APNewsBreak: US declares 22 Clinton emails 'top secret'

Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
To be clear @see4 , I find most of your posts informative. I always seem to find more Google search terms when reading your posts. This leads to news reports that I may not of stumbled upon otherwise.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
If you claim something and don't substantiate it with anything, how can we take what you say as factual information? Some of us for citation so we can understand your perspective on things. If you can't offer that, then what's the point in engaging in a conversation?

I'm using the figurative "you" in this case. I am not explicitly stating, you.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think it's completely fair to specifically direct it at me. As I had stated previously, if it's an article/report that is everywhere,"trending" as they say, I'm not spending 30 seconds to save inquiring minds 30 seconds.

If it's an article/report that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, I know they probably haven't seen it because their keepers simply don't publish it. The very fact that their news sources don't publish that kind of information, regardless of how factual, leads them to immediately dismiss it because the linked source is the kind of source that actually publishes information that is detrimental to their agenda. I read everything from all sources (no choice really) and then make up my own mind. If they want to limit themselves to only "lib approved" sources, that's their problem to deal with, not mine.

And just so we're clear that I'm not whining, I couldn't give a shit less if any of them take what I say as factual. All that matters is I know it's factual and if a few like-minded members enjoy my posts, so much the better.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Sure thing, I'll get right on that for you.

Lol @ credible. So anything that isn't the NY Times, HuffPo, Atlantic Wire, LA Times, etc...
Click to expand...
Your troll game is not very good. Nobody takes you seriously when you say dumb shit. Which happens to be most of the time.

I think what Chesus was getting at, is IF you do post a citation from a "garbage" source, like breitbart or faux noose, you should be prepared to have other citations that can also support it. If you can't, which likely you can't... then the only basis for your information is coming from ONE (un-credible) news source.

Or in easier terms for you to understand. If it's so true, you should be able to cite more than one source. If you can't, well... you've got no leg to stand on.

And I don't mean literally you don't have a leg to stand on, I have no idea whether or not you have both your legs or not. "No leg to stand on", is a figure of speech. Would you like for me to explain what "figure of speech" means?
 
Last edited:
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Oh, I think it's completely fair to specifically direct it at me. As I had stated previously, if it's an article/report that is everywhere,"trending" as they say, I'm not spending 30 seconds to save inquiring minds 30 seconds.

If it's an article/report that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, I know they probably haven't seen it because their keepers simply don't publish it. The very fact that their news sources don't publish that kind of information, regardless of how factual, leads them to immediately dismiss it because the linked source is the kind of source that actually publishes information that is detrimental to their agenda. I read everything from all sources (no choice really) and then make up my own mind. If they want to limit themselves to only "lib approved" sources, that's their problem to deal with, not mine.

And just so we're clear that I'm not whining, I couldn't give a shit less if any of them take what I say as factual. All that matters is I know it's factual and if a few like-minded members enjoy my posts, so much the better.
Click to expand...
But nothing you claim is anywhere
You said she instructed her staff to remove classifications from documents and send them. You said everywhere it's trending And even mentioned CNN.
And nowhere on CNN did it say anything about what you claim
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Oh, I think it's completely fair to specifically direct it at me. As I had stated previously, if it's an article/report that is everywhere,"trending" as they say, I'm not spending 30 seconds to save inquiring minds 30 seconds.

If it's an article/report that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, I know they probably haven't seen it because their keepers simply don't publish it. The very fact that their news sources don't publish that kind of information, regardless of how factual, leads them to immediately dismiss it because the linked source is the kind of source that actually publishes information that is detrimental to their agenda. I read everything from all sources (no choice really) and then make up my own mind. If they want to limit themselves to only "lib approved" sources, that's their problem to deal with, not mine.
Click to expand...
stop your fucking crying and post a fucking link, you goddamn crybaby.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Sure thing, I'll get right on that for you.

Lol @ credible. So anything that isn't the NY Times, HuffPo, Atlantic Wire, LA Times, etc...
Click to expand...
You stated CNN and the Washingtontimes
Neither publications have said Clinton instructed staffers to remove top secret classifications from documents.
They would not due to the fact that would be slander and they would get the shit sued out of them. Btw. You won't find it on Fox either
 
R

red w. blue

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Your troll game is not very good. Nobody takes you seriously when you say dumb shit. Which happens to me most of the time.
Click to expand...
As the king of trolls I bow to you on this.

see4 said:
I think what Chesus was getting at, is IF you do post a citation from a "garbage" source, like breitbart or faux noose, you should be prepared to have other citations that can also support it. If you can't, which likely you can't... then the only basis for your information is coming from ONE (un-credible) news source.

Or in easier terms for you to understand. If it's so true, you should be able to cite more than one source. If you can't, well... you've got no leg to stand on.

And I don't mean literally you don't have a leg to stand on, I have no idea whether or not you have both your legs or not. "No leg to stand on", is a figure of speech. Would you like for me to explain what "figure of speech" means?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you cite only from CREDIBLE sources?
The figure of speech is "doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Or perhaps you didn't think it all the way through.

Are you assuming Hillary set up the mail servers on her own? I highly doubt she is that tech-savvy. Even if she were, someone would have to authorize her IP, and she does not have legal authority to authorize such things.

And yes, if a department authorized he home private server to accept incoming and outgoing (IMAP & SMTP) mail exchanges, she can and should reasonably assume the electronic documents she is receiving are not sensitive material.
Click to expand...

She exercised a perfectly legit security measure in having the permission for one and a second to actually use. She did however not show transparency when it came time to deliver the content. It should have been a simple send key on demand because there`s nothing in it that is against the law, incriminating, or personal anyway.

The story about having several devices that are hard to match her apparel, and "makes it easier" to have the "Conveniency" was all I need to hear. She should have been like, ..."Did you get it" ?, .."Do you need me to send it again" ? ,....things like that.

Do I want that in my next President ??,....No.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
The verdict of, .."My staff took it upon themselves to screen it before sending to ensure that there was no personal information and only State Secretary documents".. don`t float in my sea.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
OddBall1st said:
She exercised a perfectly legit security measure in having the permission for one and a second to actually use. She did however not show transparency when it came time to deliver the content. It should have been a simple send key on demand because there`s nothing in it that is against the law, incriminating, or personal anyway.

The story about having several devices that are hard to match her apparel, and "makes it easier" to have the "Conveniency" was all I need to hear. She should have been like, ..."Did you get it" ?, .."Do you need me to send it again" ? ,....things like that.

Do I want that in my next President ??,....No.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of Swiftboat. All the right likes to do is whine and cry when they don't get their way. John Kerry didn't have the backbone to stand up and call people out for their bullshit. Hillary is taking a stand, and you guys don't like it.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Reminds me of Swiftboat. All the right likes to do is whine and cry when they don't get their way. John Kerry didn't have the backbone to stand up and call people out for their bullshit. Hillary is taking a stand, and you guys don't like it.
Click to expand...

She`s bringing transparency to the table..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top