StrangeSox

random gun stats some may find interesting http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/201..._3_percent.html

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 08:40 AM) I posted it Edit: Also, if you want to go back to just arguing semantics or twisting words to fit your narrative and call me ignorant then you can discuss this with yourself. I have posted proof of everything Ive said numerous times and since you have absolutely no argument you go right back to snarky comments with no substance. I have no interest in playing your stupid games. I posted over 20 links proving incompetence and corruption in the gop thread and you didnt have a thing to say about it except a weak claim that "dems arent supposed to post in that thread" lol It's not arguing semantics to point out that your argument makes no sense. You haven't explained why you think the video shows him admitting to a crime or why you think it was inappropriate for huma to have access to Clinton's email. You haven't explained why you think huma has a suspicious background. You couldn't explain your point behind bringing up the Syrian army bombing multiple times and don't seem to understand the complications and recent history in Syria. You've just been shouting loudly over and over that a Republican house committee showed irrefutable proof that Clinton committed all of these crimes, and you're not really responding to anything anyone is saying in response to that. If you want to spam townhall.com links and random email screen caps, feel free, but that's not really going to get anyone to want to discuss those things with you. To try to explain it to you one last time, the whole email server scandal is centered around Hillary having ever sent or received classified information on that system when she should not have. It was set up and intended to be a non-classified email server, which is why it's fine for her IT guy who didn't have clearances to have access to it. That's why it's fine for Huma (who did have clearances) to have access to it.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 05:50 AM) There is video of Justin Cooper testifying that he and Hillary both committed a crime. There are people in jail right now for doing exactly what Cooper testified that they did. If youre saying it doesnt matter simply because our bulls*** process will make it very difficult to actually enforce the law then you are quite simply saying its ok if she breaks the law because of who she is. You cant have it both ways. No there isn't, but you seem determined to remain ignorant on this.

Hot take coming through: Bears suck

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 10:48 PM) Are you implying that she didnt send or receive classified info because thats what she said to the media? Thats not what she said to the fbi or what the fbi said to us. She did. The issue is that that system never should have done so, right? So it's not actually a problem that these people had access to her non classified email system, it's an issue that classified info was on there at all. Why does huma have a questionable background?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 10:23 PM) "From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent." https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-rel...l-e-mail-system Right, that's the point I'm trying to make. Tens of thousands of emails, handful classified that shouldn't have been there. That's exactly why there's nothing criminal about non clearance people having access. It was never intended to be a scif or anything. That there was classified material is a separate issue from what db has been bringing up tonight. In other words, if the system was meant to hold classified information, those emails would never have been an issue but access by noon cleared people would be. But in reality it was just the opposite.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 10:18 PM) What did I say that was untrue? That I think Clinton is great and think she isn't responsible for anything bad surrounding her. Despite believing that she'll be an effective president and that she has decent policies, I've questioned why anyone would be enthusiastic about her, am really against her hawkishness, criticized why she set up her server in the first place. I've repeatedly made lesser evil arguments for her, which doesn't imply a warm embrace. I'm to the left of the democratic party, but I recognize that they are the only viable option for getting close to my policy goals in this country. I can't think of a single issue I'd side with the Republican position on today. Don't mistake backing of Democrats as a way to get policies I want as a completely uncritical endorsement of whoever the current party standard bearer is.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 09:56 PM) Im sure Huma is a lovely young lady. I thought she was great in the Weiner doc. Great film btw. So are you retracting your claim that she has a questionable background? Like I says earlier, it's an indication that you're tumbling down a conspiracy rabbit hole. Consider your sources.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 09:27 PM) Youre really downplaying the severity of this and I imagine you know that. No, I'm not. She's faced years of bs house committees for years, and I've already explained why you are mistaken on the issue you raised tonight. You haven't explained why you think this server contained tons of classified information.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 09:40 PM) I don't know what "sniping" is or how I am talking out of my ass. Are you saying what I said was untrue? I know you prefer ad hominem than addressing the facts but that's just a silly response. Yes, what you said is untrue. I've been critical of Clinton within the last week. Agreeing with you that the it help she hired and is therfore responsible for is also being critical of her. She hired an incompetent idiot, and that isn't a positive for her. The sniping is you feeling the need to criticize me pretty regularly lately.

Harmonica dad presidency would probably own Crazy house Republicans may impeach,but no way it makes it through the Senate and I look forward to the complete collapse of their house majority again.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 09:09 PM) It's just funny. You'll give HRC a break "they fired that person." Blame the dumb IT guy for her felonious record keeping. DWS was the problem the DNC, it couldn't be HRC or her camp. It's a verifiable trend for you. Basically everyone around HRC is inept but she's great...uh ok. Nah. If you're going to continue sniping at me, at least try to not be talking out of your ass.

Yeah,you need to explain why you think that's a problem. You seem to have the mistaken understanding that classified info was regularly stored on the email server or that that was ever the intent. Once again,the whole email issue is over a few dozen emails that allegedly contain classified info having been sent on that server at all. The whole point is that that server was never intended for that, so access by people without clearance wouldn't matter at all. You questioned humas background and I want you to explain why.

Db why do you think it was inappropriate for huma to have access to Clinton's non secured email account? Why do you think she has a questionable background?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 07:57 PM) You have no problem throwing HRC's employees/confidants under the bus. Uh ok.

Uh that's not what that shows. The whole kerfuffle is over her having ever sent or received anything classified on that email at all. There's nothing wrong with huma having access to that email, and honestly I'd be surprised if she doesn't hold some sort of clearance herself anyway. That server never contained all of the classified information available to the secretary of state or anything close to it- such a repository almost definitely doesn't even exist given the disparity of sources of said information. You're diving deep down the conspiracy rabbit hole these last few days. Huma doesn't have a questionable background. It's paranoid ramblings from Michelle Bachman

Some context would help here.

Yeah I thought it came out a while ago that the guy who set up her server didn't have a clue as to what he was doing? That's why it sat out there without security certificates and RDP turned on for a while.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 06:18 PM) Not 100% true. The state of Montana tried to circumvent Citizens United by arguing state's rights. But the Federal Supreme Court overruled the Montana Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradi...Inc._v._Montana Which ultimately should just prove to everyone how messed up this all is. If you dont want to read, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along political lines. That law was actually a law dating back to the silver baron days when they openly bought elections left and right. It wasn't a modern law.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:45 PM) DB - I'm curious regarding your political stance on social issues. To me, that's the biggest reason to avoid Trump. Take a look at Trump's Supreme Court list and the positions they have taken in the past. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-elec...t-idUSKCN0YA2XV If you are at all concerned about LGBT rights - including the right to marriage - or are concerned about decisions like Citizens United, then I urge you to really look at the difference between Trump and Clinton on those appointments. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a crazy powerful thing... You know, if you're really concerned about the corrupting influence of money in politics, this should be your top target. And if you are concerned about that, you should know that Republicans are 100% opposed to overturning CU.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:37 PM) Well, DB did blame that on Clinton (at least tangentially by lumping it in to his original post re: Clinton's many problems). I also don't see anyone in this thread defending the fact that the US bombed the wrong group. It's not the first time this has happened in the last 15 years and, sadly, it probably won't be the last. It's a tragedy, just like it was a tragedy when the US hit the Doctor's Without Borders hospital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike What's been problematic about those posts is it lays blame for the destabilization of the Middle East at the feet of Obama/Clinton when that's been going on for significantly longer than that. If you are arguing that Obama/Clinton are responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, or if you are arguing that the US should not intervene in conflicts in the Middle East, you are in fact taking a policy position and should be prepared to defend that position... I disagree with calling the bombing of the Syrian "Barrel Bomb Civilians" Army a tragedy. An international relations issue, sure, but not a tragedy.

Classifying the Syrian Army as "innocents" is stepping into a pretty awful moral minefield.

Maybe my understanding is incorrect, but there was no classified material intentionally and deliberately stored on that email server and there never should have been. There were some number of emails that were improperly sent with classified information, but since it wasn't set up as a secured classified information system, what is the issue with her non-clearance staff having access to it? Through my work, I have access to classified (not DoD space, but similar) information. It's stored on secured, isolated systems. If I were to take that information and put it on our regular business network, I may personally be responsible for that, but that wouldn't mean it was criminal for everyone in my office to have access to that business system since I messed up. It's not like they were given access to a SCIF improperly or something.

Eh the Syrian conflict is a huge pot of issues. Some of it's religious sectional violence and certainly the Isis aspect is, but some of it's ethnic and some of it's just sick of being under a brutal dictator for decades.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 03:09 PM) Well blame their predecessors too man. I'm not trying to dismiss what you're saying, but U.S. presidents have been f***ing with the middle east since the creation of Israel. Trump or Clinton will continue that beat as well. We can go back to at least partially blaming the British and French post-WWI when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. The Sykes-Picot agreement has left us with a pretty strong legacy of s***. http://www.thetower.org/article/the-map-th...he-middle-east/