

10-18-2016, 10:35 PM

No. This is the whole point of not requiring explicit dissent: compare the language in part (c) with part (d).

Pretty sure it says right there explicit dissent is required.

I really hate how they write laws.

Tgo01

10-18-2016, 10:50 PM

No. This is the whole point of not requiring explicit dissent: compare the language in part (c) with part (d).

Actually I think drauz is onto something here.

(c) states: the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor's conduct

(d) states: the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in such act

So for rape the victim has to "clearly express" that they do not consent to sex, but for the much less serious crime of sexual assault the victim has to specifically give consent?

That seems ass backwards to me.

Carsyn

10-19-2016, 12:32 AM

Didn't know if this had been shared yet or not... too lazy to check...

http://www.anonews.co/assange-guantanamo-express/

Latrinsorm

10-19-2016, 07:53 PM

Actually I think drauz is onto something here.

(c) states: the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor's conduct

(d) states: the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in such act

So for rape the victim has to "clearly express" that they do not consent to sex, but for the much less serious crime of sexual assault the victim has to specifically give consent?

That seems ass backwards to me.I'm never sure if you're serious with this stuff, but here goes.
I say yes - no crime
I don't say anything - possibly a crime
I say no - definitely a crime, and a more serious one
Pretty sure it says right there explicit dissent is required. I really hate how they write laws.Part (d) and (c) are referring to two different crimes, that's why I wanted you to compare them.

Tgo01

10-19-2016, 07:57 PM

As you've been told many times, sexual assault is legally defined by the absence of consent, not the existence of dissent.

I don't say anything - possibly a crime

And the goalposts have been moved.

drauz

10-19-2016, 08:08 PM

I say no - definitely a crime, and a more serious onePart (d) and (c) are referring to two different crimes, that's why I wanted you to compare them.

What were you hoping I would see?

Latrinsorm

10-19-2016, 08:20 PM

And the goalposts have been moved.As we just got done discussing it is possible for there to be implied (i.e. unspoken) consent. My first statement refers to consent without qualification; that is, both explicit and implicit consent. My second statement refers only to explicit consent. Hence the difference between the two. It is clear at this point that you don't care at all about the subject of the discussion and are only interested in vainly trying to score gotcha points, so I'll leave you to it.
What were you hoping I would see?The difference between requiring the lack of consent and requiring explicit dissent.

Androidpk

10-19-2016, 08:31 PM

drauz

10-19-2016, 08:33 PM

Tgo01

10-19-2016, 09:06 PM

As we just got done discussing it is possible for there to be implied (i.e. unspoken) consent. My first statement refers to consent without qualification; that is, both explicit and implicit consent. My second statement refers only to explicit consent. Hence the difference between the two. It is clear at this point that you don't care at all about the subject of the discussion and are only interested in vainly trying to score gotcha points, so I'll leave you to it.

Are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing or what?

Here is how this conversation has played out:

How is it sexual assault if a woman allows you to grab them by the pussy? Isn't that like the exact opposite of sexual assault?

As you've been told many times, sexual assault is legally defined by the absence of consent, not the existence of dissent. This is "really" what sexual assault is. If your definition is different, it is factually incorrect.

I don't say anything - possibly a crime

As we just got done discussing it is possible for there to be implied (i.e. unspoken) consent.

So what even is your argument anymore?

I ask how is it sexual assault if a woman allowed Trump to grab her pussy, your response was sexual assault is a lack of consent and "not the existence of dissent."

And technically the word Trump used was "let", both the words "allow" and "consent" are synonyms of "let."

So, again, what was even your point then? It seemed from the beginning your entire point was maybe these women didn't specifically say "Yes Donald you may grab my pussy" and therefore Trump was guilty of sexual assault because he didn't receive verbal confirmation.

Then when that theory was poked full of holes you said a lack of verbal consent doesn't necessarily mean a crime has been committed. Yes. Exactly, because there are other ways to show consent.

So, again, if we're going by Trump's words alone then how is what he is describing considered "sexual assault" if the women let him grab their pussy? Your only option left is you think Trump is lying about receiving consent, at which point you're more than willing to believe him when he says he grabs women by the pussy but you refuse to believe him when he said the women allowed him to do so.

Pick an argument and stick to it.