General Discussion

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)

120. +2000 eom

Reply to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 11:47 AM

Mar 2015

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

151 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I've noticed a contradiction [View all] BainsBane Mar 2015 OP

This is a strawman argument. Marr Mar 2015 #1

Then what was the argument in favor of the Wikileaks dump? BainsBane Mar 2015 #2

Some of the information Assange made available were things the government Marr Mar 2015 #12

Some, in the case of Wikileaks, is not all. BainsBane Mar 2015 #23

Or even "most." n/t 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #42

Not if it's held privately, no. Marr Mar 2015 #45

According to State BainsBane Mar 2015 #53

Would you trust Condoleeza Rice to produce all materials? Marr Mar 2015 #54

That is in fact Assange's position BainsBane Mar 2015 #60

Not necessarily complete exclusivity-- but near enough. Marr Mar 2015 #63

I appreciate your willngness to seriously engage the question BainsBane Mar 2015 #82

Of course-- same to you. Marr Mar 2015 #96

I hadn't heard Assange believes all govt communications should be public riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #64

I'm looking for it BainsBane Mar 2015 #83

Thanks. I didn't spend a lot of time on it so maybe I missed it riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #91

Choosing what to send to State is exactly what they appear to have done. merrily Mar 2015 #103

+1 merrily Mar 2015 #102

well, i can think of some. one is in a thread spouting off that her truth, is truth. ya.... seabeyond Mar 2015 #110

Noticed that too. The people who are most "worried" about the security of Hillary's email server DanTex Mar 2015 #3

There is no contradiction. Please see Reply 1 and the rest of that subthread. merrily Mar 2015 #104

And the opposite is true. former9thward Mar 2015 #4

Operating your own email server is one way to ensure that your emails don't end up leaked to the DanTex Mar 2015 #8

Except when it is hacked. former9thward Mar 2015 #10

Which it wasn't. If someone who knows what they are doing sets up a private email server, it will DanTex Mar 2015 #14

How do you know it wasn't? former9thward Mar 2015 #16

I don't. But there's no indication that it was. DanTex Mar 2015 #20

She defied the White House. former9thward Mar 2015 #25

OK. This is a big deal because...? DanTex Mar 2015 #32

We don't know yet. former9thward Mar 2015 #37

Dang tootin' But, it's OKIYAH merrily Mar 2015 #109

Hillary in 2016! Technically she didn't break any laws! tularetom Mar 2015 #55

I take your point, but merrily Mar 2015 #107

Because the President was elected the Chief Executive Officer of the United States and merrily Mar 2015 #111

Meh. He didn't seem too upset about it. DanTex Mar 2015 #113

He's not the only one who has an interest in whether she defies him. As I said, he was elected. merrily Mar 2015 #115

If he doesn't care, then it's not "defying" him. DanTex Mar 2015 #117

First, as stated, we don't know if he doesn't care and, yes it is merrily Mar 2015 #121

We know he didn't do anything about it. So he didn't care much. DanTex Mar 2015 #128

Already addressed. Unless he knew all the facts, we don't even know that he forgave her. merrily Mar 2015 #130

He knew she was using a private email. Obviously. Unless she never emailed him or any DanTex Mar 2015 #131

Also already addressed. merrily Mar 2015 #132

Wouldn't that be another way that the people couldn't file a FOIA request? Autumn Mar 2015 #11

No ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #46

Okay. I have seen articles from both Wired and Gawker stating that. Autumn Mar 2015 #62

Both sites are incorrect ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #93

doesn't stop a request, but she has control of the records. merrily Mar 2015 #114

I guess it's all a matter of trust. Autumn Mar 2015 #116

Hillary in particular has a related precedent. merrily Mar 2015 #127

PS Link on that subpoena thing. merrily Mar 2015 #134

I remember that. I spent so long defending them and I'm Autumn Mar 2015 #136

Even if you remember the incident, the wiki write up is interesting. merrily Mar 2015 #137

You are right on that. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out Autumn Mar 2015 #139

I agree with your feeling. merrily Mar 2015 #140

I supported and defended Hillary all the way until she dropped out. Autumn Mar 2015 #144

I made up my mind to support Obama in November 2007. merrily Mar 2015 #147

Hillary's emails weren't classified eom treestar Mar 2015 #15

A SOS does not send out classified emails? former9thward Mar 2015 #17

There's a process for what is classified and what is not treestar Mar 2015 #19

How do you know? former9thward Mar 2015 #26

How does s/he know everything is not classified? BainsBane Mar 2015 #36

You are not serious if you think a SOS does not have classified documents. former9thward Mar 2015 #38

That isn't what I said BainsBane Mar 2015 #58

LOL ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #47

Common sense would indicate treestar Mar 2015 #66

Do you remember what Manning leaked? It was from the system used for this, SIPRNET. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #77

Relevance? Manning was authorized to access what she printed out. merrily Mar 2015 #112

That other poster was asking what Hillary would do if she needed to send out classified info if she stevenleser Mar 2015 #123

I meant the relevance of mentioning Manning and her leak. Her leak had nothing to do with merrily Mar 2015 #125

The Manning incident is the most public recent issue regarding SIPRnet. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #126

Of course not everything she does is classified. An FOIA request is the reason she turned over merrily Mar 2015 #138

Okay, but take me as an example BainsBane Mar 2015 #22

Sure. former9thward Mar 2015 #35

Your position is news clips? BainsBane Mar 2015 #43

Its not great that she surrounds herself with staff that ignore security concerns. former9thward Mar 2015 #68

Most of DU was outraged when Republicans were caught using RNC servers suffragette Mar 2015 #133

Shhhh. merrily Mar 2015 #105

What if some is OK with wikileaks and upset private emails aren't Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #5

The only contradiction here is your misunderstanding. leveymg Mar 2015 #6

Again, no laws were broken. DanTex Mar 2015 #7

We agree to disagree. leveymg Mar 2015 #50

She kept the records after she left State and until an FOIA request and she kept them after that, merrily Mar 2015 #106

Wikileaks didn't go through FOIA BainsBane Mar 2015 #9

Exactly treestar Mar 2015 #13

Please name those of us that believe government has no right to keep secrets AngryAmish Mar 2015 #18

This is a discussion, not an inquisition or call out BainsBane Mar 2015 #24

So your asserted position is held by nobody AngryAmish Mar 2015 #48

Here BainsBane Mar 2015 #76

Oh, I stand corrected. AngryAmish Mar 2015 #79

Sift through the G.A.S. threads ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #57

don't expect logic or consistency on the issue, esp. from Greenwald/Snowden fanboys uhnope Mar 2015 #21

Says the guy who runs like hell when I challenge him re Snowden. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2015 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author uhnope Mar 2015 #44

It's called sticking one's finger in the air and testing the winds. The argument is subject to.... Tarheel_Dem Mar 2015 #27

Yep. Especially a STRONG Democrat who holds her own against Republicans BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #119

Must be something-something-"idle left" don't you think? Scootaloo Mar 2015 #28

Then explain the position to me BainsBane Mar 2015 #30

What's there to explain? Scootaloo Mar 2015 #34

Transparent is not Assange's position in Wikileaks BainsBane Mar 2015 #49

And now your OP is about Julian Assange? Scootaloo Mar 2015 #52

You are free to post an OP about that BainsBane Mar 2015 #59

Secure from foreign governments. jeff47 Mar 2015 #29

I think there are a variety of views BainsBane Mar 2015 #31

People love leaked information... until it is information on them Johonny Mar 2015 #39

I suspect that's because those "Democrats" clinging to this "scandal" ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #40

+1000 ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #94

+2000 eom BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #120

Which, BTW ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #141

Great minds think alike, 1SBM! We don't need to do the dirty work for the GOP BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #143

I wonder if folks would care that ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #146

They should - IF they really are Democrats and want another Democrat in the White House BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #150

This has to be a joke Doctor_J Mar 2015 #41

It's an effort to explore an issue BainsBane Mar 2015 #61

think of the poor baby elephants Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #51

Some quotes BainsBane Mar 2015 #71

I never said it was straw, but those threads are from over 5 years ago and prove nothing. Rex Mar 2015 #80

That post was in response to another member BainsBane Mar 2015 #86

what makes it a strawman Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #81

LOL BainsBane Mar 2015 #89

What you are missing Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #90

I've never seen anyone say the government has no right to keep secrets, can you show proof of that? Rex Mar 2015 #56

I've never heard that's Assange's position either have you? riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #67

Here BainsBane Mar 2015 #75

What an odd argument. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #65

Look around. A lot of people are making the "how could she compromise security" argument. DanTex Mar 2015 #70

Yes they were from what I saw yesterday. Cha Mar 2015 #73

How would anyone know if we have access to all the information if it is controlled TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #69

And that is the question! But who is going to answer? nt kelliekat44 Mar 2015 #84

I suspect no one as it wouldn't fit the attempted narrative here. TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #118

The ever-controversial "some here", now "many here" never do anything correctly. merrily Mar 2015 #124

Thanks for pointing out their Glaring Hypocrisy, BB Cha Mar 2015 #72

I generally do not think that our Government should be allowed to keep secrets from its citizens. Maedhros Mar 2015 #74

Yes, there is no difference between individual right to privacy and govt. agents hiding info. LOL Bonobo Mar 2015 #78

How does individual right to privacy figure into this? BainsBane Mar 2015 #87

I noticed the same thing ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #85

To read this thread BainsBane Mar 2015 #88

Not only that ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #92

Not confusing ... Transparent. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #95

You noticed too? McCamy Taylor Mar 2015 #97

I noticed that too. lovemydog Mar 2015 #98

Is she releasing them? BainsBane Mar 2015 #100

Hillary Clinton has requested the State Department to release all her emails to the public. greatlaurel Mar 2015 #148

Don't expect consistency from that bunch... Blue_Tires Mar 2015 #99

Yeah, no contradiction. Whether Hillary violated the law or not was the issue most DUers debated, merrily Mar 2015 #101

There's a lot of contradictions around the subject Fumesucker Mar 2015 #108

+1 KoKo Mar 2015 #122

I think the email "scandal" is a tempest in a teapot. Or maybe not even a pot, maybe a teaspoon. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #129

I agree: no inconsistency. merrily Mar 2015 #142

the issue is not whether the private email is "secure" but that it's an attempt to avoid scrutiny yurbud Mar 2015 #135

Okay BainsBane Mar 2015 #145

I hope you're right. yurbud Mar 2015 #149

JMHO Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2015 #151