Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Shoot the Messenger - RNC
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AE 87" data-source="post: 190031" data-attributes="member: 195"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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 (<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-fbi-platte-river-214521" target="_blank">politico link</a>,<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-email-state-department-release-214246" target="_blank"> politico link</a>). 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." </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AE 87, post: 190031, member: 195"] 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 ([URL='http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-fbi-platte-river-214521']politico link[/URL],[URL='http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-email-state-department-release-214246'] politico link[/URL]). 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Shoot the Messenger - RNC
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top