Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hello, bUU. My name is Aery (with a 11 on the end). There is no N. But I am going to guess you mean me.
Sorry for the typo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
We just don't speak the same language at all. And we don't see the world the same way. That is obvious.
And the crux of the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
your disdain is palpable
No more so than your own, but I suppose it is the nature of the perspectives you peddle to neglect to see such a parallel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
I agree with you that all people should be treated equally and fairly and with respect. That is ALL it takes and everyone deserves that. We don't need to go beyond that and grant 'more equal' rights to anyone - no one deserves that.
There is no such thing as "more equal". You made that up as a rationalization for objections you have with regard to society fulfilling its obligation to its most vulnerable members.
I preached at church yesterday. One of the passages I offered was from Isaiah 58:12:
Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt;
you shall raise up the foundations of many generations;
you shall be called the repairer of the breach,
the restorer of streets to live in.
What does your perspective have within to embody repairing breaches? ... to restoring streets to live in? If you just sit back and say the ruins are the ruins then you're not living up to the moral imperative. You are rationalizing your acceptance of the moral offenses of others.
I also quoted Rev. William Barber:
Never become a nation that's unable to repent when you have mistreated the vulnerable.
Never become so arrogant in your wealth that you refuse to lift the poor.
What does your perspective have within to embody repentance for the ongoing and continuous mistreatment of the vulnerable. Again, if you sit back and say that you're not being unfair to them, but you do nothing to rectify the impact of other people being unfair to them, then you are not living up to the moral imperative. You are rationalizing your acceptance of the moral offenses of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
And I don't think we have to demean others/reduce some to lift others up. People should only be judged on character. I am probably closer to MLK in my beliefs on that score than you are. It is kind of ironic, isn't it.
Except that's a lie you're telling yourself. You demean those upon whom you allow to be visited injustice without lifting your voice up in moral dissent against both the injustice and its impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
Promoting divisiveness is done by pointing out differences constantly in order to gain advantage for a certain group over others.
Wrong. Divisiveness is promoted by the actual visiting of injustice on people because they are different. Your comment is so immoral at its core that it would justify condemnation of Italian cultural societies, of the legacy heritage of hospitality in Georgia - these are differences those groups proudly point out and we all as a society are enriched by the advantage that we share in the appreciation of these differences between us. Divisiveness is not difference, as your nonsensical claim implies. Divisiveness implies only the negative artifacts - the oppression, the injustice, the unjust disparity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
I would rather talk about how we are the same, not how we are different.
That's called "white fragility". Denying the institutionalized injustice visited upon folks who are different from you is enabling that injustice. It is not noble to ignore the reality of the differences especially when those differences result in unjust disadvantage visited on those less fortunate. It is scurrilous evasion of a person's moral obligation to oppose injustice wherever it is, whenever it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
The constant beat of the racism drum has done more to harm people with a skin colour different than others than just living life has done in 50 years.
False, and again, a scurrilous evasion of a person's moral obligation to oppose injustice wherever it is, whenever it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
The playing field should be equal.
Starting at birth. And for every day the playing field is unequal, damage is done. Quoting Rev. Barber again:
Never become a nation that's unable to repent when you have mistreated the vulnerable.
Never become so arrogant in your wealth that you refuse to lift the poor.
Our nation has a moral deficit, painfully evident in the rationalizations we hear from the racist perspectives expressed by Trump and many of his supporters. I have to admit I was originally very skeptical about how bad the problem was, as it was relayed to me by people upon whom suffering such injustice is their daily life. Comments like yours have helped me turn by appreciation of their moral witnessing to me into the galvanized principles of the moral imperatives I've express to you above.
I am sorry sir, I am simple minded folk, so maybe you can answer this confusion I am having.
Hillary had a private server in her home.
Hillary's server contained classified information from some emails.
Hillary had other people (her maid) accessing those emails and printing them out.
Now... Comey said she was "Extremely careless" and even said that this information was likely accessed by people and governments outside of that security clearance due to her having a non-government sanctioned email server in her private home.
I broke it up below so we can step through it:
This would encompass an email server with email data would it not?
Extremely careless is the same as gross negligence right?
Comey did state that the emails were likely hacked by foreign interests and later I think the FBI stated that this was confirmed as well.
There was also a lot of evidence (and even verified by Comey) that people who were not authorized to handle or view those emails, were in fact doing so (lawyers, aids, maid, IT people, etc...).
So it seems she meets section (f)(1) does she not?
Well, we know she did not make a report on the above to her superior officer, so this one seems also violated section (f)(2).
This is the punishment. She should have been fined or imprisoned, or both... for those violations. It is the requirement of the law.
So it seems to me that she is in fact guilty, and nowhere in the portion of the law she violated is "intent" mentioned or a requirement.
Comey claimed he would not charge her because she had no intent, yet intent is not a requirement for this law. So, Comey is then deceiving people as to her violation. He should have been charged with obstruction of justice for is actions in this.
She is guilty, Comey failed to do his job and obstructed the process by misleading the people and congress.
Come on ...it's just some emails. What kind harm could be done ? She is sorry and will make sure it won't happen again from her new office. Let's all just put the rose colored shades on and put our trust in HRC !
I am white. I am 47 years old and have worked in a racially mixed industry and on racially mixed crews my entire adult life. I have never been called a racist. It isn't that hard. The self pity routine of white identity politics is appalling. White people have been the flavor du jour in America from its founding all the way up to the present time including now and today.
I am happy to hear that. I have .. and I am a little old lady who has never treated anyone any differently than anyone else as long as they were decent to me. But, that is on the individual side .. there is not a day that goes by it seems that we don't hear 'group accusations' of racism levelled at us - especially in the media - verbally and non-verbally.
But, still .. people are missing my point. Sigh. Sorry .. it is hard to explain such a complex viewpoint in a few sentences. Suffice it to say - if you don't see a difference in society today .. a difference from how it was 30 or 40 years ago .. I probably can't make you understand how it (more than annoys me) saddens me to see people at each other's throats when none of this has to happen. Where is this all getting us?
As for that first Obama speech - yep, I hear the words but somehow I also could hear what he didn't say in those particular lines, what he had been emphasizing all along subtly (his speech writers are geniuses, believe me - they capitalized on his colour and how that would be seen by others who were black) that 'our' (means black) and 'we' (means black). It was a very directed speech, believe me. I can understand that black people were feeling disenfranchised too - and so they picked up on that and rallied round him. It was a war cry to the black people of America (and he has certainly proven that he meant it - kudos to him - but nothing has changed anyway - it has gotten worse, not better for blacks). I don't blame them at all really for wanting to believe he could save them. But, you can say what you want .. he was not talking to me or most other Americans.
How hard is it to strip out info from the headers? Do the headers indicate in any way what the body of the emails contain? Just asking...
You don't understand. How to explain this simple enough to be understood?
Okay, first start with the warrant. The warrant establishes the assumptions made by investigators about what they are thinking they may find, and therefore established the parameters of what they're looking for. Looking at the warrant we see that they say that the emails they're looking for were sent within a two year period of time. So the emails that are from before that or after that could not possibly be what they're looking for, so that limits the next level of filtering down a lot.
The investigation also has determined that the matters of interest involve emails that have passed through specific servers. So, for example, an email that went from your niece in Kenosha, to an ISP server in Lisle, to another commercial server in Denver, and from there to an ISP in Boulder where you access the email - that could not possibly be what they're looking for, so filtering those email out by the routing limits the next level of filtering down a lot.
The investigation also has already reviewed a number of emails, so "new" emails that match the emails already reviewed are obviously not "new" and therefore could not possibly be what they're looking for, so that limits the next level of filtering down a lot.
At this point, from what we can gather from the conclusion, no (or exceedingly few) emails were left to review manually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
"The practice of providing false information in message headers is a growing problem. This is also known as spoofing.
Indeed, but of course that would require having known ahead of time that these emails would be found and investigated. If people had the forethought to spoof headers, then they would have had the forethought to delete the emails. The fact that these emails were found eliminates any chance that spoofing is relevant.
Spoofing is an issue in investigations where the the headers are changed to look like something they aren't - such as when a Republican operative changes headers on a forged email to make it look like it came from the Clinton server. The point of spoofing is for the email to be found, and thought to be something that it isn't. Spoofing isn't used to make something vanish from searches. It isn't used to make an email NOT be found. Again, there are far easier and better ways to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
What I'm saying is going through headers only gives you a first look at a "who" not the "what" which would be the criminal part.
Precisely. At the end, after all the filtering out of irrelevant emails is complete, you still have to look at the remaining emails.
Apparently, after all the irrelevant emails were filtered out, there were none (or very few) to review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
Remember, Hillary is NOT stupid, they've been hiding stuff for decades and have enough $$$ to hire people who certainly know what they're doing.
You've just stepped on yourself.
If Clinton was "not stupid" as you suggest here, then the emails would never have been found. In going down this path, you've soundly proven that your comments are not based on any rational logic, and not based on any "in the field" knowledge, but just based on a desperate need to have something nasty to say about Clinton without regard to its validity.
You talk about hubris? The behavior you've engaged in here is actually hubris.
Suffice it to say - if you don't see a difference in society today .. a difference from how it was 30 or 40 years ago .. I probably can't make you understand how it (more than annoys me)
Please try... try to express how things have changed for poor people of color over the last 40 years. Show us just some inkling that you have some understanding of the experience of those who are the targets of institutionalized oppression in society, instead of just an understanding of your outsider's view of their experience. Please show us that you have some (even small) appreciation for the life other people are living rather than just your own.
As someone who's "worked in the field" for many years I call B.S.. Key word search is possible BUT it only catches what words are put in AND it can glitch. Miss entering a word or three and all the possible derivatives and whoooosh, search blows right on by .
Would you bet YOUR LIFE on the search they did? I wouldn't.
Isn't that how Hillary's lawyers found all of her work-related emails ? Using a keyword search. That worked just fine
They already have the originals from the initial investigation, so identifying and ignoring duplicates on Weiner's laptop is very easy by searching and matching up email bodies in old and new emails. It is also very easy to identify and ignore those emails which did not contain Hillary's server address in them. Just using those two queries, plus some refining, would probably eliminate 99% if the 650K emails.
Did they happen to state how many of the 650k were duplicates? I didn't see that or are you just "surmising" that's the case?
Again, you intentionally avoid the BODY of the email which is the actual MEAT of the issue. Not hard to copy/paste emails to the body of an email leaving any header information behind or at least obscured. In fact, did they talk about the search parameters in depth at all?
You don't understand. How to explain this simple enough to be understood?
Okay, first start with the warrant. The warrant establishes the assumptions made by investigators about what they are thinking they may find, and therefore established the parameters of what they're looking for. Looking at the warrant we see that they say that the emails they're looking for were sent within a two year period of time. So the emails that are from before that or after that could not possibly be what they're looking for, so that limits the next level of filtering down a lot.
The investigation also has determined that the matters of interest involve emails that have passed through specific servers. So, for example, an email that went from your niece in Kenosha, to an ISP server in Lisle, to another commercial server in Denver, and from there to an ISP in Boulder where you access the email - that could not possibly be what they're looking for, so filtering those email out by the routing limits the next level of filtering down a lot.
The investigation also has already reviewed a number of emails, so "new" emails that match the emails already reviewed are obviously not "new" and therefore could not possibly be what they're looking for, so that limits the next level of filtering down a lot.
At this point, from what we can gather from the conclusion, no (or exceedingly few) emails were left to review manually.
Indeed, but of course that would require having known ahead of time that these emails would be found and investigated. If people had the forethought to spoof headers, then they would have had the forethought to delete the emails. The fact that these emails were found eliminates any chance that spoofing is relevant.
Spoofing is an issue in investigations where the the headers are changed to look like something they aren't - such as when a Republican operative changes headers on a forged email to make it look like it came from the Clinton server. The point of spoofing is for the email to be found, and thought to be something that it isn't. Spoofing isn't used to make something vanish from searches. It isn't used to make an email NOT be found. Again, there are far easier and better ways to do that.
Precisely. At the end, after all the filtering out of irrelevant emails is complete, you still have to look at the remaining emails.
Apparently, after all the irrelevant emails were filtered out, there were none (or very few) to review.
You've just stepped on yourself.
If Clinton was "not stupid" as you suggest here, then the emails would never have been found. In going down this path, you've soundly proven that your comments are not based on any rational logic, and not based on any "in the field" knowledge, but just based on a desperate need to have something nasty to say about Clinton without regard to its validity.
You talk about hubris? The behavior you've engaged in here is actually hubris.
Not hard to copy/paste avoiding all headers right? If you don't look at ALL of the emails, not just headers you're ignoring possible evidence just to satisfy expediency. Not what trained investigators are supposed to do but then, nothing the FBI has done with respect to Hillary is how it is supposed to be done.
One of the wiki emails just released said Chelsea paid for her one million dollar wedding from their foundation! It said she also paid for her life the last decade from their foundation! I thought this was a charity!!!!!!!!!!!!
No,as with other wiki leaks the email has been proven false.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I am going to guess you mean me.
