Chef Jim Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Stop...replying to Azalin? No stop bumping Tib's thread! Even by responding to others we end up bump..........oh *****!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: No stop bumping Tib's thread! Even by responding to others we end up bump..........oh *****!! whatever, we are celebrating the latest complete win by Trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 1 minute ago, row_33 said: whatever, we are celebrating the latest complete win by Trump A great tactic to win in sports is to get into your opponents head. Trump is doing a great job of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 1, 2019 Author Share Posted April 1, 2019 40 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Oversight Committee held the hearing on security clearances at 8:30am on Saturday without informing Republicans on the committee until late Friday but didn't tell them what it was about. John Bolton, Jerod & Ivanka Kushner and Michael Flynn were included on the list of people turned down. And that makes it all ok? Wtf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Azalin said: Bob, I didn't say anything about ignoring the whistle blower, and I never defended the practice of ignoring advice from anybody. I simply do not believe you're making a sensible comparison. Why not wait and see how all this pans out before we jump to any conclusions? If the Trump administration has done anything illegal in overturning the security clearance denials, don't you believe that will come out? I don't need to wait. I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken. It is a valid comparison, however. Both actions possibly exposed top secret material to our adversaries. Again, the point of my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Hillary's actions while being just fine with Trump possibly exposing us. In fact it reminds me too of the Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Oh the howls of tampering we heard about the Clinton-Lynch meeting even though we don't actually know what was said and Lynch recused. Then when Trump publicly and blatantly attempts to influence the FBI and the Attorney General, those same folks are just fine with it. Edited April 1, 2019 by Bob in Mich 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Chef Jim said: A great tactic to win in sports is to get into your opponents head. Trump is doing a great job of that. the ratings for cable news would be negative without Trump to whine about non-stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 54 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Again, the point of my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Hillary's actions while being just fine with Trump possibly exposing us. This is not even an apples to oranges comparison, it's a nonsensical one. The two things are not in any way similar. 54 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: In fact it reminds me too of the Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Oh the howls of tampering we heard about the Clinton-Lynch meeting even though we don't actually know what was said and Lynch recused. Then when Trump publicly and blatantly attempts to influence the FBI and the Attorney General, those same folks are just fine with it. Proving you haven't learned a single thing in the last two years. You've been systematically lied to - and now you're unwilling to reassess the absolute bollocks you've been sold as truth. Shame. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Len, Lenny, Skinny Lenster.... lol. I made an attempt at humor with the lock em up line. It appears to have missed. Try not to fixate on the strict legality for a moment. I am aware that the President can technically clear anyone he wants. The outrage was really about the exposure of national secrets to individuals that the professionals decided against clearing. That seems to me to have possibly exposed us significantly. The question was, why do so many seem to have no issue with this exposure when the Hillary misdeed was made out to be so monumental? I prefer Slender Lenster, I find "skinny" offensive. I have no issue with this exposure because it has nothing in common with the Hillary misdeed except we can use the word "clearance" when describing both scenarios. Can we agree that this is sorta a sad case to whistleblow on? Somebody did something within the scope of their authority, someone else got their feelings hurt, and wanted validation of their feelings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: I don't need to wait. I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken. It is a valid comparison, however. Both actions possibly exposed top secret material to our adversaries. Again, the point of my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Hillary's actions while being just fine with Trump possibly exposing us. In fact it reminds me too of the Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Oh the howls of tampering we heard about the Clinton-Lynch meeting even though we don't actually know what was said and Lynch recused. Then when Trump publicly and blatantly attempts to influence the FBI and the Attorney General, those same folks are just fine with it. whaaaaa?? are you that addled that your brian has that severe of a disconnect? holy crap. Edited April 1, 2019 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: No, I don't recall being involved in that discussion either. You were too stoned to trmrmber anything. Edited April 1, 2019 by Wacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: I don't need to wait. I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken. It is a valid comparison, however. Both actions possibly exposed top secret material to our adversaries. Again, the point of my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Hillary's actions while being just fine with Trump possibly exposing us. In fact it reminds me too of the Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Oh the howls of tampering we heard about the Clinton-Lynch meeting even though we don't actually know what was said and Lynch recused. Then when Trump publicly and blatantly attempts to influence the FBI and the Attorney General, those same folks are just fine with it. Perhaps we're simply talking past each other, so I'll try it a little differently. How can something be hypocrisy if the two actions can't be compared? Overriding a security clearance denial does not expose any sensitive material, it's not illegal, and simply gives clearance to someone that might deserve closer scrutiny. You said it yourself: "I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken." By contrast it is illegal to use private servers, PCs, etc, etc for government emails, even IF they're not of a sensitive, classified, or top secret nature, PERIOD. So tell me, how is your comparison a valid one? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Azalin said: Perhaps we're simply talking past each other, so I'll try it a little differently. How can something be hypocrisy if the two actions can't be compared? Overriding a security clearance denial does not expose any sensitive material, it's not illegal, and simply gives clearance to someone that might deserve closer scrutiny. You said it yourself: "I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken." By contrast it is illegal to use private servers, PCs, etc, etc for government emails, even IF they're not of a sensitive, classified, or top secret nature, PERIOD. So tell me, how is your comparison a valid one? Can’t be compared! Seriously? Why have clearances at all if it doesn’t matter who has access to what? The whole point is determining who will keep our secrets and who may not. These rejects were determined to be untrustworthy by our country’s security experts. The administration overruled the experts based on what? For about the 5th time, the point isn’t legality. The point is the hypocrisy of complaining to high heaven about Hillary exposing classified information while being just fine with the Trump administration exposing our classified information to these Unqualified individuals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Can’t be compared! Seriously? Why have clearances at all if it doesn’t matter who has access to what? The whole point is determining who will keep our secrets and who may not. These rejects were determined to be untrustworthy by our country’s security experts. The administration overruled the experts based on what? For about the 5th time, the point isn’t legality. The point is the hypocrisy of complaining to high heaven about Hillary exposing classified information while being just fine with the Trump administration exposing our classified information to these Unqualified individuals You do realize that among the people initially declined to security clearance are people like Kushner and Ivanka, along with National Security Advisor John Bolton? All active members within the administration. Your accusation of "unqualified" is laughable, at least as far as those three are concerned. And for about the 5th time, you are bringing legality into it by using Hillary's email server as an example. If that frustrates you, then stop %$#@ing using that as an example. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 Thanks for the advice. If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you. Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways. It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all. I have overestimated people before. Sorry. ‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 14 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Thanks for the advice. If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you. Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways. It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all. I have overestimated people before. Sorry. ‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy The problem is you're comparing Welches Grape Jelly to Nutella and have convinced yourself they are similar because they both spread easy on Freihofers 7 Grain bread. I don't know that your theory that their differences reveal their similarities, but if it works for you, who am I to argue? Just to clarify, I don't laugh at any of this stuff. If the Trump admin broke the law, let's hash that out. But making up reasons to be more disagreeable just because you don't like the prez is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 24 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Thanks for the advice. If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you. Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways. It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all. I have overestimated people before. Sorry. ‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy You can attempt to justify your position any way you like, but the way you're doing so makes no sense. Forget about what "folks in this group" are capable or incapable of - you're talking with me right now, not "the folks in this group". You've already stated that the president broke no laws. Can a case for concern be made over granting these people clearance? Maybe, but that isn't what you've been saying. And just because people disagree with you doen't mean we're all laughing. And lastly, this is not a case of hypocrisy. Familiarize yourself with the definition of the word. I'm not going to keep repeating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 59 minutes ago, Azalin said: You do realize that among the people initially declined to security clearance are people like Kushner and Ivanka, along with National Security Advisor John Bolton? All active members within the administration. Your accusation of "unqualified" is laughable, at least as far as those three are concerned. And for about the 5th time, you are bringing legality into it by using Hillary's email server as an example. If that frustrates you, then stop %$#@ing using that as an example. Bolton? Former UN Ambassador Bolton. Was denied a security clearance for having foreign associations? Yeah, that sounds completely on the level. 41 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Thanks for the advice. If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you. Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways. It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all. I have overestimated people before. Sorry. ‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy As someone who's worked directly with background investigations and granting clearances...the above is wildly ignorant. Azalin isn't even well-informed on this, but he's miles above your idiocy. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: Bolton? Former UN Ambassador Bolton. Was denied a security clearance for having foreign associations? Yeah, that sounds completely on the level. As someone who's worked directly with background investigations and granting clearances...the above is wildly ignorant. Azalin isn't even well-informed on this, but he's miles above your idiocy. Flynn was as well - despite being the former head of DIA (meaning he held some of the highest clearances in existence for over a decade). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-baby! Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 8 hours ago, Azalin said: You can attempt to justify your position any way you like, but the way you're doing so makes no sense. Forget about what "folks in this group" are capable or incapable of - you're talking with me right now, not "the folks in this group". You've already stated that the president broke no laws. Can a case for concern be made over granting these people clearance? Maybe, but that isn't what you've been saying. And just because people disagree with you doen't mean we're all laughing. And lastly, this is not a case of hypocrisy. Familiarize yourself with the definition of the word. I'm not going to keep repeating it. Oh, aren’t you just special! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 2, 2019 Author Share Posted April 2, 2019 6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Flynn was as well - despite being the former head of DIA (meaning he held some of the highest clearances in existence for over a decade). Putting aside for a second the fact that as a disgruntled former employee (he was) and that he had ties to foreign countries, lets say he was ok, but what about the other two dozen who were denied clearances? You ok with them being able to have access to our national secrets? 9 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Thanks for the advice. If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you. Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways. It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all. I have overestimated people before. Sorry. ‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy I'm surprised the Deep State garbage hasn't been thrown around yet. It's still early, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts