|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
07-01-2016, 06:30 AM
|
#31
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Not sure where you are getting your info. The US Justice Department signed off on the use of waterboarding. That necessarily means it's not a crime. They said it was within the law, and they are the authority on that. When the lawyers for the Justice Dept tell you that something is legal, that means it's legal.
Hilary is being investigated for possibly breaking the law.
Apples and oranges.
People are free to decide whether or not to hold Trump or Hilary accountable for his support of waterboarding, or her belief that the rules don't apply to her.
|
Jim you just said what spence has been saying about the email thing ( if at the time it wasn't illegal how can it be Illegal now ) that seem to be your stance on the topic ... but currently it is not legal for the CIA or the Military .. to waterboard
Executive Order 13491, issued by Barack Obama on January 22, 2009 (two days after Obama's inauguration) revoked Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007. It restricted the CIA and other Executive Agencies to proceed with interrogations "strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations [Army Field Manual 2 22.3] prescribes".[9] Persons associated with the U.S. government were advised that they could rely on the manual, but could not rely upon "any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3,
you mean this guy
http://lawnewz.com/video/bush-doj-la...s-federal-law/
Waterboarding is illegal, says US justice department official
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 07:11 AM
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
Now, now - lets not confuse Spence's desire to Baghdad Bob the Hillary Campaign for being a paid shill for them. Clearly he does it for free. And please no overly derisive comments.
NetworkWorld? A Bad source? It is an IT networking magazine around for 30 years - probably have a few hundred copies lying around between home and work, more in the landfill.
For an IT guy it is the equivalent to a magazine called PAINT for Painters, FOOD for a chef, and WORKERS SOLIDARITY for Bernie. A tool of the trade.
For the technical response it is scary because disabling the filters is different and significantly beyond merely whitelisting HRC's personal email server. There was also a fairly significant difference in Trend SMEX 8 and SMEX 10 (11 is the current version). Also, some of these systems use lookup services from other vendors and are admant about not letting things through from coming from "Known Spammers" or bad domains. So if her server or one of the client computers had been infected and was spamming viruses / malware and was being explicitly blocked, her email might not get through even if on a whitelist - requiring the State IT department to disable the ScanMail for Exchange system - basicaly the anti-virus / anti-malware scanning system for the state departments email.
If I did that I and compromised a client system would be fired. If my client told me to do that I woulld have them sign an AGA release (Against Geek Advice). If I did that at a .GOV I might go to jail.
Sounds to me like the IT guys had been beaten up by poli-weenies above them in the chain of command.
|
My point was . if your not willing to attach your name to a story .. how is anyone to verify you know what you claim to know or even know what your talking about... thats all
Sounds to me like the IT guys had been beaten up by poli-weenies above them in the chain of command YOUR SPOT ON THERE
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 07:18 AM
|
#33
|
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 35,134
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
in the world of of hypotheticals yes there is a very slim possibilities the email issue could have impacted operations on the ground .. but I know for a Fact that if Trump becomes POTUS he has definitely put every Service member at risk with his statement on torture even if he dosn't change the policy who or what countries are going to thinks thats True?
Hillarys emails even if hacked Dont forget our friend Israel. were stolen not given to or enemies by hillary unlike like Snowden who many who want her in jail hail him as a Hero..
I am no Fan of Hillary but i take issues with the GOP and there investigation after investigation and investigation hearing and hearing all in the hopes of finding something like in the Ken Star days and come up with Nada .. all while the infrastructure and bigger problem get little attention and Americans suffer for it .. but their base gets all the attention for votes its crazy
I found this and sums up it up better than I can ..
There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down.
|
The Benghazi investigations and the Judicial Watch FOIA requests are what uncovered the Hillary email handling. And they had roadblock after road block put up in front of them.
The Benghazi commission raised some interesting points that would not have been raised otherwise. And yes, the did fairly well establish that the Obama Admin politicized the event (Hillary and Rice) to benefit Obama with an election just under 2 months away. To support their Narrative.
WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?
And it frankly doesn't matter whether Hillary gave emails or they were stolen because they WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
"
There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down."
THat you Spence
|
~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~
Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers
Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.
Apocalypse is Coming:
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 07:24 AM
|
#34
|
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 35,134
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
My point was . if your not willing to attach your name to a story .. how is anyone to verify you know what you claim to know or even know what your talking about... thats all
|
So that invalidates a well written (from an IT standpoint) article?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Sounds to me like the IT guys had been beaten up by poli-weenies above them in the chain of command
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
YOUR SPOT ON THERE
|
Haha
The IT guys were freaking out about this - I don't know it for fact but every IT guy I know (that is not a Hillbot) would hate this
|
~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~
Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers
Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.
Apocalypse is Coming:
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 08:21 AM
|
#35
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Not sure where you are getting your info. The US Justice Department signed off on the use of waterboarding. That necessarily means it's not a crime. They said it was within the law, and they are the authority on that. When the lawyers for the Justice Dept tell you that something is legal, that means it's legal.
|
Bush had a DOJ attorney write a memo asserting they felt waterboarding would be legal under the circumstances. That doesn't *make* it legal, but it gives the Admin some cover to justify their actions in the future if necessary.
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 08:23 AM
|
#36
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
The arrogance and obvious psychosis reminds me of a villan in a James Bond movie .
|
And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 09:06 AM
|
#37
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
So that invalidates a well written (from an IT standpoint) article?
Does not invalidate.. nor Validates the article .. no name no skin in the game
[COLOR=Red]
Haha
The IT guys were freaking out about this - I don't know it for fact but every IT guy I know (that is not a Hillbot) would hate this
|
..
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 09:09 AM
|
#38
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
The Benghazi investigations and the Judicial Watch FOIA requests are what uncovered the Hillary email handling. And they had roadblock after road block put up in front of them.
The Benghazi commission raised some interesting points that would not have been raised otherwise. And yes, the did fairly well establish that the Obama Admin politicized the event (Hillary and Rice) to benefit Obama with an election just under 2 months away. To support their Narrative.
WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?
And it frankly doesn't matter whether Hillary gave emails or they were stolen because they WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
"
There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down."
THat you Spence
|
WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?
they are on the short list of potential Countries who got the supposed hacked emails
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 09:15 AM
|
#39
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.
|
You have it backwards. She created the evil villain not I .
She voted for going to Iraq so actually she helped get us there .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 09:43 AM
|
#40
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Jim you just said what spence has been saying about the email thing ( if at the time it wasn't illegal how can it be Illegal now ) that seem to be your stance on the topic ... but currently it is not legal for the CIA or the Military .. to waterboard
Executive Order 13491, issued by Barack Obama on January 22, 2009 (two days after Obama's inauguration) revoked Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007. It restricted the CIA and other Executive Agencies to proceed with interrogations "strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations [Army Field Manual 2 22.3] prescribes".[9] Persons associated with the U.S. government were advised that they could rely on the manual, but could not rely upon "any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3,
you mean this guy
http://lawnewz.com/video/bush-doj-la...s-federal-law/
Waterboarding is illegal, says US justice department official
|
The U.S. justice dept signed off on what bush did. Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has. If it was as simple as saying that what she did was legal at the time, why is obamas justice dept investigating?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 09:46 AM
|
#41
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
And this is the problem. If you think she's an evil villain you'll just see everything she does under that lens. This is what got us into Iraq.
|
If memory serves, she was a huge proponent of invading Iraq. Your criticism of the hawks seems, well, quite selective, does it not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 09:55 AM
|
#42
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
If memory serves, she was a huge proponent of invading Iraq. Your criticism of the hawks seems, well, quite selective, does it not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Your memory fails you. Perhaps you never understood it to begin with?
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 10:05 AM
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Your memory fails you. Perhaps you never understood it to begin with?
|
Again, an insult with no facts, shocker. You're saying I'm wrong that supported the invasion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 10:16 AM
|
#44
|
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 35,134
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
WTH does Israel have to do with Hillary's email server?
they are on the short list of potential Countries who got the supposed hacked emails
|
True: Russia, China, Iran, and Israel are all reported to have accessed her illegal server. Of those four, Israel is the only one that would consider us friendly, no matter how poor relations had gotten over the past 8 years *. I would also guess that they were both grinning ear to ear (friendly nation states do spy on friendly nation states) alternating with a lot of WTFs.
Suspected of having some access and for having told US Intelligence groups: Germany, UK, and a few other countries. I would assume Israeli contacts would say the same thing off the record to US intelligence folks over a beer.
Other reports (harder to verify) have it that the entire contents of her server - more than what the the FBI and State have - are available for sale on the darkweb.
* Currently reading Bob Gates: DUTY
|
~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~
Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers
Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.
Apocalypse is Coming:
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 10:19 AM
|
#45
|
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 35,134
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Again, an insult with no facts, shocker. You're saying I'm wrong that supported the invasion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Don't you remember? She voted for it before she didn't vote for it.
Again - reading Gates: Duty (interesting book BTW) in a meeting with Obama and Hillary, they both admited to their stances on Iraq in the initial invasion and for Hillary, the Surge, as being political votes to keep happiness in their party, above the best interests of the country.
Personally - too many politicians from both sides play that game, putting our kids at risk for political gain. Just because politicians have been doing it for thousands of years does not make it right.
|
~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~
Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers
Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.
Apocalypse is Coming:
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 11:58 AM
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Again, an insult with no facts, shocker. You're saying I'm wrong that supported the invasion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."
She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.
If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 12:18 PM
|
#47
|
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 35,134
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."
She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.
If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.
|
The IAEA inspections were working? There was some agreement on the status of atomic research by the Iraqis but not on Chem or Bio, where they were being stonewalled.
|
~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~
Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers
Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.
Apocalypse is Coming:
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 12:24 PM
|
#48
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
The IAEA inspections were working? There was some agreement on the status of atomic research by the Iraqis but not on Chem or Bio, where they were being stonewalled.
|
There was certainly stonewalling on inspections but the IAEA said they could get the job done if given time. The sanctions absolutely were working...
That why they couldn't put it up for another UN vote, they couldn't make the case.
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 12:53 PM
|
#49
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."
She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.
If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.
|
wow...that's an impressive steaming pile
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 12:53 PM
|
#50
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
There was certainly stonewalling on inspections but the IAEA said they could get the job done if given time. The sanctions absolutely were working...
That why they couldn't put it up for another UN vote, they couldn't make the case.
|
Maybe Bush just needed to draw a red line in the sand .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 02:42 PM
|
#51
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
The U.S. justice dept signed off on what bush did. Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has. If it was as simple as saying that what she did was legal at the time, why is obamas justice dept investigating?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has.
So much for innocent until proven guilty .. and thats the issue your all ready convinced like Benghazi reguardless of the evidence presented
but you'll trust the DOJ with Waterboardering approval but anything less than hang her from the DOJ ion email and its Fixed
the new defense of the 21 or so Benghazi hearing and investigations is
Well we found out about the email server ..
thats like investigating someone for for murder and not getting a conviction but finding out they are stealing cable and hold that up as a success spending millions of dollars for a cable crime that may or may not be a punishable under the law
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 04:38 PM
|
#52
|
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 35,134
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
thats like investigating someone for for murder and not getting a conviction but finding out they are stealing cable and hold that up as a success spending millions of dollars for a cable crime that may or may not be a punishable under the law
|
No, it is not like stealing cable. The email issue and the security implications are actually worse than what may or may not have happened at Benghazi
|
~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~
Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers
Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.
Apocalypse is Coming:
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 05:12 PM
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."
She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.
If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.
|
"I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq"
Who said this...
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction"
Who said that?
a) #^^^^& Cheney
b) Atilla The Hun
c) Sean Hannity
d) Hilary Clinton
Now go to the Huffington Post and ask your fellow world travelers how to respond when you have backed yourself into a corner from which there is no escape.
"With conviction" means you are convinced that it needs to be done. That means you are not wishy-washy on the decision. It's the opposite of undecided.
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 06:11 PM
|
#54
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Who said this...
|
Source?
I mean a credible one, not the made up quote you posted.
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 07:26 PM
|
#56
|
Seldom Seen
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,505
|
Sorry for your quandary, Kevin... But I would really appreciate getting back the 15 seconds I wasted figuring out who the hell H is.... I sure as hell aint going to waste anymore of my time reading dribble that has anything to do with her.... Please refrain from such in the future as life is precious to some of us,,,,,,
|
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 07:35 PM
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood
|
He said a credible one 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 07:55 PM
|
#58
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Source?
I mean a credible one, not the made up quote you posted.
|
You might want to lie down before you watch this. Not merely a transcript, but a video of her speech. I suppose you'll tell us that this is actually Newt Gingrich impersonating her. You watch this, and tell me if I'm wrong that she believed the invasion was the right thing to do. No wiggle room there, Spence, you dug yourself into a deep, dark hole on this one. Looking forward to your reply...
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 08:14 PM
|
#59
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
You might want to lie down before you watch this. Not merely a transcript, but a video of her speech. I suppose you'll tell us that this is actually Newt Gingrich impersonating her. You watch this, and tell me if I'm wrong that she believed the invasion was the right thing to do. No wiggle room there, Spence, you dug yourself into a deep, dark hole on this one. Looking forward to your reply...
|
I love it. An edited video.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-01-2016, 08:38 PM
|
#60
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,189
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfighter
Sorry for your quandary, Kevin... But I would really appreciate getting back the 15 seconds I wasted figuring out who the hell H is.... I sure as hell aint going to waste anymore of my time reading dribble that has anything to do with her.... Please refrain from such in the future as life is precious to some of us,,,,,,
|
Sorry Ross, I wish I didn't have to waste my time with her either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:58 PM.
|
| |