Octopus Overlords

Smutly wrote:

Alefroth wrote:

Smutly wrote:I hope she hasn't suffered some permanent brain injury.

You're in luck.

I'll require a little more than your assurance.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:

According to the bureau’s review of server logs, someone accessed an email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor “exit nodes” — jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public internet.

The owner of the account, whose name is redacted in the report, said she was “not familiar with nor [had] she ever used Tor software.”

Clinton left the State Department less than a month after the intrusion.

Tor, developed with support from the U.S. government, is used around the world to let people such as activists and journalists communicate and surf the Web without interference from oppressive regimes, but it has also drawn criticism for allowing hackers and criminals to evade law enforcement while peddling porn, drugs and stolen data.

The new report also revealed that one of Clinton’s IT aides enabled Remote Desktop Protocol on the server, despite known vulnerabilities in the protocol. FBI investigators also could not determine if the widely recommended security protocol TLS was ever enabled.

Meh, if that was grounds for criminal charges, the vast majority of business leaders in this world would be in jail.

Smutly wrote: Clinton, herself, says she can't remember things and you're blaming headlines? Blame Clinton for either 1) lying about it or 2) being sick. Well, don't blame her for being sick, but blame her for running for President if she knows she has an issue without disclosing it. I don't know the truth, but it's her words/excuses.

i can't remember every email I've ever sent. Nor every meeting I've been in. I must be hiding something....OR I'M DYING! My god, help me!

Below is the list of things Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview:

*When she received security clearance

*Being briefed on how to handle classified material

*How many times she used her authority to designate items classified

*Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material

*How to select a target for a drone strike

*How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices

*The number of times her staff was given a secure phone

*Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry

*Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system

*Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account

*Getting guidance from state on email policy

*Who had access to her Blackberry account

*The process for deleting her emails

*Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full

*Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server

*Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked

*Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts

*Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server

*Using an iPad mini

*An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal

*Jacob Sullivan using personal email

*State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports

*Every briefing she received after suffering concussions

*Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012

*Being read out of her clearance

*Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account

Smutly wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Smutly wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Why are we repeating a conversation we've had at least twice before.

Is it because it's an election year and right leaning papers really don't want Hillary to be president even if it means Drumpf does, so it's just a constant stream of alarmist headlines?

Listen, if I can swallow an entire war predicated on a president's whim where thousands died and billions disappeared, the least you could do is shut the hell up about a freakin' email server.

Clinton, herself, says she can't remember things and you're blaming headlines? Blame Clinton for either 1) lying about it or 2) being sick. Well, don't blame her for being sick, but blame her for running for President if she knows she has an issue without disclosing it. I don't know the truth, but it's her words/excuses.

I'm saying the only person with a worse memory than Reagan was North. Both seemed to make out ok.

This whole line of attack is dumb. If this is the best you guys have got, it's a desperate year for the right. Hell, you've got a known democrat as your candidate.

I didn't realize I was attacking. If I were you would know it. As I stated, I'm not voting for Trump. Some people just can't admit when they're wrong. It's okay. I have known adults my entire life who are never wrong even when they're wrong.

It's part of the human condition to want to have our way. We all have areas of self-righteousness where we believe that we know better than others. To the extent that this need to be right and resulting defensiveness permeates one's life, the less connected you will be with others. Being unable to connect with people in the real world, some people go to the virtual one -- say, a message board on the Internet. Unable to connect with real people, they begin to tie their self-worth with their online persona. That combination makes for an unrelenting and unwavering expression of having to be right. An inability to say "I don't know" and "I was wrong" due to feeling threatened by fact (aka the real world) and/or preoccupation with winning approval from others increases the likelihood of joining an on-line liberal "attack pack" where they can find comfort in numbers. Barking liberal tag lines like the sad punchline of a weak joke to feel connected somehow to something and someone -- even if that someone is 'virtual'. It's okay, guys. Really. I feel your pain. Your shame and fear of being vulnerable in the real world is understandable. Knowing that despite your best efforts you still aren't achieving your hopes and dreams has to be crushing. Being responsible for yourself or others is a big responsibility and it's scary. I just wanted you to know that I understand why you are like you are. You have my pity and my government-sponsored welfare. Except for you Goo. I don't pay Canadian taxes. Remember, Jesus loves you, as do I, as well as your family. Now please take out the trash like your mom asked you.

Holman wrote:Smutly, this is probably the second or third exchange where we've seen you play the sincerity card. I think your key term in one of them was "intellectual humility."

When you turn up around and immediately crank up the arrogant dickitude, it kind of undercuts that point. Just FYI.

YellowKing wrote:So what happens if I think Clinton was wrong with her handling of the email server, but I still think she is a vastly superior candidate to Trump?

Holman wrote:Clinton on her worst email day is still 100x more fit to be POTUS than Trump in his finest hour.

Smutly wrote:

Holman wrote:Clinton on her worst email day is still 100x more fit to be POTUS than Trump in his finest hour.

Again, so why reward these two shitty choices given us by the two party system? Go back to this post.

Smutly wrote:

Holman wrote:Smutly, this is probably the second or third exchange where we've seen you play the sincerity card. I think your key term in one of them was "intellectual humility."

When you turn up around and immediately crank up the arrogant dickitude, it kind of undercuts that point. Just FYI.

'Intellectual humility' isn't the same thing as 'humility' so apparently you don't get the point.

hepcat wrote:Because we understand that even though there are multiple choices, thaere are realistically only two that can ever possibly win. For someone who praises their intellect as much as you, I'm surprised this simple fact escapes you.

If you want to fight against a two party system, have at it. But don't bitch at everyone else when your posts on a gaming forum doesn't singlehandedly bring it down.

hepcat wrote:Because we understand that even though there are multiple choices, thaere are realistically only two that can ever possibly win. For someone who praises their intellect as much as you, I'm surprised this simple fact escapes you.

If you want to fight against a two party system, have at it. But don't bitch at everyone else when your posts on a gaming forum doesn't singlehandedly bring it down.

Hubris, thy name is Smutly.

Holman wrote:

Smutly wrote:

Holman wrote:Smutly, this is probably the second or third exchange where we've seen you play the sincerity card. I think your key term in one of them was "intellectual humility."

When you turn up around and immediately crank up the arrogant dickitude, it kind of undercuts that point. Just FYI.

'Intellectual humility' isn't the same thing as 'humility' so apparently you don't get the point.

Holman wrote:OK, since you bumped this (per the Clinton thread) in the name of demonstrating where you tried to open a meaningful dialogue, I'll take you at your word.

Smutly wrote:While I don't identify as a Republican, I identify with conservatisms. This is not an un-thinking viewpoint. There are no litmus tests. Conservatism is an attitude toward the world, not a dogmatic religion. As Rod Dreher says in the attached article, "We have to be willing and able to think creatively about conservative principles and apply them to new facts and circumstances" and "If the eight years of George W. Bush taught us anything, it ought to have been to listen to dissenters [...within the Republican party...], and to approach the big questions of politics and statecraft with a certain intellectual humility."

The 2012 article you link challenges conservatives to reconsider their values and their commitments and to continually test them against baseline principles. That's laudable.

But is that what conservatives are doing today? The Republican party is now led by a pathologically narcissistic demagogue who bought his support with the promise of hurting foreigners and outsiders and Americans disloyal to him. He appears to know nothing about policy, history, or the art of democratic governance, and the polls suggest that he is leading his party towards a catastrophic defeat that might cripple their long-term prospects. In response, he claims that the polls are lying and the election will be rigged, undermining trust in the democratic process--all without a shred of evidence. He insists, again without any evidence, that the majority is behind him and that he is literally the best at everything. He is running on nativism, racism, misogyny, and jingoism, and the base is responding as if permission to indulge their bigotry is what they've been waiting for all along.

Is this intellectual humility?

I think intellectual humility for any person on any topic -- especially politics -- is something that most people lack. There is an egotistical need to "be right" and an even baser human inclination to be unkind to each other. Ironically, each side points to the OUTRAGE of the other side when they are all just tools of the media. This is evidenced on this message board any direction you look and by our national politics readily amplified by the media. This is why it appears that "We the People" no longer pull in the same direction or understand what the idea of America means, but hate each other. Emotionally it tires me out and makes me depressed.

I'm sure I'm biased, but the above paragraph seems to describe American politics very loosely but the Trump campaign very specifically. "Hatred" isn't automatically equivalent on two sides. I'm sure you can find many nasty forum comments on both sides of any political divide, but it's only the Republicans who have made it an official part of their platform. The difference between the two conventions was night and day. The difference between a Trump rally and anyone else's is dramatic and alarming.

Liberals and conservatives have always disagreed, and we'll continue to disagree, but right now liberals aren't the ones fueled by narrow paranoia and suspicion and conspiracy theories. When the trailing party's candidate has already shifted to myths of stab-in-the-back treachery to explain his likely defeat, you have to wonder whether his gang is really interested in participating in pluralistic democracy at all.

Holman wrote:Clinton on her worst email day is still 100x more fit to be POTUS than Trump in his finest hour.

Though riddled with redactions, the FBI report reveals that Clinton became concerned about the legitimacy of an e-mail purportedly sent to her “from the personal e-mail of a State official.” The e-mail sent to Clinton, the FBI noted, “contained a potentially malicious link.”

In reply to the suspect e-mail, Clinton wrote, “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” The FBI report does not indicate to which e-mail account Clinton sent her response.

At one point, Clinton aide Huma Abedin wrote to an associate indicating that Clinton was concerned about someone “hacking into her email” since Clinton had received an e-mail from a “known...associate” containing “a link to a website with pornographic material.”

While the FBI report does not state how Clinton knew the link in the suspect e-mail led to porn, it appears obvious that she clicked on the link.

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:Clinton on her worst email day is still 100x more fit to be POTUS than Trump in his finest hour.

You sure?

Though riddled with redactions, the FBI report reveals that Clinton became concerned about the legitimacy of an e-mail purportedly sent to her “from the personal e-mail of a State official.” The e-mail sent to Clinton, the FBI noted, “contained a potentially malicious link.”

In reply to the suspect e-mail, Clinton wrote, “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” The FBI report does not indicate to which e-mail account Clinton sent her response.

At one point, Clinton aide Huma Abedin wrote to an associate indicating that Clinton was concerned about someone “hacking into her email” since Clinton had received an e-mail from a “known...associate” containing “a link to a website with pornographic material.”

While the FBI report does not state how Clinton knew the link in the suspect e-mail led to porn, it appears obvious that she clicked on the link.

http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/inve ... ton-921645

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:Clinton on her worst email day is still 100x more fit to be POTUS than Trump in his finest hour.

You sure?

While the FBI report does not state how Clinton knew the link in the suspect e-mail led to porn, it appears obvious that she clicked on the link.

http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/inve ... ton-921645

Smutly wrote: I thought it might be a place for some seriousness, but I was wrong (see, that's how you say it)

Alefroth wrote:

Smutly wrote: I thought it might be a place for some seriousness, but I was wrong (see, that's how you say it)

That's not admitting you're wrong, that's a thinly veiled insult. And you wonder why you get the treatment you do.

Alefroth wrote:

Smutly wrote: I thought it might be a place for some seriousness, but I was wrong (see, that's how you say it)

That's not admitting you're wrong, that's a thinly veiled insult. And you wonder why you get the treatment you do.

April 12, 2007 - WASHINGTON — The White House said Wednesday that it may have lost what could amount to thousands of messages sent through a private e-mail system used by political guru Karl Rove and at least 50 other top officials, an admission that stirred anger and dismay among congressional investigators.

The e-mails were considered potentially crucial evidence in congressional inquiries launched by Democrats into the role partisan politics may have played in such policy decisions as the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

The White House said an effort was underway to see whether the messages could be recovered from the computer system, which was operated and paid for by the Republican National Committee as part of an avowed effort to separate political communications from those dealing with official business.

"The White House has not done a good enough job overseeing staff using political e-mail accounts to assure compliance with the Presidential Records Act," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said in an unusual late-afternoon teleconference with reporters.

hepcat wrote:That's the dilemma for many of us. I hate that we're about to put yet another dynasty into power, but the alternative is a buffoon who'll set us back decades on both the diplomatic and economic fronts.

Holman wrote:

Smutly wrote:

Holman wrote:Clinton on her worst email day is still 100x more fit to be POTUS than Trump in his finest hour.

Again, so why reward these two shitty choices given us by the two party system? Go back to this post.

Because Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party are nothing but voodoo economics on crack, and they offer the worst possible responses to economic insecurity, environmental collapse, infrastructural breakdown, and any social ills you care to name?