Shoot the Messenger - RNC

GTNavyNuke

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
9,904
Location
Williamsburg Virginia
AE 87 said:
LOL. First, the it's not classified if it's not marked classified, and now this? Nuke, you're coming off like a DNC dittohead.

Here's the Washington Post on the question
Click to expand...

"......
Once things got going, it didn't get much better. The candidates took turns ragging on the moderators for their questions and quibbled with their premises and facts. Sometimes, we would note, this was without good reason to, as when Donald Trump said he hadn't called Marco Rubio Mark Zuckerberg's "personal senator." He had. On his Web site. And going after the mainstream media is a tried-and-true GOP applause line that most candidates employed at one point or another.

But when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) took an entire 60 seconds he had to denounce the debate moderators, he found some unlikely allies. Including the aforementioned Patton Oswalt and left-leaning comedian Bill Maher. ....."

I think the RNC complaining about the moderators is like Cutcliffe complaining about the refs. Sure they suck, but if you want to debate you have to use the moderators available. If you go to bed with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas.

BTW, I never said something isn't classified if it isn't marked classified. I only said that they weren't marked as such and subsequent reviews can be subjective. What I said was "Concerning the e-mails and classification, I think it is a fact (since I haven't seen otherwise) that none of the emails had classification markings nor did any of the enclosures. Dealing with classification myself all the time, and having been a derivative classifier, I can say that there is a very large gray area in what is classified and what is not. Different people will come to different conclusions and the most conservative usually wins. ...."

Just because you don't agree with me, please don't impute my integrity. I never have and never will release classified information.
 

GT1992

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
161
GTNavyNuke said:
They want the media attention. Who are the Dems having host? I know it was CNN to start.
Click to expand...

CNBC spends 90% of the day attacking republicans. They have next to zero market share and when you count republican primary voters who watch it, you are fighting over three votes in Delaware. The other networks would give the same attention regardless of the hosting. Republicans deserved to be trolled for being stupid.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
GTNavyNuke said:
"......
Once things got going, it didn't get much better. The candidates took turns ragging on the moderators for their questions and quibbled with their premises and facts. Sometimes, we would note, this was without good reason to, as when Donald Trump said he hadn't called Marco Rubio Mark Zuckerberg's "personal senator." He had. On his Web site. And going after the mainstream media is a tried-and-true GOP applause line that most candidates employed at one point or another.

But when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) took an entire 60 seconds he had to denounce the debate moderators, he found some unlikely allies. Including the aforementioned Patton Oswalt and left-leaning comedian Bill Maher. ....."

I think the RNC complaining about the moderators is like Cutcliffe complaining about the refs. Sure they suck, but if you want to debate you have to use the moderators available. If you go to bed with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas.

BTW, I never said something isn't classified if it isn't marked classified. I only said that they weren't marked as such and subsequent reviews can be subjective. What I said was "Concerning the e-mails and classification, I think it is a fact (since I haven't seen otherwise) that none of the emails had classification markings nor did any of the enclosures. Dealing with classification myself all the time, and having been a derivative classifier, I can say that there is a very large gray area in what is classified and what is not. Different people will come to different conclusions and the most conservative usually wins. ...."

Just because you don't agree with me, please don't impute my integrity. I never have and never will release classified information.
Click to expand...

First of all, I cited the Washington Post article because it includes data that the attack on the CNBC moderators was not confined to Republicans. Yes, they also included the liberal spin that attacking the media is just a Republican applause line, but only those with poor reading skills or with the blinders of political bias would conclude that this spin is the whole truth of the matter. You'd have to ignore the tweets from Bill Maher and Patton Oswalt or think that those guys are conservatives.

Second, I did not impugn (nor "impute" for that matter) your integrity. I simply referred to your own stated attitude toward classified information in the "Benghazi hearings" thread. I responded to that post last Tuesday (it's not Monday), and you did not respond to explain how I had misunderstood your post.

As is well known, the Inspector General had sufficient indication of the mishandling of classified information through the presence of classified e-mails on Clinton's non-secured server to hand over their findings to the FBI for criminal investigation which is on-going (politico link, politico link). However, in that thread as you quote here again, you echoed the Hillary/DNC defense that being classified was not a matter of content but whether it was marked as classified. Waving your hand about gray area doesn't change the facts. Sources and Methods are not gray areas. Indeed, the second link I just provided indicates that some of the e-mails were marked "SECRET."

However, even if you were unaware of these facts, even the words you quote here from your post reflect the problem to which I referred. You admit that the proper handling of classified information should err on the conservative side, but you are willing to use the "gray area" as an excuse for Clinton. So, if your feel that your own opinion about Clinton's handling of classified information impugns (or imputes, wrongly used) your character, then that's on you, not me.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
GTNavyNuke said:
Have a good day.
Click to expand...

Thanks, you too.

FWIW, I spent years of government service in which the enemy was a foreign government who put Power and Party above truth. You have reminded me that it can happen here too, so thanks.
 
ATL1

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
GT1992 said:
CNBC spends 90% of the day attacking republicans. They have next to zero market share and when you count republican primary voters who watch it, you are fighting over three votes in Delaware. The other networks would give the same attention regardless of the hosting. Republicans deserved to be trolled for being stupid.
Click to expand...

CNBC is mostly business news, when do they have time to attack republicans?
 

GT1992

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
161
ATL1 said:
CNBC is mostly business news, when do they have time to attack republicans?
Click to expand...

That is their heritage. The NBC newsroom is broken and every time I tried to watch their crap, it slants heavily liberal. Looking at their lineup now, they don't have a lot of original programming.
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Cnbc moderators acted as debaters.....not moderators. On top of that they asked some ridiculous inane questions. Regardless of political affiliation....I can't understand how anyone could applaud the way they conducted the debate.
 
Top