My point is you and your Fox buddies pull your punches. I am for what is right…not propaganda. If you don’t get all upset when your team does things then I am going to call you out.
The outrage is so fake.
I would really like to hear what you think is right…you have been pretty vague in that area.
No I haven’t…I have said very clearly that I agree with the findings of the FBI. I think director Comey is very credible because of his background and rightly called out Clinton and the entire State Department for not properly dealing with classified information. He also stated that intent matters as it does in EVERY case. News flash the law isn’t some stop/go flowchart and if it was, your team would have been prosecuted a lot more, but you don’t get told about that part by Sean Hannity.
I don’t pretend to know more than subject matter experts. I also believe very strongly in the Dunning-Kruger effect. I think it goes a long way to explaining the phenomena of Donald Trump, Facebook/message board experts, and SeC chanters.
If “she got special treatment” is all you’re mad about then we’re talking about the wrong sorts of people, ever politician (including Trump) lives a life of special treatment.
As far as what harm was caused, we don’t know, and it’s doubtful we ever will. However, that isn’t the determining factor as to whether there was an offense. People get DUI charges all the time when there’s not identifiable harm.
Not sure what you mean by “talking about the wrong sorts of people, ever politician (including Trump) lives a life of special treatment.”
My point is that every politician gets special treatment. Singling out Hilary for something that you have no evidence of harm shows that you’re not focusing on what is wrong but what party is wrong.
This is the fake outrage that pines is pointing towards, as genuine outrage would not be so biased as it appear to be in this case (locally and nationally).
How can either of you define a person’s outrage when you cannot event define “intent”.
Also, what you are calling outrage is more like aggravation. Outrage is 911. Outrage is a molester hurting a child. Being annoyed at a crooked candidate slithering out of trouble again or watching the corrupt political system is far from outrage.
okay now you are tilting at windmills…define intent? What are you talking about? Do you own a dictionary? It isn’t a hard word.
Ill stick to fake outrage but if it helps you understand your own hypocracy I will settle for selective outrage.
You hate Hillary Clinton because you have been told to hate her by political enemies that can say anything they want and you will lap it up to the point that you are willing to believe anything bad about her and discredit anything good.
The only people here that should be aggravated are those of us who are objective and are sick of dealing with party apologists who think they are somehow righteous by sticking to their team and live in a self reinforcing bubble.
I think ending this discussion is probably a good idea. I am happy to discuss the issues but the personal attacks and assumptions about what affects my judgment is getting old.
“Most academic writing tasks require you to make an argument—that is, to present reasons for a particular claim or interpretation you are putting forward.”
“Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and others’ writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and hear.”
Ad hominem and tu quoque
Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem (“against the person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”) fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually “You shouldn’t believe So-and-So’s argument.” The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.
My point is that every politician gets special treatment. Singling out Hilary for something that you have no evidence of harm shows that you’re not focusing on what is wrong but what party is wrong.
This is the fake outrage that pines is pointing towards, as genuine outrage would not be so biased as it appear to be in this case (locally and nationally).
Singling out Hillary because she’s the topic of the thread and a very recent investigation by the FBI that found her to be “extremely reckless” with national security information. The FBI focused on her, not me. To make it about me or party misses that huge point. If you’ve read my posts, I’ve been pretty clear in my complaints about both parties. What happens locally or nationally is really irrelevant though there have been concerns about her behavior voiced by both parties and she has admitted she made a mistake, so it’s not really that biased to agree that she screwed up.
But it is biased to think you know more than the Director of the FBI. You absolutely, objectively and conclusively do not. (In my best Jackie Child’s voice)
Feel free to look up those definitions too since you feel the need to define terms that do not apply to things I said or did.
But it is biased to think you know more than the Director of the FBI. You absolutely, objectively and conclusively do not. (In my best Jackie Child’s voice)
Again, I’ve clearly said I’m not. However, that doesn’t make him perfect or mean that other legal minds necessarily agree with him. When I researched it, I found other legal minds, judges that have ruled on such cases, that have disagreed with him and established case law.
I also don’t know more than Mr. Obama’s legal advisors, but they’ve been found to be in error more than ten times by the US Supreme Court. How did that happen? They know more than me and are great legal minds! That just doesn’t happen!
SoPinesHeel - 14 July 2016 12:40 PM
Feel free to look up those definitions too since you feel the need to define terms that do not apply to things I said or did.
It seems like you not only forget what I’ve said, but you forget your own posts.
From the definition:
The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque).
From your post:
I just don’t like hypocrites and Facebook experts.
Man, reading comprehension skills just aren’t taught anymore are they?
Never thought I would be the guy lamenting how much better it was back in the day…at least for some things.
My argument is not based on hypocrites or Facebook experts…that is what you all are when you pull your punches, and think you have all the facts cause you looked up something on Wikipedia. You don’t have the context of the situation and every case is different. Some of you wanted an outcome based on prejudice and you didn’t get it. To be honest there is very little outrage from scholars on this outside of the usual partisan sources further proving that it was a reasonable conclusion to not press further.
My argument is that I trust SMEs because I recognize they have more info than I do. I am not the know it all here…you all are.
Clear enough Counselor? All future objections are overruled due to their repetitive nature.
This is going to be my last post on this comment and then I am done. First, it may come as a surprise that I rarely watch or read Fox News. Why? They are too bias. I admit Megyn Kelly is a nice piece of eye-candy that I will occasionally take a peek at. During my day, I read the Huffington Post. I bet that surprises the heck out of you. Why, I find it extremely import to read opposing viewpoints to keep personal beliefs in check. The HP is about as left-leaning as they come. Their yellow-journalism follow by reading the posters view points is a great source of my “outrage”. With that said, some of the entertainment and non-political stories are generally well done.
Now with Comey. I have zero doubt that Mr Comey is extremely competent to carry out his charge. I have never suggested that. I do feel based on his testimony, the events of Loretta Lynch meeting Bill Clinton and the way the whole email situation was handle should make everyone question our government. It has the looks of some type of collusion. BTW: When I read the HP, what sets me off is they don’t care if she is guilty or not. The Bernie Sanders people will be her downfall as many of them will never vote for her or Trump..they will sit out.
Had Nixon come clean about Watergate I doubt he would have had to resign. It was the cover up that did him in. I feel the same way about the Clinton emails. Had Hilary come clean and taken her licks early, should would not be dealing with this matter. Again it is the cover up
Now make no doubt. I don’t like the Clinton’s. These people are slippery as eels and I simply do not think they have ever had the best interest of the country in mind. I think they are all about themselves. I have 100 times more respect for Bernie Sanders because I actually believe if means what he says for the most part.
I really don’t care if you insult me or not….I am done.
I think that is a very reasonable post. Maybe if you had come clean and said that from the start a lot of this could be avoided. I agree you have more knowledge of the other side than 90 percent of the partisan apologists I work with, live around and are related to on a daily basis.
I too think the optics of this whole thing are bad and don’t excuse it. I just don’t think it was criminal and find most of it to be petty politics. I can tell you in the military, contrary to all the self described experts posting crap on Facebook, this would have been handled administratively. People blur the two.
I can tell you in the military, contrary to all the self described experts posting crap on Facebook, this would have been handled administratively. People blur the two.
I wasn’t going to post again but I have to touch on this. I was in the military and I disagree on administrative discipline for people that do not properly handle classified information. I remember going through numerous training sessions on the proper handling of sensitive information and what will happen to you should you fail to do that task properly. As a medic, I had a Secret Clearance and to this day, 26 years after I left I will not break that vow. It is that important and I was just a low level medic.
Typically administrative punishment is used for people that have a tardiness problem, maybe overweight and are put on notice, fighting ,getting drunk and other matters like that.
Had a soldier allowed that much Intel to be released, they would be in Leavenworth. The average soldier isn’t permitted to hind behind words like “intent” or “gross negligence”.You would be guilty of dereliction of duty for starters among the actual charges pertaining to the bad handling of classified materials.
